Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/8/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Hearing Was Titled, ‘Making EPA Great Again.’ Scientists Are Afraid The Opposite Will Happen.
Feb 8, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
A hearing held Tuesday by the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology promised to focus on “Making the Environmental Protection Agency great again” — but its panel of industry-affiliated witnesses and its discussion of possible new legislation had some lawmakers and scientists worried the opposite may occur. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chairman Smith Reopens The Debate On EPA’s Science
Feb 8, 2017 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem and Ari Natter
The House Science Committee is set to tackle issues both real and imagined as it examines EPA’s scientific work today. Under the purview of Chairman Lamar Smith, the committee had pounded the Obama administration with letters, subpoenas and questions at hearings over how it analyzed regulations or conducted scientific inquiries. Today it will discuss, “How to Make EPA Great Again.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt's Potential Role Shadows Hearing On Agency Science
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
At a fractious hearing yesterday, House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith lobbed familiar objections at U.S. EPA's use of science. But the Texas Republican has no immediate plans to reintroduce his "Secret Science Reform Act." -
(ACC Mentioned) House Science Chair Says Advisers ‘Rubberstamping’ EPA Rules
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Technical advisers reviewing the science underpinning EPA regulations are beholden to the agency as grant recipients and therefore biased, the chairman of the House Science Committee said Feb. 7. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Smith Rejects Democrats' Criticisms Over EPA 'Secret Science' Bill
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House science committee, appeared to reject concerns from Democrats and their witness with the substance of an upcoming bill he is expected to advance seeking transparency in EPA's scientific process, arguing that medical privacy concerns are easily addressed and information that EPA uses for decision-making should be publicly available. -
(ACC Mentioned) The House Science Committee Wants to ‘Make the EPA Great Again’
Feb 8, 2017 | Tripe Pundit
By Leon Kaye
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith is wasting no time under the new administration. Long a foe of the Environmental Protection Agency, the chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing on Tuesday titled “Making EPA Great Again.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Debate How to ‘Make the EPA Great Again’
Feb 7, 2017 | Courthouse News Service
By Brandi Buchman
After legislation was introduced to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, a fierce partisan battle continues to rage over science, federal overreach and the agency’s future role in policymaking. -
(ACC Mentioned) Gov. Rauner Recognizes Inga Carus
Feb 7, 2017 | Bureau County Republican
Inga Carus, chairman of Carus Group Inc., a leading global provider of specialty chemistries for water treatment, soil remediation and air purification, was recognized by Gov. Bruce Rauner during his State of the State address. -
Current, Former EPA Staff Make Last-Ditch Effort to Sink Pruitt
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Hundreds of former EPA employees, along with some current staff based in Chicago, are speaking out publicly in a last-ditch effort to derail Scott Pruitt's nomination as agency administrator. -
Top Transition Official Details Budget For Trump To Permanently Shrink EPA
Feb 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Myron Ebell, the former head of the Trump transition team at EPA, says he hopes that President Donald Trump fulfills his campaign promise to dramatically and permanently shrink EPA by revoking its climate change authority, dramatically cutting its staff and budget, and shifting much of its work to states. -
Honeywell Water Pollution Class Claims Proceed
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Honeywell will have to face class claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass and medical monitoring in a New York water contamination case, the Northern District of New York ruled Feb. 6 (Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 2017 BL 34914, N.D.N.Y., No. 16-cv-00917, 2/6/17). -
Tracing The Chemistry Of Household Dust
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Janet Pelley
As sure as the sun rises, houses collect dust. It gathers on our knickknacks and dirties the carpets. More than just dirt, house dust is a mix of sloughed-off skin cells, hair, clothing fibers, bacteria, dust mites, bits of dead bugs, soil particles, pollen, and microscopic specks of plastic. It’s our detritus and, it turns out, has a lot to reveal about our lifestyle. -
EU Calls for Comments on Cadmium Quantum Dots Exemption
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission is seeking comments on a draft directive making a second attempt to update an exemption for cadmium from rules laid down by the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU). -
Why Pregnant Women Should NEVER Drink From Plastic Bottles: They Contain Hormone-Disrupting Toxins That Could Make Your Baby Obese
Feb 8, 2017 | Daily Mail
By Mary Kekatos
Pregnant women who drink from plastic bottles are more likely to have obese children, a new study claims. -
(ACC Mentioned) Energy Lobbyist Expected To Land Key White House Slot
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is expected to hire an energy lobbyist with executive branch experience and deep ties to Capitol Hill Republicans for a top White House energy post. -
Pipeline Foes Vow Court Fight As Trump Approves Project
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access pipeline opponents promised to fight the Trump administration's decision today to grant a final approval for the contested oil project, calling their protests "the movement of our times." -
U.S. Army Corps to Grant Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Easement
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said in a court filing that it will grant Energy Transfer Partners LP the easement it needs to finish the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline. -
Watchdog Sues EPA Nominee Pruitt for Energy Industry E-Mails
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
A watchdog group asked a judge to order Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to release his communications with the fossil fuel industry and order the e-mails not be destroyed. -
U.S., Europe Sitting Chilly in Global LNG Market Dynamics, Report Says
Feb 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The United States' presence in the expected near-term strengthening of the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market and Europe's key role on the marginal demand side are likely to be game-changers over the next five years, according to a report released Monday by Societe Generale research analysts. -
Important Lessons On Cybersecurity
Feb 7, 2017 | The Hill - Opinion
By Rep. Jim Langevin
In my eight terms in Congress, I have seen cybersecurity explode onto the national stage as an issue of paramount importance to our national security. As you begin to craft your legacy in this emerging domain, I encourage you to use the successes and failures of your predecessor to guide your efforts. -
Regulate Us Please, Shippers of Hazardous Materials Urge Trump
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Levin
The Trump administration's temporary ban on new regulations has prompted a plea from 22 corporations and trade groups involved with shipping hazardous materials that runs counter to industry's anti-regulatory bent: They say withholding new rules is bad for business. -
NTSB Calls For New Look At Oil Train Buffer Cars
Feb 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Lauren Gardner
The NTSB recommended on Tuesday that regulators ensure all freight trains carrying crude oil maintain an adequate buffer between the flammable commodity and the locomotive to ensure crew members are well-positioned to escape in case of an accident. -
Railroad Industry To Privately Invest $22B In Infrastructure Upgrades In 2017
Feb 7, 2017 | SupplyChain Dive
By Edwin Lopez and Jennifer McKevitt
Among U.S. industries, freight railroads make capital expenditures six times greater than the average manufacturer. Recent statistics reveal that freight railroads also generated almost $274 billion in economic activity; $33 billion in state and federal taxes, and nearly 1.5 million jobs in 2014. Dive Insight: -
EPA Defends Boiler Air Rule Startup, Shutdown Provisions In Pending Suit
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is defending its air toxics rule for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers from environmentalists' claims that it set unlawfully weak emissions control requirements during periods of boiler startups and shutdowns, also rejecting attacks on its reliance on carbon monoxide (CO) as a “surrogate” for reducing other pollutants. -
GOP Elder Statesmen Promote Carbon Tax That Limits EPA Reach
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
A group of GOP heavy-hitters who hope to convince the Trump administration on the need to address climate change will unveil a revenue-neutral carbon tax plan today in Washington, D.C., before meeting with senior White House officials. -
Will Trump Attorneys Defend Obama Climate Regulation?
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The new president famously called climate change a hoax. But next week, his attorneys are poised to enter a federal appeals court and argue in defense of one of his predecessor's climate regulations. -
EPA Will Pursue Appeal Of Deadline For Study Of Air Rules' 'Jobs' Effects
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is signaling that it will ask an appeals court to at least extend the deadline a district judge set for a sweeping review of how its Clean Air Act rules have affected power sector employment -- the first indication that the Trump administration will continue litigating the case despite environmentalists' concerns that it would reverse course. -
A Conservative Case for Climate Action
Feb 8, 2017 | The New York Times
By Martin S. Feldstein, Ted Halstead and N. Gregory Mankiw
CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Feb 8, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
A hearing held Tuesday by the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology promised to focus on “Making the Environmental Protection Agency great again” — but its panel of industry-affiliated witnesses and its discussion of possible new legislation had some lawmakers and scientists worried the opposite may occur.
The hearing’s focus, broadly, was intended to be an examination of the EPA’s “process for evaluating and using science during its regulatory decision-making activities.”
“Today we will examine how the EPA evaluates and uses science in the regulatory process,” said committee chair Lamar Smith, a Republican representing Texas, in his opening remarks. “Unfortunately, over the last eight years the EPA has pursued a political agenda, not a scientific one.”
Smith argued that under the Obama administration, the EPA passed regulations that were “expensive, expansive and ineffective” and suggested that the agency had “relied on questionable science based on nonpublic information that could not be reproduced, a basic requirement of the scientific method.”
Under the new administration, he said, there was now an opportunity to “right the ship of the EPA and steer it in the right direction.”
Other lawmakers took issue with what they perceived to be an assault on the agency’s ability to produce sound science-based regulations.
“I’m disappointed but not really surprised our very first hearing in this Congress will be focused on attacking the EPA,” said Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the committee, in an introductory statement at the hearing.
She also expressed concern about the industry ties of witnesses called by the Republican majority to testify. These included Jeffrey Holmstead, a former deputy EPA administrator who is now a lobbyist and lawyer representing fossil fuel energy companies; Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products and technology with the American Chemistry Council, a group representing chemical manufacturers; and Richard Belzer, an independent industry consultant who specializes in environmental and chemical risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. The fourth witness, called by the Democratic minority, was Rush Holt, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
“This is not a panel likely to produce an objective examination of EPA’s activities,” Johnson said in her introductory remarks, adding that “limiting the science EPA uses only serves to limit the actions EPA may take to protect public health and the environment.”
Johnson was likely referring to a piece of legislation, slated to be reintroduced soon by conservative lawmakers, which became a particular focus of the hearing’s discussions on Tuesday. Dubbed the “Secret Science Reform Act,” the legislation would require EPA regulations to rely only on science that is both reproducible and publicly available.
The bill, which has been introduced in previous congressional sessions, has generated widespread criticism from scientists who point out that some large-scale environmental studies — for instance, those that examine the effects of oil spills or natural disasters — may be nearly impossible to reproduce. And, they’ve noted, certain pertinent scientific information relating to industry or the personal health of individuals may not legally be made publicly available.
While endorsed by Holmstead as a way to make government science more transparent, Holt expressed concern about the legislation’s potentially stifling effects on EPA research and regulation.
“The Secret Science Reform Act, as it has previously been introduced, has been based on a misunderstanding of how science works,” he said. “The gold standard is to find other approaches to come up with the same conclusions. Rarely can you repeat an experiment in exactly the same way. What makes more sense is that you approach the problem with a new perspective — that’s not where this secret science legislation is heading.”
Tuesday’s hearing comes at a time of intense controversy regarding the EPA’s future. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s pick for EPA administrator, has ties to the fossil fuel industry, has expressed doubt about the extent of human-caused climate change, and as the attorney general of Oklahoma, has sued the agency on multiple occasions over various environmental rules. His nomination, which may be confirmed this week, has met with sharp criticism from liberal policymakers, former EPA employees and environmental groups alike. Since the Trump administration assumed office, it has also been roundly criticized by scientists and activists for certain restrictions it has placed on the agency, including limits on employees’ ability to communicate science and news to the public, as well as a temporary freeze on all EPA grants and contracts (which has since been lifted).
More generally, many Republicans in Congress have criticized what they see as excessive heavy-handedness in past EPA regulations, particularly those aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from the fossil fuel sector, while Democrats have defended these decisions as being based on the best available science. In fact, while the Secret Science Reform Act may be on the table soon, some Republicans have already introduced a bill that would abolish the EPA altogether.
Republican concerns about the agency’s rulemaking process remained stark in Tuesday’s hearing. In addition to discussions of the Secret Science Reform Act, the majority’s witnesses testified about bias in the agency’s science advisory board and what they perceived as a tendency to overstate the benefits of environmental regulations.
And in an additional effort to highlight problems with the integrity of government science, several committee members, including Smith, pointed to claims made last weekend by retired National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist John Bates, who asserted that the authors of a high-profile 2015 climate change study flouted a number of data management procedures while conducting their research. However, while it remains unclear whether procedural problems took place at NOAA before the study was published, multiple scientists have defended the paper’s scientific conclusions, which have been independently verified by other studies.
Several members of the committee also made remarks expressing doubt about either the science of human-caused climate change or the effectiveness of EPA’s previous climate policies. In his own introductory remarks, Smith suggested that under the Obama administration the agency was known for introducing legislation that would have “no significant impact on the environment,” pointing to the Clean Power Plan as an example.
It’s an argument that many Republicans have used to justify doing away with the controversial regulation and others like it. But as many scientists have pointed out, while U.S. climate policies may make only a small impact on the planet alone, they are an integral part of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and international climate goals are unlikely to be met without them.
“Smith is making a concerted effort to turn a committee meant to foster the innovation of the future into one that does the bidding of 19th century fossil fuel companies — and it’s deeply dangerous,” said Liz Perera, climate policy director for the Sierra Club, in a Tuesday statement. “Yelling at science will never change its findings that climate change is a very real threat to every one of our communities.”
Other members of the committee defended the EPA’s activities. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) commented that the hearing’s title should be to “keep EPA great,” rather than make it great again.
“This committee should be leading the charge to protect the planet and our environment for future generations,” he said. “Instead, it attacks the credibility of scientists.”
And in his own testimony, Holt, the minority’s witness, also defended the agency’s scientific process, commenting that scientists should be able to conduct their work without intimidation and that “policymakers should never dictate the conclusions of a scientific study.”
“I’m here to say don’t try to reform the scientific process,” he said. “It has served us well and will serve us well.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/07/the-hearing-was-titled-making-epa-great-again-scientists-are-afraid-the-opposite-will-happen/?utm_term=.5a2c40b6f111
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chairman Smith Reopens The Debate On EPA’s Science
Feb 8, 2017 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem and Ari Natter
The House Science Committee is set to tackle issues both real and imagined as it examines EPA’s scientific work today. Under the purview of Chairman Lamar Smith, the committee had pounded the Obama administration with letters, subpoenas and questions at hearings over how it analyzed regulations or conducted scientific inquiries. Today it will discuss, “How to Make EPA Great Again.”
Here’s the thing: Science is hard, and science that’s being used to develop regulations that will have a major impact on people’s lives should be able to withstand all of the scrutiny it gets. With the Trump administration aiming to halt or roll back regulations, that’s going to be quite a bit in the coming years.
There are definitely some issues that could use an open and honest appraisal from the EPA’s science advisers, staff members and the public. It’s tricky work, but figuring out how much saving a life is worth in dollar terms sure looks ripe for a look. (To us, the way the value of a life is calculated by EPA, using the supposed dollar premium for more dangerous jobs, doesn’t add up.)
Also, Kimberly White from the American Chemistry Council will argue at the hearing today that the agency needs a better framework to perform risk assessments for chemicals. EPA now interprets the law “as requiring the Agency to evaluate all conditions of use of a chemical, regardless of how small, in the risk evaluation,” she will say.
Jeff Holmstead from Bracewell, who is also testifying today, raised with us the issue of how benefits are calculated. When EPA issues a regulation, say for mercury from power plants, it also counts as co-benefits the reductions in particulate matter that would result. Since PM2.5 is seen as so dangerous by scientists, these impacts are calculated to be quite large. But a recent report from NERA argues that EPA is counting benefits from reductions in PM that take place below the level it had already established as being protective of human health with an adequate margin of safety. (NERA didn’t say EPA is double counting the benefits, as some industry groups had argued.)
Holmstead writes in an e-mail:
“Their rationale is that there is very limited information about health effects when PM2.5 is much below 12, so they couldn’t justify setting the NAAQS below 12. On the other hand, they assume that the public health benefits of going from 6 to 5 are just the same as going from 13 to 12 (or 20 to 19). A lot of serious researchers are very skeptical of these assumptions.”
But Jack Lienke of New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity says EPA does use a “log-linear” model, which reflects smaller health gains from reductions at lower concentrations. Its model is based on peer-reviewed studies and has been reviewed by the agency’s independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, he said.
(It’s too bad EPA’s science advisers weren’t invited to the hearing to address this point. Seems important.)
But — there is always a but — not all inquiry into science is so clear.
Chairman Smith, Myron Ebell (remember him?!) and JunkScience author Steve Milloy have not let up about getting two data sets behind landmark air-pollution studies, the Harvard Six Cities studies and the one using data from the American Cancer Society. These two studies are the primary targets of one bill being considered today, the Secret Science Reform Act.
Milloy told us that the data has never been publicly available, and so no one has ever been able to fact check the work. “If they were well-meaning, they would give up this data,” he said in an interview.
Sure, in general, the data deserves a second look. (In this case, the study was re-evaluated by the Health Effects Institute and it held up.) But at some point, it’s time to move on. It’s been more than 20 years since the Harvard Six Cities study was published, and the American Cancer Society one followed close behind. Dozens of related works of scholarship have been done in this same field. There have been twists and turns along the way, as best we can tell, but the main findings have held up in other works. (Milloy disputes this.)
Instead of re-litigating these old studies, it’s time to analyze new data sets, and see if they bolster or undercut these landmark findings. It’s not like there is a secret lab with the only Americans exposed to air pollution in it. Just head to Buffalo or Baltimore and dig up the health records.
In short:More science? Yes.Open data? Yes.Is this something both parties should agree on? Yes.Will they? We’ll find out at 11 a.m. this morning.
One last note, Milloy has tapped California mortality data and worked with other researchers to build a dataset on the issue. The finding: They “found little evidence for association between air quality and acute deaths.”
For a 2013 story on the Harvard health study and congressional queries, click here.More Science
Smith’s longstanding fight with NOAA over its 2015 study finding no pause in global warming is, well, heating up. A retired federal scientists is criticizing the scientists who issued the finding, saying they weren’t vigilant enough about protecting their data.
Read John Bates argument here. And the counterpoint here.The Trump Tax
For months, we’ve been warning that Donald Trump may not be the godsend to the oil, mining and related industries that he might seem at first blush. To take an obvious example, a 20% border tax may help drillers, but won’t help refiners. Our colleague Matt Levine tackles this issue more generally in the latest Bloomberg BusinessWeek:
Many people in the business and financial and technology communities listened to what Trump said and cheerily assumed he’d do something completely different. Sure, he talked about restricting trade and banning Muslim immigrants, but what they heard was that he’d enact “sensible immigration policy” and pro-growth trade agreements, reduce taxes, cut back regulation, and generally improve conditions for business….
Everything Trump literally said is coming literally true; everything the serious people heard remains an unserious hope. Businesses may eventually get the tax and regulatory reform they wanted, but it’s not a priority…
And, to borrow that overused phraseology, there’s one way this is literally true: Trump’s plan for a border tax could scuttle his stated goal to get the Keystone XL pipeline built, Peter Coy writes in the same issue:
If Congress passes the kind of border-adjusted tax system the president has occasionally expressed interest in, imported Canadian oil could be taxed and made significantly more expensive for American buyers relative to oil produced in the U.S. That alone could be enough to scuttle the entire project.
Of course, there are ways out of this trip. Could Trump exempt Canadian crude, giving it a leg up over Mexican imports? Yes, sure. Maybe. But that’s the point: Who can say?Scott Pruitt Got 1,200 Questions
But not one concerned the fate of the ferroalloy industry. EPA issued a regulation in the waning days of the Obama administration clamping down on pollution from producers of manganese ferroalloys, which are used for the steel industry. Mike DeWine, Ohio’s AG, says there are only two remaining ferroalloy plants in the U.S., and Eramat, the plant in Marietta, Ohio, would need to cut production in half to comply with the regulation.
“Without Eramet’s supply, these steel companies will encounter unpredictable costs and their own production risks,” DeWine wrote in a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “Simply put, the harms introduced by this rulemaking are severe and far-reaching.”Gorsuch and Chevron
Here’s another take on Neil Gorsuch and the implications of his views on Chevron Deference from Melissa Hart, a Democrat who urged Democrats to confirm him:
Gorsuch wrote separately to emphasize the importance of separation of powers and the central role of the judiciary to operate as a check on excessive executive power. We should all take some comfort in this recognition. This is most certainly a time when the judiciary will need to stand strong as a check against overreaching by the executive branch….
The Supreme Court applied a critical eye to President Barack Obama’s executive actions. It should apply the same rigorous analysis to Trump. The little evidence we have suggests that a Justice Gorsuch would not be cowed by the president who appointed him.
For a different story about Gorsuch and the EPA, read the New York Times story of his mother’s rocky tenure at the helm of the agency.
https://about.bgov.com/blog/chairman-smith-reopens-debate-epas-science/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt's Potential Role Shadows Hearing On Agency Science
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
At a fractious hearing yesterday, House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith lobbed familiar objections at U.S. EPA's use of science. But the Texas Republican has no immediate plans to reintroduce his "Secret Science Reform Act."
"I'm going to find out whether it's necessary or not after we consult with the administration," Smith said in a short interview afterward. Asked whether he thought Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee to head EPA, could accomplish the desired changes without legislation, Smith replied that he would speak to Pruitt once he wins Senate confirmation.
That step is likely to happen in the next week or so. Both allies and detractors are meanwhile pondering Pruitt's potential sway over the agency's handling of the scientific research that's supposed to undergird its regulatory work.
"You'd be surprised at what Administrator Pruitt can do on his own," said Steve Milloy, an attorney and longtime EPA critic who served on Trump's transition team for the agency.
By Milloy's reading, that purview includes the freedom to refashion key panels like the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The first reviews the quality of the scientific and technical information used by EPA; the latter is closely involved in setting air quality standards for ozone and other pollutants.
The EPA administrator, usually relying on recommendations from agency staff, appoints members of both panels for fixed terms.
But Milloy argued that Pruitt would be free to oust the current rosters and name replacements. "He doesn't have to have the ones he's saddled with," Milloy said in an interview.
Whether Pruitt, a Republican who is currently Oklahoma's attorney general, believes he could wield that authority is unclear.
In response to written questions from Senate Democrats last month, Pruitt said he understood "the important role of EPA's independent scientific bodies" but maintained he had no firsthand knowledge of their rules or existing processes.
During his confirmation hearing with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, however, he agreed with Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) that the membership of the Science Advisory Board needs more geographic diversity.
At yesterday's hearing, which focused on EPA's use of science, Smith said that Science Advisory Board members "have become nothing more than rubber stamps" who approve all of the agency's regulations. The board is also stacked, he said, with friendly scientists who have received millions of dollars in federal grants. "The conflict of interest here is clear," he added.
In her opening statement, ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) voiced disappointment that the committee's first hearing of the 115th Congress was focused on attacking EPA and noted that three of the four witnesses had industry connections.
As previously introduced, Smith's secret science bill would have required EPA to base new regulations on science that is "transparent or reproducible," with the underlying data publicly posted online.
Critics view the measure as a stratagem to undercut valid research, in part because major studies may not be easily reproduced and because some data may be shielded from release by privacy concerns.
"Don't try to reform the scientific process; it has served us well and will serve us well," Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, said at the hearing.
Backing the bill was Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer and lobbyist at Bracewell LLP who served as EPA's air chief during the George W. Bush administration. "I don't think that anyone can object to the basic premise that scientific information used to support regulation should be made public," Holmstead testified yesterday in his written statement. He and Smith agreed that personal information in any data set could be redacted from public release.
In the 114th Congress, the measure, H.R. 1030, won House approval only to die in the Senate following an Obama administration veto threat.
Even without legislation, Pruitt could issue a directive barring the issuance of new regulations unless the underlying data were made public, Yogin Kothari, Washington representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy, said in an interview.
The result, Kothari said, would be to throw a wrench into the rulemaking process.
Parts of the hearing were peppered with exchanges related to Smith's complaints about the validity of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate research (Greenwire, Feb. 7; see related story).
The remaining two witnesses also found fault with aspects of EPA's scientific work. Following last year's overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the agency's chemical assessment process needs changes, said Kimberly White, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council.
When faced with scientific uncertainty, EPA errs on the side of overstating human health risks, said Richard Belzer, an independent consultant, adding in written testimony that such practices undermine responsible regulatory decisionmaking.
The mood lightened, however, at one point. In a play off Trump's campaign slogan, the hearing had been titled "Making EPA Great Again."
That at one point led Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) to pull out a red-billed cap emblazoned with "Keep the EPA Great." To which Smith responded that he wanted a cap that read: "Keep the EPA Honest."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/08/stories/1060049716
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Science Chair Says Advisers ‘Rubberstamping’ EPA Rules
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Technical advisers reviewing the science underpinning EPA regulations are beholden to the agency as grant recipients and therefore biased, the chairman of the House Science Committee said Feb. 7.
In recent years the scientists serving on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or SAB, “have become nothing more than rubber stamps who approve all of the EPA's regulations,” said Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
The agency's failure to use publicly available, reproducible science leads to government mandates that impose costly and unnecessary regulations on the American people, he said.
“We pay a lot more than we should for the protection we get,” testified Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell LLP who from 2001 to 2005 headed the Environmental Protection Agency's office that implements the Clean Air Act.
But Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said passage of legislation requiring the agency to use publicly available, reproducible data could prevent the EPA from considering scientific studies that it needs to help people being harmed by pollutants, spills or other emergencies and health problems.
Secret Science, SAB Reform Bills
The Science Committee's hearing focused on the integrity of the EPA's science, the scientific advice it receives and risk assessment procedures it uses to evaluate scientific evidence that underpins regulatory, permitting, cleanup and other decisions.
Smith and other Republicans asked witnesses whether two bills introduced in previous Congresses—the Secret Science Reform Act and EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act—should be reintroduced again in this Congress.
The Secret Science bill, (H.R. 1030) approved by the House in 2015, would have required that all scientific and technical information on which the EPA relied to be “the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
The SAB reform bill, (H.R. 1029) which the House also approved in 2015, would have required the agency's Science Advisory Board to include representatives from state, local and tribal governments, barred scientists receiving grants or contracts from the agency, and forbidden scientists from applying for a grant or contract for three years after they left the board.
Reproduciblity Misunderstood: Holt
Holmstead urged committee members to reintroduce both bills and secure their passage.
Transparency helps ensure a well-informed debate occurs prior to regulations being issued, he said.
Holt said, if introduced in similar form to last year, the Secret Science bill's requirement for publicly available data could have prohibited the EPA from using industry-obtained, but not publicly available, information to protect West Virginia residents after 4-methylcyclohexane methanol and other chemicals leaked into the Elk River in 2014.
The bill's requirements also could prevent the EPA from using epidemiological data that often cannot be replicated, Holt said.
He referenced the Harvard Six Cities Study that showed an association between long-term exposure to fine particles in air and premature mortality. Republican and industry opponents of the EPA's fine particulate standard have long fought over access to that data, which the researchers have maintained include personal information they cannot release because of confidentiality agreements.
The demand that a specific study be reproducible is based on a misunderstanding of how science works, Holt said. “Many studies cannot be repeated exactly the same way.”
Scientists study the same problem using different approaches, Holt said. They gain confidence in their conclusions when different scientists reach the same basic conclusion regardless of the approach used to study the problem, he said.Independence of EPA Peer Reviews Disputed
Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council, focused on the science and analytic procedures the EPA uses for evaluating chemical risks.
The science and the criteria used to assess and integrate that science must be clear and consistent, White said.
All elements of an EPA analysis should be subjected to independent and robust peer review, she said.
Unfortunately, White said, not all agency peer reviews are as independent and thorough as needed.
EPA staff often comment throughout peer review meetings, essentially participating as peers, while industry experts are typically excluded from the dialogue, she said.
Christopher Zarba, who manages the EPA's Science Advisory Board, disagreed with that characterization.
The role of EPA staff in Science Advisory Board meetings is to provide an overview of the review materials and to answer clarifying questions from the SAB members, Zarba told Bloomberg BNA.
Public commenters are given multiple opportunities to provide input and respond to clarifying questions from board members, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218911&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218911&jd=105218911
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Smith Rejects Democrats' Criticisms Over EPA 'Secret Science' Bill
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House science committee, appeared to reject concerns from Democrats and their witness with the substance of an upcoming bill he is expected to advance seeking transparency in EPA's scientific process, arguing that medical privacy concerns are easily addressed and information that EPA uses for decision-making should be publicly available.
As introduced in 2015, the so-called secret science bill's intent was to require EPA to use the "best available," reproducible science in developing rules and make all data underlying its rules publicly available. Such a mandate can be challenging with some of the data that EPA relies on, such as epidemiological data and medical records, or even data with certain copyright protections.
The agency's critics argued the legislation, H.R. 1030, would resolve their long-running claims that the agency withholds important data that it uses to justify potentially expensive rules, such as its 2015 decision to tighten the ozone national ambient air quality standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb and its fine particle (PM2.5) standards.
Reforming EPA's scientific methods is a priority for Smith and other agency critics, who see it as essential to rolling back the agency's regulatory standards.
For example, Myron Ebell, the former head of the Trump transition team at EPA, told Inside EPA in a Feb. 7 interviewthat he expects “dramatic changes” for EPA's scientific mission from the Trump administration, especially given the agency's use of private medical data to justify its PM2.5 standards.
“If the Trump EPA is serious about reforming science, then the first thing that is going to go are the claims made about PM2.5 on the basis of studies that are secret, cannot be replicated and are not subject to analysis or criticism outside of the agency,” he said.
Smith, who sponsored the legislation in the last Congress, has said he intends to revisit it, along with a related bill known as the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reform bill, during this session of Congress.
But during a Feb. 7 hearing on the legislation, Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) raised concerns that in her view, “some of the longitudinal studies would not be allowed anymore under some of the proposals we're looking at under” the secret science bill.
Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and formerly a Democratic representative from New Jersey, agreed that the bill, as considered in the last Congress, would prevent EPA from considering important data.
As an example, Holt pointed to research on “chemically-induced birth defects. No family wants the newspapers or the webpages to be listing information abut their kids' birth defects. But if you're gonna study birth defects you gotta look at actual kids and study the epidemiology. The Secret Science Reform Act presumably would have prevented that kind of necessary research.”
Smith interjected, “I think Dr. Holt knows as well as anybody there's such a thing as redactions, and if there's personal information, that information can be redacted.”
But Holt argued that bill as crafted in the last Congress would extend its bar beyond research containing sensitive medical or personal information, and he pointed to an example involving toxicology research held by a private company as trade secret.
Quick Action
Holt argued that the bill as written “would also hinder fast response.” He pointed to the example of the chemical spill in the Elk River in West Virginia in 2014, of a little-studied chemical, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM). The spill contaminated Charleston, WV's potable water supply for several days, leaving residents and businesses reliant on bottled water. The only known toxicology studies of MCHM had been conducted for its manufacturer, and were held as trade secret.
“That hindered EPA in their response. [Former Energy and Commerce Committee] Chairman [Henry] Waxman (D-CA) actually contacted the manufacturer of the chemical to find out what that was. The secret science act probably would have prevented that fast action.”
Smith did not comment on that concern.
Holt, a physicist, argued that the bill misunderstands the scientific process and seeks to overlay it with a political process. He urged the committee not to change the scientific process. “Don't try to reform the scientific process. It has served us well and will serve us well,” he said.
In response to questions from Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) about the impact on EPA of not being able to use studies of one-time events, Holt explained that “many studies cannot be completed in the exact same way.” He gave examples of studies of a group of children years later, after they are grown or moved, or a study of a forest that has been invaded by an invasive species in intervening years.
By contrast, GOP-sponsored witnesses spoke in favor of the bill. Jeff Holmstead, former EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration and now partner with the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, endorsed the bill. He considered the “only legitimate concern” that of shielding medical information, but like Smith, he called it a red herring. Holmstead argued that EPA did not need personal medical information for its decision-making.
Witness Kimberly White, a senior director with the chemical trade group the American Chemistry Council's Chemical Products and Technology Division, also argued that EPA's science needs to be strengthened. She argued that the revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act that Congress passed last June require EPA to “ensure that its chemical assessments meet needs of decision makers and are” fit for purpose, rather than assessing all possible uses of a chemical. She added that EPA must rely on the highest quality study, rather than those showing the most risk; use a transparent weight of evidence framework for considering studies and “implement an effective peer review process.”
A third GOP witness, Richard Belzer, an economist formerly with the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, argued that the “most effective thing the committee could do is ensure the agencies follow [the White House Office of Management and Budget's] information quality guidelines.” He noted that the guidance was published more than a decade ago, but lamented that the agencies do not comply with it because it is not legally enforceable.
SAB Reform
During the hearing, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), vice chairman of the science committee, sought advice on how to improve the SAB reform bill, which like the secret science reform bill passed the House last Congress but foundered in the Senate in the face of a veto threat from former President Barack Obama.
Lucas explained his concern that the SAB is “an echo chamber for EPA.”
White agreed, saying that “there needs to be a clear balance of people participating in that process. If there is a conflict of interest, or if people make recommendations on a chemical, that needs to be balanced on the [peer review] panel.”
White also raised concerns that EPA's SAB does not have an “adequate opportunity” to consider and respond to public comments, and that there is “no check and balance” that EPA must address or respond to all of peer review panels' recommendations.
Holmstead said that he found it problematic that members of the chartered SAB are appointed by the EPA administrator based on recommendations from EPA staff within the office that manages the SAB advisors. Holmstead said that SAB advisors are well qualified, but “there does need to be a way to provide more balance.”
He also noted that another EPA advisory board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, “for many years refused” to consider adverse economic impacts of the Clean Air Act proposed rules it advised upon, in part because no one with that expertise sat on the committee.
“I think the committee will work legislatively on that,” Lucas replied.
The SAB reform bill of 2015, H.R. 1029, sought to overhaul the membership of SAB panels, which advise the agency on scientific analyses that underlie EPA's rules. Backers of the legislation say it would help to ensure the independence of the SAB's members.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) questioned Holmstead about his written statement to the committee, noting that “One of the objections we had to the act last time was that it didn't do full disclosure” of conflicts of interest.
Holmstead responded that full disclosure of “not only of financial conflict, but all conflict, is an important thing.”
And Holt, in response to questions from Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA), said that “SAB will not function better with fewer scientists on it.” He suggested that there are or should be other opportunities in the decision-making process to “bring in industry voices.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rep-smith-rejects-democrats-criticisms-over-epa-secret-science-bill
-
(ACC Mentioned) The House Science Committee Wants to ‘Make the EPA Great Again’
Feb 8, 2017 | Tripe Pundit
By Leon Kaye
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith is wasting no time under the new administration. Long a foe of the Environmental Protection Agency, the chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing on Tuesday titled “Making EPA Great Again.”
To Smith’s critics, his antics are part of a longstanding witch hunt designed to intimidate climate scientists and NGOs. Much of Smith’s drive to hold hearings targeting climate science stem from his disdain for the various state investigations into ExxonMobil. Those investigations seek to gauge whether or not the company (long a benefactor of Smith’s) suppressed nearly 30-year-old research that indicated climate change put the planet’s long-term viability at risk.
The Texas Republican claimed his hearing aimed to investigate how the EPA uses science as it develops regulations. As quoted by the Washington Post, Smith opened the hearings by declaring: “Unfortunately, over the last eight years the EPA has pursued a political agenda, not a scientific one.”
Those who testified include Kimberly White of the American Chemistry Council; Jeffrey Holmstead, a former deputy EPA administrator during the George W. Bush administration who has reaped millions from coal companies and is now a lobbyist for fossil fuel interests; and Richard Belzer, an environmental consultant. Democrats called Rush Holt of the American Association for the Advancement of Science to testify.
Much of the discussion centered around the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, which Smith first submitted two years ago.
The legislation would prevent the EPA from accessing scientific studies that are “not transparent or reproducible.” At a first glance, that would appear to be a fair request of any organization or government agency. The problem, as many environmental groups including the Union for Concerned Scientists have pointed out, is that the bill would prohibit the EPA from using studies that contain confidential information or relate to single events, such as oil spills.
As a result, health studies that include patient data or studies of disasters such as the 2010 San Bruno explosion would not be available to EPA researchers.
“This legislation wasn’t designed to promote good science,” Dr. Andrew A. Rosenburg, director of the science and democracy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote of the bill in April 2015. “It was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.”
Congressional Republicans claim that EPA researchers could still conduct their research, but just not use data in the studies that would risk the agency revealing citizens’ personal information or business trade secrets.
But the Congressional Budget Office replied that such a requirement would cost the agency as much as $250 million annually – and Smith’s bill would cap the EPA’s expenditures to stay compliant with the “secret science” act at $1 million per fiscal year.
The hearing also focused on a contentious debate over whether researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration followed proper research protocols during a landmark climate change study.
That paper attempted to put to rest a common climate-denial claim that there has actually been a “pause” in global warming since 1998. As published in a sister paper to the British tabloid Daily Mail, the whistle-blower, NOAA scientist John Bates, claimed the study was never subjected to rigorous NOAA evaluation procedures – even though other scientists have independently verified its findings.
No credible evidence has emerged that shows NOAA scientists fudged any data, and the overwhelming opinion of climate scientists is that climate change is well underway.
Critics say Smith’s actions are just a part of Republicans’ agenda to eviscerate both climate change research and policy, further proving the GOP is caving to the U.S. fossil fuel industry.
“No one should forget that Lamar Smith and his Republican colleagues were using ‘alternative facts’ in the House Science Committee before the Trump administration made them popular,” said Liz Perera, climate policy director of the Sierra Club, in a written statement.
“Yelling at science will never change its findings that climate change is a very real threat to every one of our communities. This is another incident of oil-soaked Republican politicians burying their heads in the sand while the seas are rising, and we ought to all be very concerned.”
Meanwhile, three time zones away from Capitol Hill, lawmakers have not forgotten about ExxonMobil and its alleged cover-up of climate change research. At least 18 Democratic members of California’s U.S. House delegation have urged the state’s new Attorney General Xavier Becerra to continue the investigation of the company opened by his predecessor and now U.S. senator, Kamala Harris.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2017/02/lamar-smith-house-science-committee-make-epa-great/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Debate How to ‘Make the EPA Great Again’
Feb 7, 2017 | Courthouse News Service
By Brandi Buchman
WASHINGTON (CN) – After legislation was introduced to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, a fierce partisan battle continues to rage over science, federal overreach and the agency’s future role in policymaking.
U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., sponsored and submitted a bill last week to terminate the EPA. The bill was sent to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology for review on Friday.
On Tuesday, the committee was mum on Gaetz’s proposal as it waded through testimony in a hearing it dubbed “Making the EPA Great Again.”
Given the borrowed use of the ubiquitous phrase from President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, pleas to depoliticize science came somewhat ironically.
The lone scientist on the hearing panel, Rush Holt, a physicist and former New Jersey congressman, urged representatives to remember how vital science’s role is across a variety of federal institutions.
“There isn’t an agency in government that doesn’t have significant scientific components,” said Holt, who is head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development does well to have social scientists among its ranks to study data, he said, and the same would go for Justice Department officials who retain forensic scientists to bolster policymaking decisions.
“Science-based policymaking is important in every aspect of government and if scientific processes are not free to communicate or collaborate or if they do not have the ability to operate without intimidation, it will harm the economy and human welfare,” Holt warned the committee.
Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and several fellow Republicans did not disagree with Holt outright over the necessity of scientific studies to improve quality of life.
But the devil is in the details – the notion widely shared among Republicans on the committee is that the EPA’s mission should not be a political one and its agenda should be purely scientific.
To retain that purely scientific agenda, Smith said, passage of the Secret Science Reform Act is likely needed.
The legislation, introduced by Smith in 2015, has died twice before on the Senate floor.
Former President Barack Obama was widely and publicly advised to veto the bill if it came before his desk. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., once called the legislation “laughable.”
But with Republicans in control of Congress and a Trump administration openly unfavorable to the EPA, Smith may have the last laugh yet.
If passed, the act would require the EPA to base its new regulations on “transparent” science, meaning all of the data from a study would have to be posted publicly.
Dr. Kim White, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, also testified on Tuesday in support of overhauling aspects of the agency.
She doubled down her support in an eight-page prepared testimony detailing the ways in which the EPA uses old data when issuing new regulations.
“Data should be made available so people can read through it and evaluate for themselves,” White said.
While the push for transparency appears harmless and reasonable, detractors claim hidden dangers lurk in the bill. For example, health research on topics like asthma in children or the links between pollution and cardiovascular disease often contain confidential, personal information about subjects in the study.
Forcing transparency could bar the EPA from issuing regulations that are based on data which hasn’t yet been made public. In effect, this bars scientists from taking on independent analysis.
The Secret Science Reform Act’s passage could also keep scientists from more effectively studying one-time events, like a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the effects that partial bans of chemicals like chlorpyrifos has on children. Research on the effects of that pesticide resulted in the EPA putting a stop to its agricultural use.
Tyler Smith, a staff scientist at Earth Justice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, weighed in by phone and email after the hearing Tuesday afternoon.
“We need to be very clear about what [the Secret Science Reform Act] is all about. We need to move beyond wonky explanations that its supporters provide and talk about how this bill will prevent the EPA from protecting children with asthma or protecting them from toxic pesticides,” he said. “This is not about transparency, despite what supporters say, this is about keeping people safe.”
Holt tried that line of reasoning with Chairman Smith. The Texan snapped back at the physicist, saying Holt “knew as well as anybody” that redactions were one avenue to dealing with fears brought up by possible new transparency rules.
Though Holt was unable to respond to the chairman during the hearing, Tyler Smith poked holes in that logic.
“While redaction can protect some personal information, some of the time, it will not protect all personal information all of the time,” he said. “In smaller studies, for example, knowing 10 things about an individual may allow people to guess the individual’s name.”
In Smith’s view, this is just another way for groups like the American Chemistry Council, which reportedly spent more than $80 million from 2006 to 2016 on lobbying, to further their own political agendas.
“The reality is that industry is trying to use transparency to cover up the health risks posed by toxic chemicals,” he said.
http://courthousenews.com/lawmakers-debate-how-to-make-the-epa-great-again/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Gov. Rauner Recognizes Inga Carus
Feb 7, 2017 | Bureau County Republican
SPRINGFIELD — Inga Carus, chairman of Carus Group Inc., a leading global provider of specialty chemistries for water treatment, soil remediation and air purification, was recognized by Gov. Bruce Rauner during his State of the State address.
Rauner invited Carus and other directors of Intersect Illinois to attend the address and thanked them for their leadership in helping to create jobs in the state. Intersect Illinois is a public private partnership formed by the governor to help increase job creation and investment.
“We created a partnership that draws upon the wisdom and experience of our state’s top business executives to recruit employers,” the governor said of Intersect Illinois.
He introduced Carus and two other directors individually, gaining applause from the General Assembly. “Let’s thank them for their service to our state. They’ve already been successful in recruiting employers like Amazon to expand here in Illinois – creating thousands of new jobs across our state,” said Rauner.
Carus is a founding member of Intersect Illinois, which launched under the name Illinois Business and Economic Development Corporation in early 2016. Her dedication to economic development in Illinois goes far beyond growing her family’s 102-year-old multinational manufacturing company. She is a co-founder of the Starved Rock Country Alliance, a group dedicated to promoting the region immediately southwest of Chicago, and a founding member of the incubator Starved Rock Country Capital Fund, which encourages and supports regional entrepreneurs.
With her husband, Peter Limberger, Carus has started and invested in several businesses in Starved Rock Country, recently creating more than 150 new jobs in manufacturing, farming, agribusiness, brewing and real estate development. One of their current projects is the renovation and re-opening of the historic Kaskaskia Hotel and Conference Center in LaSalle, which is expected to create roughly 300 jobs and inject millions of dollars into the local economy.
“Economic development is something in which everyone has a role to play. It involves business, education, the arts, and tourism. Bringing people together around the goal of promoting and growing our incredible region is what drives me to continue investing time and money in my home state of Illinois. Intersect Illinois provides a phenomenal opportunity to join with leaders across the state who share this vision,” said Carus.
Carus is a member of the executive committees of the America Chemistry Council and the Society of the Chemical Industry. She is chair of the OmniArts Trust, serves on the boards of the American Chemistry Council, the Hegeler Carus Foundation, the Canal Corridor Association, Landmarks Illinois, and the Starved Rock Country Community Foundation.
http://www.bcrnews.com/2017/01/27/gov-rauner-recognizes-inga-carus/akfpb9g/
-
Current, Former EPA Staff Make Last-Ditch Effort to Sink Pruitt
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Hundreds of former EPA employees, along with some current staff based in Chicago, are speaking out publicly in a last-ditch effort to derail Scott Pruitt's nomination as agency administrator.
The Oklahoma attorney general's track record indicates he doesn't support basic environmental statutes, so Congress should reject his nomination, nearly 450 former employees told the Senate in a letter Feb. 6.
Meanwhile, a union representing current EPA employees in Chicago and the local Sierra Club chapter sponsored a rally the same day to denounce Pruitt. EPA chemist Wayne Whipple and attorney Sherry Estes delivered speeches to the protest, highlighting the agency's work in combating pollutants.
The Senate, however, is forging ahead with nomination process, and Republican leaders say Pruitt will soon be confirmed.
‘Non-Partisan EPA Opposition’
Decades of progress in combating pollution are threatened by the controversial nomination, those former employees said in a letter.
“Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest that he does not share the vision or agree with the underlying principles of our environmental laws,” said the former employees, the vast majority of which served in lower-level positions at the agency. “Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing environmental laws,”
The employees point to the range of Pruitt challenges over EPA regulations. Pruitt is still involved in several active lawsuits against the EPA, including challenges to the Clean Water Rule, Clean Power Plan, ozone air quality standards, mercury standards and methane limits for the oil and natural gas industry. The letter alleges close, improper ties between Pruitt and the fossil fuel industry.
A number of deputy regional administrators, while only two regional administrators, signed on. No top federal brass joined the letter. Those former employees served in administrations dating back to the 1970s.
Meanwhile, local reports suggest roughly 300 people, some of whom were EPA employees, took to the streets in Chicago to urge support for the agency.
“I think we've taken it for granted for too long that the water will always keep getting cleaner, the air will always keep getting cleaner, that we will turn away from dirty energy to clean energy,” Jack Darin, the Illinois Chapter Director of the Sierra Club, told the crowd.
EPA Abolition Legsilation
In promoting the rally, the Sierra Club cited a new federal bill that calls for the elimination of the EPA.
That legislation (H.R. 861), sponsored by freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), has drawn three co-sponsors. Text is not yet available.
One of the co-sponsors, Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), told Bloomberg BNA the legislation aims to signal the need for wholesale reform at the agency, rather than its actual abolition. The agency, in fact, must continue to regulate cross-state contamination while also drastically reducing its size and influence, he said.
“In reality, this is the start of what I hope is major reform at the EPA. EPA is no longer effective in protecting the environment,” Loudermilk said, referencing the agency-induced Gold King Mine spill in 2015. “Its major focus is actually growing its bureaucracy and its footprint and its control.” The legislation contains only one sentence, which calls for the elimination of the agency by the end of 2018, he said.
A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Dan Schneider, said Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) has not scheduled a hearing or markup on the bill.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218909&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218909&jd=105218909
-
Top Transition Official Details Budget For Trump To Permanently Shrink EPA
Feb 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Myron Ebell, the former head of the Trump transition team at EPA, says he hopes that President Donald Trump fulfills his campaign promise to dramatically and permanently shrink EPA by revoking its climate change authority, dramatically cutting its staff and budget, and shifting much of its work to states.
In a Feb. 7 interview with Inside EPA, Ebell says that if the administration is serious about cutting the government's budget and slashing the federal workforce, it will require cuts of $800 million -- $1.2 billion from the $8.1 billion the agency currently receives, though states would likely receive an increase in the funds they receive.
“If you're devolving a lot of the work to the states, then it seems to me doable, and it gets you to the goal of abolishing the EPA or 'leaving a little bit of it,'” as Trump has promised, Ebell says.
And he says that cutting EPA's workforce may be made easier by the fact that the Obama administration moved many career staff from working on conventional Clean Air Act issues to working on climate and greenhouse gas (GHG) programs that the Trump administration has promised to abolish.
“A lot of people have been moved administratively from the Clean Air Act programs dealing with real air pollutants into the climate program dealing with GHGs, and that is an indication to me that there is a lot of cutting that can be done in the Air & Radiation office because a lot of people are not needed to administer criteria pollutant standards.”
He says such actions are justified because the agency has no affirmative regulatory agenda since “its work is largely done,” after the problems that led to its creation in the 1970s -- dangerous urban smog and polluted waters -- have largely been resolved.
While Ebell says he hopes that the Trump EPA will implement every campaign promise, he acknowledges he does not expect EPA to be abolished nor shrunk as radically as sought. “I would be pleasantly surprised if that happens,” he says.
Ebell, who ran the Trump EPA transition until Inauguration Day and has since returned to his job as director of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute's (CEI) Center for Energy & Environment, helped craft an EPA deregulatory action plan for the new administration.
Press reports on an early draft version of the action plan suggested a range of actions the incoming administration could take, including significant budget cuts and “nullifying” a host of Obama-era climate and environmental policies. Ebell has also suggested slashing as much as two-thirds of the agency's workforce.
While Ebell declined to disclose specific details of the action plan, he outlined a broad “aspirational goal” for what he would like to see Trump -- along with his EPA Administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt -- accomplish. For example, Ebell notes that Trump campaigned on largely abolishing the agency. He has personally recommended that if Trump is serious, then he will need to provide a pathway for doing so. Ebell hopes that would include getting rid of “redundant” federal jobs that are largely achieved by state environment agencies.
He notes that Trump talked about the possibility of increasing federal grants for states to run environmental programs. “That raises the question of what is the federal-versus-state role in administering a lot of these programs,” he says. “And the fact is, the states have taken over most of the work for some of this, particularly clean water, safe drinking water and clean air. The question is if the states could be given slightly more money in pass-through grants, could they take even more of the work and make a large part of the EPA work force redundant?” Ebell adds.
'Fight' In Congress
He notes that that Trump also campaigned on reducing federal spending by 2 percent a year while increasing defense spending and maintaining entitlements. “So the only place to get the 2 percent is domestic discretionary spending,” which would require steep cuts of 5 to 10 percent in the first year from various agencies such as EPA.
That means Trump needs to show his intent in his first budget request to Congress, expected in coming months. And for EPA that would mean $800 million - $1.2 billion that should be cut from the $4 billion the agency now uses to fund its federal work. The other $4 billion of the agency's total budget largely goes to fund state grants.
Those numbers would represent a huge cut from EPA's budget that could shrink the agency's workforce from 15,000 to between 7,500 and 5,000, and would also result in a fulfillment of Trump's campaign promise “for the radical downsizing of the federal government.”
But Ebell recognizes that achieving those goals may be difficult, even with Republicans controlling Congress. Ebell wants Trump to give such a budget request to congressional appropriators, whom he notes “like to spend money,” but adds that Trump should submit it see what happens. “I'd like to see that fight.”
Ebell concedes he lacks the “precise detailed knowledge” of the interaction between EPA and states but says that the agency, the White House and the appropriations committee “ought to look at that.” He adds he did not just throw the budget number out “without some thought and analysis,” but notes that it is “an aspirational goal.”
Stressing that the agency's fundamental work is largely complete, Ebell notes that the Trump administration would rightly focus on rolling back the overreaching regulatory agenda that the Obama EPA enacted. But he also suggests it consider going even further back to revoke all “job-killing regulations,” which he says includes a decision by President George H.W. Bush to require all wetlands permits to undergo National Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statements -- a move that vastly expanded federal jurisdiction.
Ebell acknowledged a bill introduced Feb. 3 by four House lawmakers, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), that would abolish EPA and move the agency's duties to states, but he downplays that effort, noting that budget cuts need to come through the appropriations process, though additional legislation could be necessary.
For example, if the agency's mandate is dramatically scaled back as Ebell has suggested, then it is possible that amendments to some of the bedrock environmental laws that EPA implements -- such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act -- would be needed to shift some of the burden away from the federal government and onto the states.
He adds that Trump “may be able to reduce the number of federal employees and the scope of federal involvement” in enforcing environmental statutes to minimal levels but it is unlikely to get rid of the agency entirely. “If there are 100 people working on one aspect, you can maybe get that down to 10 and may need to increase state funding.”
That is in part because “not every state has accepted” these programs and some states have left running them to EPA, though the numbers vary widely depending on the program.
Climate Rollbacks
Ebell also expects a Trump push soon to repeal EPA's climate programs that he envisions will be presented as a package contained in an executive order that could, for example, tell EPA to reconsider its GHG rules for new and existing power plants, rescind or forbid the use of the social cost of carbon as a measure of such rules' benefits, and announce a schedule for undoing the rest of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan, the overarching blueprint for adaptation, mitigation, procurement and regulation at many agencies.
In addition to the power plant GHG rules, he also expects an order telling EPA to reopen the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.
“I am not sure when in the pecking order” this comes but “I expect to see something as a package,” he says.
On reversing EPA's endangerment finding, the basis for the agency's GHG rules, Ebell says it is not a top-line agenda item -- Pruitt at his confirmation hearing suggested he saw no reason to undo it “at this time” -- but he says it will need to be reversed at some point.
“It seems to me that the endangerment finding remains a problem . . . I think as things develop I think they will have to at least seriously reconsider reopening” it. That is a big job and will require a lot of work and litigation but “at the end of the day it is necessary because it cleans up a lot of the mess and puts the environmental pressure groups on the defensive.”
Ebell also believes that EPA can overcome the scientific hurdle to revoking the finding despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. He argues that the “question is, does global warming as caused by human beings present a threat to human health and welfare, and it is pretty clear the answer to that is no.” He says the finding is not based on the question of whether climate change is occurring and that humans are partially responsible.
In answering the question in the original finding issued in 2009, EPA did not produce its own research and relied on some international findings, such as reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that Ebell argues did not meet minimal data quality requirements contained in the Information Quality Act for how agencies disseminate information.
“The other question is, does the Clean Air Act provide a suitable way to regulate GHGs and address all of the alleged problems it causes, and the answer to that is emphatically no. . . . If you think global warming is a problem, this is one of the stupid ways of using the Clean Air Act. It is not designed for it,” he said.
Air Quality Standards
Ebell says because EPA should not regulate GHGs and its other work is largely completed, “most of what needs to be done in the first Trump [term] is to clear away the regulatory overreach” put in place by Obama.
“We're talking about completely ridiculous things like reducing ozone levels from 75 [parts per billion (ppb)] to 70 ppb. . . . I think we've now reached the point of absurdity in a lot of the work of the EPA. There can't possibly be a health difference between 75 ppb and 70 ppb.”
Ebell's comments largely track with a widely-circulated op-ed by C. Boyden Gray, who served as counsel to the first President Bush. Gray wrote early this year that the Clean Air Act and other laws have “worked,” and that achieving additional benefits are increasingly costly.
Ebell says remaining clean air issues are largely local problems that need to be addressed as such. “Yes, Congress has said 'do things,' but EPA has added on things they don't have to do, and they added a lot during Obama and that should be removed.”
Ebell also expects “dramatic changes” for EPA's scientific mission, and complains that its use of “secret” studies on the health impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) “is highly dubious. And I think that once the EPA is forced to rely upon studies that are not secret, we will come up with very different conclusions about PM2.5.” He says current EPA studies are set up to find bigger and bigger health benefits when there are “close to none” from the additional incremental reductions now being sought, perhaps down to 0.
“If the Trump EPA is serious about reforming science, then the first thing that is going to go are the claims made about PM2.5 on the basis of studies that are secret, cannot be replicated and are not subject to analysis or criticism outside of the agency.”
However, one area Ebell is hoping to strengthen is the Inspector General (IG) office, which is a watchdog. “I hope up they beef up the IG across the federal government and they stop trying to find pliable people who won't turn over all the rocks. . . . The point of the IG is to find naughtiness. . . . I hope they beef it up because the federal agencies don't have the discipline that private companies have.”
Ebell says the Trump campaign failed to give enough attention to federal lands policy and that he plans to work at CEI to help influence the Trump administration in this area, while it is still unclear what the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management will do in terms of making changes to increase energy extraction, such as rolling back a coal lease moratorium.
And while he intends to help advance the Trump agenda from the outside, Ebell calls that assistance “a double-edged sword” because CEI will help with what it supports, while also “criticizing what we don't agree with.” For example, CEI “has strong differences with the Trump agenda on other issues, particularly trade,” since the group supports free trade. But Ebell hopes to be “of use” to the Trump agenda on energy and the environment, and notes he was asked to head the transition “because I agree with nearly all of it.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/top-transition-official-details-budget-trump-permanently-shrink-epa
-
Honeywell Water Pollution Class Claims Proceed
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Honeywell will have to face class claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass and medical monitoring in a New York water contamination case, the Northern District of New York ruled Feb. 6 (Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 2017 BL 34914, N.D.N.Y., No. 16-cv-00917, 2/6/17).
The court declined to dismiss state-law tort claims stemming from perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA) that leached into groundwater from a factory in Hoosick Falls, N.Y. The plant, formerly owned by Honeywell International Inc., is currently owned by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
The ruling came in closely-watched litigation over pervasive PFOA contamination in the town's water supply, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York wrestled with unsettled issues of New York tort law in its decision. It authorized an immediate appeal to the Second Circuit for “early resolution” of “complex and novel” legal issues in the litigation.
“This is a wonderful decision for the people of Hoosick Falls, who may now proceed with their lawsuit,” Robin Greenwald, of Weitz & Luxenberg in New York City told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 7. “We prevailed on virtually all of their claims.”
Greenwald is head of the Weitz & Luxenberg's Environmental and Consumer Protection Unit.
Honeywell spokeswoman Victoria Streitfeld told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 7 that “Honeywell remains focused on conducting the environmental investigations and necessary remediation under the state's supervision and direction.” She said in an e-mail that the company is reviewing the decision.
Saint-Gobain also said it was reviewing its options.
“The decision does not reflect the merits of the case and instead allows the case to move forward to the discovery phase,” Dina Pokedoff, a spokeswoman for Saint-Gobain told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 7. “The court also invited the parties to appeal the decision, and we are presently considering our appellate options,” Pokedoff said in an e-mail.
PFOA in Drinking Water
PFOA is a water, oil and grease repellent used in carpeting, fabric and other products. Residents contend elevated PFOA levels in the municipal water system and private wells came from the factory, causing cancer risks and diminished property values.
Honeywell and Saint-Gobain argued that no plaintiff had standing to sue because groundwater “is a public resource held by the State for its benefit.”
But society “has a reasonable expectation that manufacturers avoid contaminating the surrounding environment,” including an area's water supply, the court said.
Private water well owners also have a possessory interest in wells harmed by PFOA trespasses, and private nuisance claims may proceed because of the “special loss” well owners suffer from the installation of monitoring equipment, the court said.
It did, however, dismiss private nuisance claims brought by municipal water users. Those plaintiffs presented public, rather than private, nuisance considerations, the court said.
Medical Monitoring Claims
The companies also argued that New York law barred medical monitoring claims brought by Baker and other plaintiffs with elevated PFOA levels, at least where there is no existing diagnosis.
A plaintiff “may show an injury sufficient to seek medical monitoring through the accumulation of a toxic substance within her body,” the court said.
“The entire point of medical monitoring is to provide testing that would detect a patient's disease before she manifests an obvious symptomatic illness, thus allowing treatment that carries a better chance of success,” the court said.
But state law wasn't completely settled on this and other issues raised by the companies, the court said. There are “several complex and novel issues of New York law as to which the existing case law is significantly muddled,” and they warranted an immediate appeal of the order to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Weitz & Luxenberg represented the plaintiffs.
Arnold & Porter, as well as Allen & Desnoyers represented Honeywell.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, as well as Hinckley Allen represented Saint-Gobain.
With assistance from Gerald B. Silverman
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218893&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218893&jd=105218893
-
Tracing The Chemistry Of Household Dust
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Janet Pelley
As sure as the sun rises, houses collect dust. It gathers on our knickknacks and dirties the carpets. More than just dirt, house dust is a mix of sloughed-off skin cells, hair, clothing fibers, bacteria, dust mites, bits of dead bugs, soil particles, pollen, and microscopic specks of plastic. It’s our detritus and, it turns out, has a lot to reveal about our lifestyle.
For one thing, dust is far from inert. Those shed hairs and old skin cells can soak up a constellation of contaminants originating from consumer products that we bring into our homes. Other environmental contaminants can be tracked indoors on the soles of our shoes. So in addition to fluffy hair and garden dirt, dust can hold a witch’s brew of persistent organic pollutants, metals, endocrine disruptors, and more.
Not only does dust hold a long memory of the contaminants introduced to a house, but it’s also a continual source of exposure for the residents. Dust gets resuspended when it’s disturbed and will recirculate throughout the house, picking up substances before returning once more to the floor. “Year over year, dust accumulates in the home,” says Miriam L. Diamond, an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto. Even after regular cleaning, it still accretes because homes are tightly sealed environments, and the dust gets entrenched in carpets and crevices. Dust from an old house may retain legacy pollutants such as DDT that were banned almost half a century ago, she says.
Scientists study dust to try to get a handle on both of these roles: as a proxy to better understand what chemicals are in our surroundings and how they move, and as a way to characterize what exactly we are exposed to via dust. The relationship between dust and human health remains uncertain. Researchers know that dust is an important source of exposure to certain pollutants—especially for infants and toddlers, who spend 90% of their time indoors, put almost anything in their mouths, and are more sensitive than adults to many of the compounds found in dust. But they haven’t nailed down the extent of health risks from dust exposure nor which compounds and sources are of greatest concern. And many compounds remain unknown. “The few to a hundred compounds that we know are in dust don’t encompass the universe of chemicals in commerce, which number in the tens of thousands to over a million,” says P. Lee Ferguson, an environmental chemist at Duke University. To reveal the full spectrum of chemicals in dust, researchers are turning to high-powered analytical tools. Dust is no longer something to sweep under the rug.
Dust bath
Scientists first realized that dust had a story to tell about environmental health in the 1940s when they measured human pathogens stuck to the dust in operating rooms to monitor cleanliness. In the 1970s, researchers began assessing house dust for lead from paint and gasoline as a way to determine the levels children might be exposed to. And in more recent studies, researchers have found carcinogenic compounds such as now-banned polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), once used in electrical cables and wood floor finishes, and endocrine disruptors such as phthalates, which soften vinyl flooring and other plastics.
Researchers are still building their understanding of the complex ways that volatile and semivolatile compounds interact in our surroundings, sorbing onto and desorbing from surfaces. They know that consumer products—vinyl flooring, personal care products, electronics, furniture, carpet pads, paints, cleaning products, and more—have a strong driving force to shed compounds into materials with lower concentrations of the substances. For example, a flame retardant might volatilize off the plastic parts of a TV set into the air, stick onto airborne particles, and move into dust, which settles on floors and carpets. The compounds will continue to migrate until they reach equilibrium with the surroundings, says Diamond. And heating the product, such as turning on a computer, also speeds migration into the home environment; a compound will condense in a cooler part of the room, where dust often resides.
High-molecular-weight compounds, such as the flame-retardant decabromodiphenyl ether, don’t volatilize but instead enter dust when people physically knock fibers or minute bits of plastic off couches or computer cases. “Another mechanism that we stumbled on is direct transfer or diffusion into dust,” says Stuart Harrad, an environmental chemist at the University of Birmingham. For instance, if dust settles onto a TV set or Wi-Fi router, there is a very good chance that flame retardants will migrate directly into the dust.
With people in the room, things get even more complicated. “Just like the ‘Peanuts’ comic strip character Pig-Pen, people walk around in a dust cloud all day,” says Heather M. Stapleton, an environmental chemist at Duke University. People add to the dust’s organic load as their warm bodies volatilize deodorant or fragrance compounds from personal care products. “Our skin cells and clothing fibers may also accumulate chemicals from the air before they are then shed to dust, where they can accumulate yet more chemical,” Diamond says. Those compounds can be absorbed through skin, inhaled, or ingested when people put dusty hands to their mouths, complicating the scientist’s task of determining which exposure route is most important.
Most research has focused on identifying individual classes of compounds in dust, like the polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants found in furniture foam, carpet pads, and electronics; phthalates such as those found in vinyl flooring; or pesticides tracked in on shoes or evaporated off pet collars. Now, researchers are trying to get a more comprehensive view of the mixtures people are exposed to by probing the overall contaminant load in house dust. By combining toxicity tests with emerging methods for determining a complete profile of compounds in dust, researchers may be able to determine what chemicals or combinations of chemicals are most toxic, Stapleton says.
In one new approach, scientists combed through two dozen dust studies of 45 compounds to create a snapshot of nationwide exposures, says Robin E. Dodson, an exposure scientist at the Silent Spring Institute. She and Veena Singla, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, ranked the substances according to the amount in dust and estimated intake and health hazard. The phthalate plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, known as DEHP, topped the list. Phthalate plasticizers make plastic more pliable and are found in vinyl flooring, food containers, and cosmetics. DEHP can disrupt hormone function in human and animal studies and is linked to reduced sperm motility in men. Other compounds on the list include phenol preservatives found in deodorants and cosmetics; flame retardants; a fragrance compound known as Galaxolide, or HHCB; and perfluorinated stain repellents (Env. Sci. Technol. 2016, DOI:
Dust and health
What all this means for health is a sticky question. For some compounds, such as PBDEs, researchers have shown that dust is a major source of human exposure to these potentially endocrine-disrupting chemicals. But for other compounds, dust’s contribution is less certain. So for now, researchers still don’t have a clear picture of house dust’s risk to health. Many of the contaminants identified so far in dust are associated with hormone disruption, cancer, and reproductive damage, according to human epidemiological and cell studies, but “for many of these compounds, governments have not set safe levels,” Singla says. After she and Dodson completed their study, she compared the amounts of contaminants in dust to soil-screening thresholds set by the Environmental Protection Agency that indicate a chemical might pose health risks and thus require further investigation. She found that the concentrations of some phthalates and flame retardants in house dust exceeded these standards.
Meanwhile, Stapleton’s work hints that exposure to contaminants in dust could be implicated in weight gain. Her lab found that flame retardants will bind to a human cell receptor that triggers fat storage in human cells. When testing human cells in the lab with extracts of dust at levels that a child might be exposed to, the scientists observe activation of these receptors about 50% of the time, suggesting the dust extracts may increase weight gain (Env. Sci. Technol. 2015, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01524).
Todd P. Whitehead, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, is part of the California Childhood Leukemia Study that aims to identify the risk factors for the disease, which has become more common since 1975. He and his team are sampling dust in California homes because his work shows that dust is a useful indicator of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PBDEs, and PCBs, compounds that are suspected leukemia risk factors. “Compared to homes of healthy control children, the homes of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia tended to have, on average, higher levels of PAHs, PBDEs, and PCBs in dust after adjusting for other relevant factors such as household income,” he says.
“This is the strongest type of evidence to suggest that these compounds are risk factors for childhood leukemia,” Whitehead says. But researchers can’t say if the dust accounts for the increased leukemia risk, or if dust is correlated with the presence of something else in the home. And there are other sources of exposure to these compounds whose importance relative to dust is unknown. “We know that dust exposes us to these chemicals, but at the same time, if someone eats smoked salmon or a grilled burger, there are potentially carcinogenic PAHs on those items,” Stapleton says.
A deeper dive into dust
Until now, technology has constrained scientists to study just the few hundred compounds that they know are in dust and for which they have analytical standards. Furthermore, these compounds account for only a small fraction of the toxicity found in tests of household dust. So scientists reason that a substantial number of unknown contaminants in dust exist that could pose health risks.
In the past five years, a new strategy called nontargeted analysis has caught on that promises to uncover the complete swath of compounds we encounter in daily life, says Duke’s Ferguson. The strategy combines high-resolution mass spectrometry with data processing tools to tease out the identities of chemicals from a mass of data.
Nontargeted analysis has revealed that chlorinated paraffins, nonylphenol ethoxylates, and azo dyes, many built using 2-bromo-4,6-dinitroaniline as a backbone, are major components of household dust.
Ferguson and his team recently took extracts of household dust, separated the extracts into fractions using high-performance liquid chromatography, and then analyzed each fraction with ultra-high-resolution mass spectrometry. This process generates up to 10,000 candidate molecules, Ferguson says. The team’s software interrogates chemical databases such as PubChem, comes back with a list of potential matches, and then predicts their hypothetical mass spectra. Using those data, patent information, and literature references, the researchers prioritize the likelihood of compounds to be in dust samples.
Testing dust with this approach, Ferguson’s team found some of the usual suspects, such as flame retardants. “But we also saw compounds we don’t usually think of as organic contaminants in dust, such as nonylphenol ethoxylates,” he says. These are nonionic surfactants used in household cleaners—and suspected endocrine disruptors. Because most cleaning products get washed down the drain to sewage plants and discharged with treated effluent, scientists have been tracking surfactants in lakes and rivers but haven’t looked for them in dust, he says. Ferguson’s lab has shown that nonylphenol ethoxylates cause the proliferation of fat cells in a laboratory assay, hinting at a role in obesity. “These surfactants give the highest analytical signal compared to all the other components, such as flame retardants, that we measure in house dust using mass spectrometry,” he says.
Ferguson’s analysis also uncovered dog and cat flea treatments, fungicides, components of foods including pepper, and even cocaine. The team is working to get standards for these compounds to confirm their identity and quantify them in dust, he says. “This work has the potential to open up our understanding of exposure far beyond the limited set of compounds we’ve typically studied to date,” he concludes.
It’s beginning to do so already. In addition to Ferguson’s work, researchers at the University of Saskatchewan recently used nontargeted analysis to identify azo dyes as the largest class of brominated compounds in house dust. And Cynthia A. de Wit, an environmental chemist at Stockholm University, and her team can now identify groups of chlorinated paraffins in unknown mixtures with the strategy. This large class of compounds acts as flame retardants, plasticizers, and lubricants for metal parts, appearing in caulking for buildings and windows and even in handheld kitchen mixers. “There are thousands of isomers, and conventional mass spectrometry can’t separate them,” de Wit says.
She and her colleagues ranked concentrations of flame retardants in dust from five countries and found that chlorinated paraffins topped the list at 700 μg/g dust, more than 200 times the level of halogenated flame retardants. The finding is “alarming,” de Wit says. “Chlorinated paraffins have been known as contaminants for several decades, but lack of analytical methods has hindered determining them in environmental samples,” she says.
These new findings are just the start, researchers say. In fact, an international collaboration aims to pick apart dust to get its complete profile, says Pawel Rostkowski, an environmental chemist at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research. Members of the team (called the NORMAN Network), from the European Union, U.S., Canada, Australia, and Japan have each received part of a pooled dust sample from Canadian homes to analyze with nontargeted methods. They will aggregate the results to build an open access library of mass spectra for the thousands of compounds they hope to identify.
“The good news is that when we take action to phase out or ban chemicals of concern, the levels in our bodies go down,” NRDC’s Singla says. She points to PBDE declines in blood and breast milk after PBDE flame retardants began to be phased out more than 10 years ago. Research from Stapleton’s lab and others’ has shown that frequent hand washing, using a vacuum with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter to capture the smallest particles, and dusting with a damp cloth will reduce personal exposure to chemicals lurking in dust. Wood floors, which can be easily cleaned with a damp mop, are preferable to carpets, since normal vacuuming only removes about 10% of the dirt entrenched in carpet fibers and pads (Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0032-6_1).
A new California law requires all labels on upholstered furniture to declare the presence or absence of added flame retardants. “We can start thinking about moving more upstream by selecting products without these chemicals and working with manufacturers to remove these compounds from their products,” SSI’s Dodson says. But she adds that ultimately, safety testing needs to be done before, not after, compounds are added to products—before they even have the chance to turn into dust.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i7/Tracing-chemistry-household-dust.html
-
EU Calls for Comments on Cadmium Quantum Dots Exemption
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission is seeking comments on a draft directive making a second attempt to update an exemption for cadmium from rules laid down by the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU).
The RoHS Directive bars cadmium, along with lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium and polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers from electrical and electronic goods, but the exemption would extend permission for use of cadmium in “quantum dots” in electronic display screens, including high-definition televisions.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, already tried once to update the exemption for cadmium in quantum dots, but in an unusual move in May 2015, the European Parliament voted to block the exemption on the basis that safer alternatives were available.
In response, the commission carried out further assessments. In the new amending directive, published Feb. 6, it said that although alternatives are available, cadmium-based quantum dots have “an overall positive environmental impact due to their lower energy consumption,” compared to the main alternative, quantum dots based on indium oxide.
However, its assessment had shown “rapid technological progress,” and so the exemption for cadmium in quantum dots should only be allowed for a further two years after finalization of the amendment, the draft commission amending directive said.
The RoHS Directive already allows an exemption for cadmium in display screens. That exemption expired in 2014, though the specific use of cadmium continues to be allowed until a new decision is taken.
The updated exemption would also cut the permitted amount of cadmium from 10 micrograms of cadmium per square millimeter of light-emitting area to 2 micrograms.
Specific uses of substances in electrical and electronic goods can be exempted from RoHS if no viable alternatives are available.
Comments on the directive can be submitted through March 6.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218882&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218882&jd=105218882
-
Feb 8, 2017 | Daily Mail
By Mary Kekatos
· Pregnant women drinking from plastic water bottles could be driving up their risk of having obese babies, a new study has found
· Many plastic bottles contain BPA - a hormone-disrupting chemical
· This chemical suppresses sensitivity to a hormone that controls appetite
Pregnant women who drink from plastic bottles are more likely to have obese children, a new study claims.
Scientists have found that the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor, is linked to an unborn child's increased risk of obesity.
When the child is exposed to BPA, they become less sensitive to a hormone responsible for controlling appetite.
Experts admit they are not surprised by the results, and warned of the need to be aware of environmental factors that can lead to increased susceptibility of obesity.
BPA is a chemical found in a variety of food containers, including polycarbonate plastic water bottles and can linings.
This chemical can interfere with the endocrine system (a collection of glands that produce several hormones) by mimicking estrogen, one of the main sex hormones found in women.
Research indicates BPA exposure is nearly universal. More than 90 percent of people tested in population studies had detectable levels of BPA, and compounds produced when it is metabolized by the body, in their urine.
The study, conducted by The Endocrine Society based in Washington DC, looked at baby mice. Researchers found that mice born to mothers exposed to BPA were less responsive to the hormone leptin, which is sometimes called the satiety hormone.
Leptin helps inhibit the appetite by reducing hunger pangs when the body does not need energy. The hormone sends signals to the hypothalamus region of the brain to suppress appetite.
Senior author Dr Alfonso Abizaid, of the Department of Neuroscience at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada said: 'Our findings show that bisphenol A can promote obesity in mice by altering the hypothalamic circuits in the brain that regulate feeding behavior and energy balance.
'Low level prenatal exposure to BPA delays a surge of leptin after birth that allows mice to develop the proper response to the hormone. BPA exposure permanently alters the neurobiology in the affected mice, making them prone to obesity as adults.'
To examine how BPA can encourage the development of obesity, the researchers fed pregnant mice BPA in their food.
The mice were exposed to doses of BPA that are lower than levels deemed safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada. Once the mice gave birth, the researchers gave their offspring injections of leptin at various intervals and then examined their brain tissue and analyzed their blood to gauge the response to the hormone.
Other pregnant mice were not exposed to any chemicals or were exposed to an estrogen chemical called diethylstilbestrol (DES), so their young could be compared to those born to mice that were exposed to BPA.
Newborn mice typically exhibit a surge of leptin when they are eight days old that programs a part of the brain to respond to fullness cues. The study found that animals exposed to BPA experienced this surge two days late, and mice exposed to DES never had a surge of leptin.
When they were treated with leptin over the course of two days, control animals that weren't exposed to either chemical lost more weight than BPA - or DES- exposed mice.
'This study improves our understanding of how BPA can disrupt the endocrine system in a manner that raises the risk of obesity in animals,' Dr Abizaid said.
'Since BPA has also been linked to obesity in humans, people need to be aware that environmental factors can lead to increased susceptibility to obesity and cardio-metabolic disorders.'
A report released in October 2016 claimed that plastic bottles contain hormone-disrupting chemicals that can cause cancer, diabetes, ADHD and autism.
Yet they are found in thousands of everyday products, ranging from plastic and metal food containers, to detergents, flame retardants, toys and cosmetics.
These chemicals are responsible for scores of illnesses - costing the US an astonishing $340 billion in health-related costs each year, the NYU Langone report read.
The most common illness due to endocrine disrupting chemicals is neurological - including attention-ADHD, autism and loss of IQ.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4200662/Why-pregnant-women-NEVER-drink-plastic-bottles.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Energy Lobbyist Expected To Land Key White House Slot
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is expected to hire an energy lobbyist with executive branch experience and deep ties to Capitol Hill Republicans for a top White House energy post.
Mike Catanzaro, a lobbyist at CGCN Group whose résumé also includes stints at the White House and U.S. EPA, is expected to soon sign on as special assistant to the president for energy and environmental issues in the White House National Economic Council, according to two sources close to the Trump administration.
He'd take a post that's expected to be one of the most influential energy positions in the Trump administration.
Catanzaro would be tasked with "implementing the president's domestic energy and environment agenda and kind of managing the inter-agency process that deals with those issues," said one person close to the administration.
"This is likely to be the most influential domestic energy policy position within the White House," that person said. And his selection "will comfort industry and conservatives who view him as a champion for free-market energy and environment policy."
The Trump team is actively looking to fill several key White House energy and environmental slots (Greenwire, Feb. 2).
Open jobs include a leader for the Council on Environmental Quality — a Senate-confirmed post — and an aide to work on international energy issues.
The Trump White House isn't expected to have an energy and climate "czar," a position that was held by Carol Browner during the early years of President Obama's tenure.
Catanzaro helped to lead Trump's early energy and environment transition operations but stepped down in November during a broader transition shakeup after the Trump team announced a crackdown on registered lobbyists.
He previously helped lead the environmental transition operation for Mitt Romney's campaign during the 2012 election.
Catanzaro worked on Capitol Hill as the top energy aide in then-House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office from 2011 until 2012 and was a top staffer to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
He also worked in the executive branch as associate deputy administrator and chief of staff to then-EPA deputy chief Marcus Peacock during the George W. Bush administration and worked as associate director for policy at the Council on Environmental Quality in 2005.
Since he joined the Republican lobbying shop CGCN in 2014, Catanzaro's clients have included the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, Devon Energy Corp., America's Natural Gas Alliance, General Motors Co., Koch Cos. Public Sector LLC and many others, according to lobbying disclosures.
If he signs on to work in the Trump White House, Catanzaro would presumably comply with the administration's limits on lobbying (E&E Daily, Jan. 30).
The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060049700
-
Pipeline Foes Vow Court Fight As Trump Approves Project
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Ellen M. Gilmer
Dakota Access pipeline opponents promised to fight the Trump administration's decision today to grant a final approval for the contested oil project, calling their protests "the movement of our times."
Lawyers for the Army Corps told a federal court the agency has notified Congress of its intention to grant an easement for the oil pipeline to cross Lake Oahe just north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
Although an encampment where protesters gathered is being cleared, activists and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have vowed to oppose the pipeline in court, in the halls of Congress and in the fields of North Dakota.
The tribe, which has led widespread opposition against the project, said it would challenge the Trump administration's decision.
"The Obama administration correctly found that the Tribe's treaty rights needed to be respected, and that the easement should not be granted without further review and consideration of alternative crossing locations," the tribe's attorney, Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice, said in a statement. "Trump's reversal of that decision continues a historic pattern of broken promises to Indian Tribes and violation of Treaty rights. They will be held accountable in court."
Hasselman would not comment further on today's decision, but California activist Erin Schrode and environmental groups like Greenpeace promised continued protests.
"Army Corps of Engineers to cancel EIS and grant #DakotaAccessPipeline easement, per court filing. This is the movement of our times! #NoDAPL," Schrode tweeted.
During court proceedings yesterday, Hasselman noted the tribe hadn't yet decided on a legal approach if the easement is granted. It will try to block either immediate construction or eventual oil transport through the pipeline.
Dakota Access lawyers said oil could start moving through the line within 60 days of easement approval, and the line could begin commercial service within 83 days (Energywire, Feb. 7).
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a statement questioned the legality of President Trump's decision to scrap a deeper environmental review of the pipeline and said a movement that captured the world's attention will continue to mobilize.
"Donald Trump's dangerous and legally questionable attempt to ignore the environmental review will be met with fierce resistance by a broad coalition of 300 tribes and millions of Americans in the court and on the streets."
That opposition was countered with statements of strong support from North Dakota Republican lawmakers. Sen. John Hoeven said in a statement he'll continue to work with the corps and the departments of the Interior, Justice and Homeland Security to secure additional federal law enforcement resources to support state and local law enforcement.
Hoeven also noted the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council has asked the protesters to leave the encampment near Cannon Ball, N.D., and additional law officers from the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs have arrived at the protest site, as have Customs and Border Protection agents, to assist state and local law enforcement.
"The discord we have seen regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline doesn't serve the tribe, the company, the Corps or any of the other stakeholders involved," Hoeven said. "Now, we all need to work together to ensure people and communities rebuild trust and peacefully resolve their differences."
The Army Corps said today it also plans to skip an additional layer of environmental review that Obama administration officials committed to in December. The announcement comes after months of back-and-forth on the contentious oil pipeline, which would run nearly 1,200 miles from North Dakota to Illinois.
After the Obama administration slowed pipeline construction, Trump made streamlining the project one of his first orders of business. He issued a presidential memo two weeks ago ordering the Army Corps to reconsider its December decision to do an environmental impact statement that would have considered potential impacts and alternative routes.
Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, an early supporter of Trump's presidential campaign and former adviser to Trump on energy issues, also applauded the move.
"After months of unnecessary delay, the Missouri River easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline is being issued by the Army Corps of Engineers," Cramer said in a statement. "North Dakota looks forward to the safe completion and operation of this modern energy infrastructure to improve America's economy and security. Once again, I am grateful for President Trump's commitment to taking swift action on this and other issues of concern to the American people."
Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota focused her comments on beefing up security at the protest site and said she supported the tribe's call for the camp to be cleared. Heitkamp also criticized the Obama administration for "continued delays and stalling tactics" last year and said she'd been pushing for "certainty" that will be delivered with the final easement.
"Going forward, I'll continue to monitor the federal government's work to renew guidance addressing required tribal consultation for future infrastructure projects on or near tribal land, and I'll keep working with the federal delegation and the governor in a bipartisan effort to push for more federal support for law enforcement," Heitkamp said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/07/stories/1060049687
-
U.S. Army Corps to Grant Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Easement
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said in a court filing that it will grant Energy Transfer Partners LP the easement it needs to finish the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline.
The company needs the easement to complete work under Lake Oahe, following President Donald Trump's memorandum that advised expediting review of the project. Trump took office promising to favor oil and natural gas developments, as well as support new infrastructure, which included reviving TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline.
The move to allow completion of Dakota Access, after months of heated protests, is a blow to opponents who have argued the pipeline would damage sites culturally significant to Native Americans and pose an environmental hazard where it crosses the Missouri River. The 1,172-mile (1,886-kilometer) project is emblematic of the broader battle over new pipelines. The $3.8 billion line has been stalled since September when the Obama administration halted work to reconsider prior decisions to allow it.
Energy Transfer Partners surged on news of the impending approval. The stock was up as much as 0.8 percent on Tuesday after falling 1.5 percent earlier.
In January, the Department of the Army, withholding the final easement necessary for construction beneath the lake, initiated an environmental impact statement, which Energy Transfer failed to block in court. Energy Transfer argued that it went through the full permitting process and has the necessary approvals.
The project originally was scheduled to be operational by the end of 2016. Now it's expected to start operating June 1, assuming no new obstacles prevent it, a person familiar with the matter said Feb. 3. Lisa Dillinger, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, confirmed that the project would be in service in the second quarter.
Energy Transfer and White House spokeswoman Kelly Love did not immediately respond to e-mail and phone requests seeking comment.
The pipeline could help cut costs for drillers in North Dakota's Bakken shale play as the U.S. oil industry recovers from the worst rout in a generation. Producers in the region—which hasn't rebounded as quickly as more profitable plays like the Permian Basin in Texas—have turned to more costly rail shipments when existing pipes filled up. Dakota Access, with a capacity of about 470,000 barrels a day, would ship about half the current Bakken crude production and enable producers to access Midwest and Gulf Coast markets.
Energy Transfer owns the project with Phillips 66 and Sunoco Logistics Partners LP. Marathon Petroleum Corp. and Enbridge Energy Partners LP announced a venture in August that also would take a minority stake in the pipeline.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218892&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218892&jd=105218892
-
Watchdog Sues EPA Nominee Pruitt for Energy Industry E-Mails
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
A watchdog group asked a judge to order Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to release his communications with the fossil fuel industry and order the e-mails not be destroyed.
The Center for Media and Democracy filed the suit Feb. 7, just ahead of an expected Senate vote on confirming Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency administrator ( Ctr. for Media and Democracy v. Pruitt, Okla. Dist. Ct., No. CV-2017-223, 2/7/17).
The investigative watchdog group in January 2015 requested e-mails between Pruitt and coal, oil and gas companies, including Peabody Energy Inc., Arch Coal Inc., Murray Energy Corp., Devon Energy Corp. and Koch Industries Inc..
The lawsuit asked the Oklahoma District Court to order Pruitt to release those e-mails and other records that the Center for Media and Democracy requested.
Center Filed Requests
The center filed seven record requests in 2015 and 2016 and two others last month for communications with the energy companies and the Republican Attorneys General Association, which received donations from those industries. Pruitt has not turned over any of the documents, the group said in a Feb. 7 statement.
The lawsuit asked for the documents from all nine of its requests. It also asked that Pruitt be prevented from destroying the e-mails.
“Scott Pruitt has withheld access to thousands of e-mails with businesses or organizations whose activities adversely affect the environment and other records of vital public interest for the past two years. His inaction denies the public ‘prompt and reasonable’ access to public documents and violates Oklahoma's Open Records Act,” Robert Nelon of Hall Estill said in a statement. Nelon, a media and First Amendment attorney, is representing the Center for Media and Democracy in the lawsuit.
The center requested an emergency hearing because the Senate was expected to vote soon on Pruitt's nomination.
Lincoln Ferguson, Pruitt's press secretary, told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail that Pruitt's office last week told the watchdog group that “release of their request was imminent.”
“The fact that they have now filed suit despite our ongoing communications demonstrates that this is nothing more than political theatre,” he added. “The Office of Attorney General remains committed to fulfilling both the letter and spirit of the Open Records Act.” He did not respond when asked when the information would be provided.
According to Arn Pearson, general counsel for the Center for Media and Democracy, Pruitt's office said last week the group is next in line for one of its requests. “They have been telling us things like that without any commitment to a deadline since last August,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
The suit was being drafted before that e-mail was received and is broader in scope than the request Ferguson referred to, he said.
Pruitt declined to answer at least 12 written followup questions from members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about his work as attorney general, instead saying senators should file open-records requests with his office for the information.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) asked Pruitt for a list of pending Open Records Act requests. Pruitt referred Whitehouse to his general counsel, Sarah Greenwalt.
“As a former [state] attorney general, I find Mr. Pruitt's claims that he is not aware of pending open-records requests at his office and is apparently powerless to provide that information to the Committee on his own accord, hard to believe, and suggestive of an effort to hide information from the Senate before his confirmation,” Whitehouse wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to Greenwalt.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218899&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218899&jd=105218899
-
U.S., Europe Sitting Chilly in Global LNG Market Dynamics, Report Says
Feb 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The United States' presence in the expected near-term strengthening of the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market and Europe's key role on the marginal demand side are likely to be game-changers over the next five years, according to a report released Monday by Societe Generale research analysts.
"The global LNG market is at the beginning of a very strong supply growth phase," said analyst Breanne Dougherty in the report, which predicts both Europe and the United States will play "critical roles" over a five-year transition period for global LNG.
The report cites both opportunities and challenges accompanying the transition, with the fundamentals favoring players in U.S. and European markets.
With the possibility for a growing price relationship on the margin between U.S. and European LNG, the report noted that when combined with other "inherent characteristics of the two markets," there could be unique opportunities and possible challenges for portfolio aggregators holding exposure to U.S. LNG export capacity.
"Europe is expected to emerge as the marginal LNG demand market, and the United States will hold the role of marginal/swing supplier," Dougherty wrote. Both the U.S. and European markets are "very liquid, very vulnerable to weather volatility," while holding elasticity tied to the power generation mix, and they "behave independently from one another."
The Societe Generale report predicts both supply volume and diversity growth in the immediate years ahead, noting that the 2% annual growth in liquefaction capacity 2010-15 is expected to accelerate up to 10% annually in the 2016-20 period.
Stressing the importance of diversity, the report noted that the addition of the United States last year as a global supplier "introduced not just an entirely new supply region, but also an entirely new supply type -- nondedicated 'untrapped' resource -- to the global LNG supply mix."
The entrance of U.S. LNG into the global market incorporated very liquid Henry Hub prices into the LNG price point mix that can lead to more flexible types of contracts and a more "firm foundation" for the growth of a flexible global LNG spot market.
"The United States is expected to see the greatest rate of LNG supply capacity growth of all regions through the medium-term horizon," said Dougherty, calling the addition of the U.S. supplies "an inarguable game changer for the market."
On the demand side, the analyst envisions Europe being the most important LNG import region over the next few years compared to Asia not on sheer volumes but by virtue of the region's proclivity for weather-driven volatility, responsiveness to coal displacement, and potential for pipeline disruptions.
"Europe, due to its liquidity, diversified supply stack and storage capacity, will be the best positioned, potentially the only positioned LNG demand market with the ability to move with the ebbs and flows of global market shifts," Dougherty wrote.
Europe has become increasingly more competitive as an LNG destination in recent years as pricing has moved away from oil to more gas-on-gas competition, according to the report. In 2005, oil-indexing represented 78% of Europe's price power, while in 2015 that had dropped to 30%.
The report notes that in addition to declines in indigenous production in Europe, LNG imports also will displace some Netherlands and Russia imports, although Russian imports last year represented 24% of Europe's gas supply and the rise of the U.S. dollar against the rouble further improves Russia's energy export economic advantage into Europe.
"We don't see Russia as having to do too much export management in the near-term to keep U.S. LNG flows into Europe at bay, but of course, both the Europe and U.S. markets are known for their volatility...anything can happen."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109328-us-europe-sitting-chilly-in-global-lng-market-dynamics-report-says
-
Important Lessons On Cybersecurity
Feb 7, 2017 | The Hill - Opinion
By Rep. Jim Langevin
Dear President Trump:
In my eight terms in Congress, I have seen cybersecurity explode onto the national stage as an issue of paramount importance to our national security. As you begin to craft your legacy in this emerging domain, I encourage you to use the successes and failures of your predecessor to guide your efforts.
From my perspective, three characteristics defined President Obama’s approach to cybersecurity across the first six years of his administration: It was centrist, decentralized and incremental.
First, Obama pursued a centrist approach on matters of cybersecurity, manifested through the use of multistakeholder processes to set policy. In this model, the government acts as a convener of interested parties to help develop guidance, best practices or other voluntary policies.
A prime example is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework for critical infrastructure, also known simply as the Framework. Following the issuance of Executive Order 13636 in 2013, NIST spent a year holding meetings with stakeholders to discuss ways to think about cybersecurity risk management. NIST consolidated the feedback, incorporated other practices from existing standards, and synthesized the Framework, which provides broad strategies for identifying, understanding and mitigating cybersecurity risk.
As this example also shows, the Obama administration’s approach was largely decentralized: It was up to individual departments and agencies to develop cybersecurity policy. While Executive Order 13636 did call upon NIST to publish a voluntary framework, it sketched out only the broadest of strategic guidance on how it was to be developed. Similarly, although Obama did make his cybersecurity adviser a special assistant to the president, he remained just that: an adviser, lacking independent policy or budgetary authority.
The Obama doctrine prior to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data breach also emphasized incremental change and capacity expansion. This is clear from the nature of the Framework, which has led to gradual adoption. On the capacity-building side, U.S. Cyber Command is set to become its own full-fledged unit after eight years of development, and the National Protection and Programs Directorate has matured to the point that it is ready to become an operational arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). All of these are important changes, but they are largely the result of gradual evolution.
I supported Obama’s efforts throughout his first six years, even if I was frustrated by the pace. In the last two years, however, his administration’s approach began to shift. Part of this can be seen in the priority placed on cybersecurity issues. Chinese economic espionage was a perennial point of contention between our nations; only after the OPM hack was it placed at the top of the agenda. The 2015 Obama–Xi summit resulted in an agreement by the Chinese on certain fundamental norms in cyberspace, and I consider it one of Obama’s biggest achievements in this sphere.
But the core tenets of the doctrine itself also began to shift. Capabilities developed throughout his administration began to be used as offensive cyber tactics against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Indictments of hackers in China and Iran, and the identification of Russia as the sponsor of recent attacks against the Democratic National Committee, are examples of our increased ability to attribute attacks. Incremental change also gave way to initiatives like the Cyber Sprint, an effort to identify and secure core assets at federal agencies. The OPM was Obama’s wake-up call that incrementalism could not keep pace with the rapidly evolving threats we face.
The biggest change, though, was the move toward greater centralization. The Cyber Sprint was led by the Office of Management and Budget and supported by binding operational directives from the DHS. This was not something that could be left to each agency — that was what led to the OPM mess in the first place. The creation of a federal chief information security officer, the development of a robust national incident response plan, and the creation of a dedicated IT modernization fund are all components of Obama’s Cybersecurity National Action Plan, a central directive that applies across the federal government.
I welcomed this new sense of urgency. Obama made it clear that he had no intention of making the same mistake twice, and I think his legacy in cyberspace will be greatly burnished by the last 20 months of increased focus.
These achievements were difficult. As you begin your term, I encourage you to take the lessons learned from your predecessor to heart when crafting cybersecurity policy. This means adopting the recommendations of the national action plan and going beyond them. It means ensuring there is an advocate for cybersecurity in the room when budget and policy decisions are made. It means working with Congress to implement existing law on information sharing and to pass new legislation on developing the workforce needed to address these issues and securing the internet of things.
Cybersecurity has never been a partisan issue, and I hope it remains that way over the next four years.
Langevin is a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Homeland Security, and is the co-founder and co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/318386-important-lessons-on-cybersecurity
-
Regulate Us Please, Shippers of Hazardous Materials Urge Trump
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Levin
The Trump administration's temporary ban on new regulations has prompted a plea from 22 corporations and trade groups involved with shipping hazardous materials that runs counter to industry's anti-regulatory bent: They say withholding new rules is bad for business.
The routine regulatory update of hazmat shipping rules got caught up in the Jan. 20 directive from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus ordering all federal agencies to withdraw any new regulations until reviewed by department heads for at least 60 days.
Failure to adopt rules quickly will make it difficult for manufacturers, shippers and other companies to operate because they may face different rules in various locations, according to a statement by PRBA-The Rechargeable Battery Association.
“Different regulations create a fog of confusion that undermines safety while forcing companies to comply with inconsistent regulations when shipping domestically and internationally,” George Kerchner, executive director of the group, said in the release.
The protest is the latest by industry groups frustrated by President Donald Trump's actions since he took office to limit new regulations. Trump signed a directive Jan. 30 ordering agencies to kill two regulations for every new one they issue. Drone industry groups last week said they feared the regulations slowdown would jeopardize new rules they are seeking to allow expanded unmanned flights.
Apple, Dell
The plea from 22 airlines, electronics and technology companies and trade groups was sent in a letter Feb. 3 to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. The companies include Apple Inc., Panasonic Corp. of North America and Dell Inc., all of which ship large numbers of flammable lithium-based batteries.
Others behind the letter include the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute and Airlines for America.
The items covered under the new regulations included lithium batteries, which have caused explosions and fires, as well as a range of explosives and dangerous chemicals. A separate regulation bringing the U.S. into line with United Nations standards on battery shipments by air is also pending approval by the administration.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration posted what would have been the final regulation governing shipments to the Federal Register's website on Jan. 23. It was later withdrawn.
“This rule is intended to harmonize the U.S. hazardous materials regulations (HMR) with international dangerous goods regulations and is strongly supported by all of the signatories to this letter,” the trade groups and companies wrote. “Its promulgation will not create any new risks in transport. In fact, it will ensure the U.S. hazardous materials regulations maintain alignment with international standards, thus assuring safety and avoiding disruptions to supply chains.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218885&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218885&jd=105218885
-
NTSB Calls For New Look At Oil Train Buffer Cars
Feb 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Lauren Gardner
The NTSB recommended on Tuesday that regulators ensure all freight trains carrying crude oil maintain an adequate buffer between the flammable commodity and the locomotive to ensure crew members are well-positioned to escape in case of an accident.
The recommendation came more than three years after the 2013 crash — involving a derailed grain train and an oil train — triggered a massive explosion that forced residents to evacuate the nearby city of Casselton, N.D., and spilled more than 476,000 gallons of crude oil. No one was killed, and the train crew assisted emergency responders in removing some of the cars from the wreckage.
The NTSB determined that a broken axle triggered the incident. But while the direct cause of the crash was straightforward, the board focused its recommendations on issues staff identified that could have posed problems had the collision occurred differently.
The chief area of concern for the board was the number of buffer cars — cars containing nonhazardous materials placed between the locomotive and the closest hazardous material-carrying container — that separate the crew from the dangerous cargo. Federal regulations generally require five buffer cars, but that mandate stands only “when the train length permits,” said NTSB staffer Paul Stancil. Regulators have interpreted it to allow single-car buffers on unit trains that can stretch more than 100 cars long.
NTSB determined that interpretation allows FRA, PHMSA and industry “to ignore the plain language” of the regulatory requirement for buffer cars.
“This establishes a contradictory circumstance in which mixed-cargo trains containing one or more hazardous materials car must operate with five buffer cars, while unit trains composed entirely of cars containing hazardous materials only require a single buffer car, even when they may be transporting a much greater quantity of hazardous material,” Stancil said.
NTSB recommended that regulators withdraw that interpretation of the existing buffer car rule. It also called on PHMSA and FRA to study the distance needed between a train’s cab and the first hazardous material-carrying tank car to ensure crew members have optimal headway to escape in case of an accident, and to implement their findings.
Lawmakers, regulators and industry have acted to make catastrophic oil train accidents like the Casselton crash less likely, but progress toward rolling out new, safer tank cars on the nation’s railways is still too slow, NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart said.
NTSB didn’t make any new tank car recommendations in response to the collision. But Hart reiterated that the board still considers rail tank car safety an issue not fully addressed, noting its continued inclusion on NTSB’s “most wanted” list of transportation safety enhancements.
DOT issued a final crude-by-rail rule in May 2015, and Congress codified the phaseout schedule for older tank cars and the specifications for new ones in the FAST Act later that year.
Hart tempered his praise for government action since the Casselton collision with a warning that the 11-year phaseout schedule for the older tank cars puts “Americans at heightened risk for years to come.”
Hart also lamented the lack of a public reporting mandate for railroads to communicate their progress in meeting the stricter standards.
“It is our hope that, despite all the progress to date, no future catastrophic tank car failure will give us reason to reiterate the importance of milestones and transparency in another board meeting between now and 2029,” Hart said, referring to the last year under the law for legacy cars carrying products other than oil or ethanol to be retrofitted.
DOT is required to collect data from shippers and tank car owners about their progress on the retrofit deadlines under the FAST Act.
Railroads have begun taking those tank cars, known as DOT-111s, out of service for oil transportation in advance of those deadlines, particularly as demand for crude movement by rail has dwindled. Non-jacketed cars transporting crude oil must be retrofitted or taken out of service by the end of the year, but they can still be used to move ethanol and other substances well into the 2020s.
https://www.politicopro.com/transportation/story/2017/02/ntsb-calls-for-new-look-at-oil-train-buffer-cars-147620
-
Railroad Industry To Privately Invest $22B In Infrastructure Upgrades In 2017
Feb 7, 2017 | SupplyChain Dive
By Edwin Lopez and Jennifer McKevitt
Dive Brief:
2017 will see approximately $22 billion worth of industry investment in privately owned U.S. railroads, the Association of American Railroads stated last week.
The $22 billion – or roughly $60 million per day – involves improving not only tracks and locomotives, but also technology determined to improve safety.
Among U.S. industries, freight railroads make capital expenditures six times greater than the average manufacturer. Recent statistics reveal that freight railroads also generated almost $274 billion in economic activity; $33 billion in state and federal taxes, and nearly 1.5 million jobs in 2014. Dive Insight:
The railroad industry invests heavily in itself, but in varying degrees, leading to uneven improvement rates. Since 1980, railroads have spent more than $600 billion on themselves, yet there remain areas where upgrades are not only needed, but required.
Full implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) technology, which aims to avoid head-to-head collisions, is due by the end of 2018, yet just 38% of freight locomotives are equipped, with only 12% of route miles PTC enabled — although 78% of radio towers have been installed and 50% of freight operators have been trained. Among Class I railroads, only BNSF has implemented the technology in over 40% of its locomotives.
So while the railroad industry certainly invests heavily in maintaining its own infrastructure, the investments may not be enough. A recent list of "high priority" infrastructure projects released by the Trump administration reveal just 3 rail projects of the total 50 accounted for 18% of the $137.5 billion in funding requested from the federal government. In other words, while $22 billion a year may seem like a lot, it is but a drop in the bucket for the infrastructure needs of the rail industry.
No wonder the Association of American Railroads has come out in strong support of the Trump administration's $1 trillion infrstructure plan, and nominee Elaine Chao. The challenge, however, will be balancing the nation's passenger rail needs with the freight rail needs — a long-standing division among railroads when requesting additional funding.
http://www.supplychaindive.com/news/railroad-freight-infrastructure-investment/435568/
-
EPA Defends Boiler Air Rule Startup, Shutdown Provisions In Pending Suit
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is defending its air toxics rule for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers from environmentalists' claims that it set unlawfully weak emissions control requirements during periods of boiler startups and shutdowns, also rejecting attacks on its reliance on carbon monoxide (CO) as a “surrogate” for reducing other pollutants.
In a final brief filed Feb. 6 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suit Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., the Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf reiterates arguments it made earlier in the case, which defend specific provisions of the boiler rule that were separated out as their own legal challenge from broader litigation over the boiler rule, U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, in which the court remanded some other parts of the rule to EPA.
The stand-alone Sierra Club suit addresses environmentalists' claims that EPA's use in the same regulation of work practice standards during startup and shutdown instead of tough numeric limits is inappropriate, and also their claims that EPA wrongly set a number of emissions standards under the MACT for specific pollutants using the same level of 130 parts per million (ppm) as a “surrogate.”
But DOJ's new brief defends the targeted provisions, saying, “EPA’s establishment of a 130 ppm threshold for carbon monoxide emission standards is consistent with the [Clean Air Act] and the record. EPA utilized carbon monoxide as a surrogate for non-dioxin organic [hazardous air pollutants, or HAPs] because carbon monoxide concentration is a measure of the completeness of combustion, which minimizes the emissions of organic HAPs.”
“EPA established the threshold based on data showing that there is no further destruction of organic HAPs at carbon monoxide levels below 130 ppm, and thus that all sources with emission levels below that are best performing sources. Petitioners present no evidence to the contrary,” DOJ adds.
Moreover, “Petitioners’ claim that carbon monoxide is not an appropriate surrogate for polycyclic organic matter is not before the Court and must be dismissed,” because the court already accepted its use as a surrogate in U.S. Sugar, DOJ argues, a decision that first vacated, then reinstated and remanded some parts of the boiler rule to EPA and upheld others.
The work practice standards that environmentalists attack are further reasonable and consistent with the air law, DOJ says, given that pollution controls only operate once they reach the correct temperature and pressure.
“The requirement that during startup sources engage all pollution control equipment as expeditiously as possible after commencing combustion of non-clean fuels reflects a considered balance of the need to minimize emissions of HAPs with the operational requirements for startup, and is based on what the best performing sources are able to achieve,” DOJ says, noting EPA also restricted startup to the first four hours after useful thermal energy is generated.
Additional Briefs
Meanwhile, industry intervenors in a Feb. 6 brief support EPA's position, saying, “Further organic HAP emissions reductions are not accomplished by lowering the CO standards below 130 ppm. The record supports EPA’s action here, and none of the Petitioners’ arguments undermine EPA’s reasoning or the record evidence.”
Also, “establishing and enforcing numeric emission standards is not feasible during startup . . . because the necessary measurement methodologies cannot be applied or are not accurate during these time periods. In making that determination, EPA reasonably relied on the only information, and metric, available to it. The work practice standards EPA promulgated for those periods also are reasonable and comply with the statutory requirements,” they argue.
However, in their final opening brief filed Feb. 6, environmentalists say that “EPA’s only chosen surrogate for organic hazardous air pollutants is carbon monoxide, and the weakened standards do not purport to reflect the emission levels achieved by the sources that are best-performing with respect to carbon monoxide.”
Further, “During the extended startup period, EPA allows each individual boiler to do whatever is 'possible' for it, rather than requiring all boilers in the category or subcategory to match the pollution control practices that EPA determines meet the stringency requirements” of the Clean Air Act, they argue.
In their final reply brief filed the same day, environmentalists say, “EPA does not claim that it is impracticable for either all boilers or any particular class of boilers to measure emissions during the four hours after they first supply useful energy. Further, EPA concedes that some boilers can do so. Because EPA did not show that setting numeric standards is infeasible, it violated the statute and acted arbitrarily by setting work practice standards instead.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-boiler-air-rule-startup-shutdown-provisions-pending-suit
-
GOP Elder Statesmen Promote Carbon Tax That Limits EPA Reach
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
A group of GOP heavy-hitters who hope to convince the Trump administration on the need to address climate change will unveil a revenue-neutral carbon tax plan today in Washington, D.C., before meeting with senior White House officials.
The four-pillar proposal from the Climate Leadership Council calls for a gradually increasing carbon tax, starting at $40 per ton, with all proceeds returned directly to taxpayers via quarterly dividend checks. It would account for border adjustment.
In exchange for the tax, much of U.S. EPA's regulatory authority over carbon dioxide emissions would be phased out, including the Clean Power Plan.
Two of President Reagan's Cabinet officials previewed what they call "The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends" last night in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that argues the risks associated with future global warming "are so severe that they should be hedged."
George Shultz and James Baker, President Reagan's secretary of State and Treasury secretary, respectively, envision a program that would help steer the United States toward economic growth by encouraging the development of large-scale low-carbon technology. Baker also served as secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush.
"Perhaps most important, the carbon-dividends plan speaks to the increasing frustration and economic insecurity experienced by many working-class Americans," the duo wrote. "The plan would elevate the fortunes of the nation's less-advantaged while strengthening the economy."
The plan drew support from 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney last night in a tweet.
Conservatives and free market groups, whose scholars play a prominent role in Trump's inner circle, oppose carbon taxes on the grounds that they would be detrimental to the economy.
Late last month, an economist on the Trump administration's EPA team concluded the carbon tax is a "money grab" (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
But Trump is also taking advice from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who has pressed the carbon tax at the White House (Greenwire, Jan. 27).
Democrats and many environmentalists have said they would oppose any carbon tax effort that would strip EPA of its regulatory authority.
The rollout will feature an analysis of the impacts of the council's plan showing that it can achieve twice as much carbon reduction as all Obama-era carbon regulations combined, according to organizers.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/08/stories/1060049707
-
Will Trump Attorneys Defend Obama Climate Regulation?
Feb 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The new president famously called climate change a hoax. But next week, his attorneys are poised to enter a federal appeals court and argue in defense of one of his predecessor's climate regulations.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 17 in a lawsuit over the EPA's regulation of refrigerant chemicals that are potent greenhouse gases. It's likely the first climate-related lawsuit against a federal agency to come up for oral argument since President Donald Trump took office (Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1328, 12/13/16).
Though the Trump administration has asked courts to postpone deadlines in several other environmental suits, it hasn't done so here. That means it's likely that, despite the president's views, his administration will continue to defend these climate regulations, according to environmental attorneys who spoke to Bloomberg BNA.
“I don't expect that there will be a surprise at the bar,” Thomas Lorenzen, a former Department of Justice attorney who defended federal agencies in environmental cases, said. “They can't put absolutely everything in abeyance and say, ‘We're reconsidering all of it.’”
The Department of Justice declined to comment for this story.
The plaintiffs in this case are two chemical makers that manufacture refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are commonly used in air conditioners. These companies, Arkema Inc. and Mexichem Fluor Inc., believe the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority by banning the use of certain HFCs through a section of the Clean Air Act that is meant to address ozone-depleting substances (RIN:2060–AS18).
Institutional Change
Lorenzen is now an attorney with the firm Crowell & Moring LLP. He's representing a company that's intervening in the case on behalf of the EPA.
Lorenzen said it's common for lawsuits challenging federal regulations to overlap from one administration to another. And, in fact, several ongoing suits over EPA regulations on climate change and other issues have crucial courtroom deadlines coming up in the weeks and months ahead.
Most of the time in cases like these, Lorenzen said the Justice Department attorneys defending the government don't reverse course after Inauguration Day—even when the party controlling the White House flips.
Jim Rubin, Lorenzen's former colleague in the Department of Justice's environmental division, agreed. Reversing course early on in litigation is one thing, Rubin said, but to do so days before an oral argument would be beyond unusual.
Institutional Damage?
“I don't think [the Department of Justice] would want to do that,” Rubin, now a partner at the firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP, said. “Institutionally, it's not good to do that stuff.”
That's because the judges scheduled to preside over next week's arguments have already spent time reading the briefs over the HFC ban, he said. Informing the judges at this late stage that those briefs are now inoperative would unnecessarily antagonize the court.
“The fact that the EPA hasn't made any statements about changing the rule suggests that this will probably proceed normally,” Rubin told Bloomberg BNA. “If the administration wanted to change its position, it would probably have filed something by now.”
Trump Defends Obama
But, if the arguments do go as Rubin and Lorenzen anticipate, it will mean the Trump administration will be in the position of defending an expansion of EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to address climate change. Many of Trump's key environmental advisers, including his pick to lead the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), have vehemently opposed the Obama administration's broad reading of its Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Additionally, the phaseout of some HFCs was specifically mentioned as a goal in the Obama administration's 2013 Climate Action Plan, which many Republicans also opposed.
Though emissions of these chemicals are tiny when compared to those of other greenhouse gasses, such as methane or carbon dioxide, HFCs have far greater potency. One ton of the specific HFC targeted by the EPA traps more than 1,000 times more heat in the atmosphere than the same amount of carbon dioxide, according to EPA data.
‘Disrupt the Industry’
The HFC ban, which the EPA finalized in 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 42,870), was one of the less contentious goals listed on Obama's Climate Action Plan. Compared to his administration's rules on power plant emissions, the ban affects a much smaller sector of the economy—and one that has received no special attention from the current president.
“This is an area where the decision to regulate or not to regulate doesn't have same effect on coal interests or the power sector,” Lorenzen said. “That's a very important distinction. This administration is all about trying to save and restore the coal industry. This isn't that.”
Additionally, companies such as Honeywell International and Chemours have already developed replacements for HFCs that have less of an impact on the climate. These companies have intervened in the case to defend the EPA's ban.
Josh Byerly, a Honeywell spokesman, said Arkema and Mexichem are suing because they failed to develop replacements for the HFC chemicals targeted by the EPA.
“Unlike Honeywell, the challengers have not made those investments and are now actively seeking to disrupt the industry through litigation,” Byerly said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
Arkema, Mexichem and their attorneys declined to comment on the record for this story.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105218880&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105218880&jd=105218880
-
EPA Will Pursue Appeal Of Deadline For Study Of Air Rules' 'Jobs' Effects
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is signaling that it will ask an appeals court to at least extend the deadline a district judge set for a sweeping review of how its Clean Air Act rules have affected power sector employment -- the first indication that the Trump administration will continue litigating the case despite environmentalists' concerns that it would reverse course.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Feb. 7 motion on EPA's behalf asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to expedite briefing and argument in the case, Murray Energy, et al., v. EPA, et al., in order to ensure a ruling before the judge's July 1 deadline for publishing the study, which the agency is seeking to overturn.
Prior to the latest filing, EPA's appeals to the 4th Circuit in the case were only “protective” -- filed by the Obama administration in order to preserve the option of continuing the case under then-President-elect Donald Trump. There was significant uncertainty about whether the Trump administration would continue to oppose the order.
The new filing emphasizes difficulty that EPA will face in crafting an employment study in time to meet the deadline set by District Judge John Preston Bailey in his Jan. 11 order resolving the case.
“EPA must conduct a detailed analysis of two major sectors of the U.S. economy by evaluating employment impacts at a more granular level (that of individual facilities and employees) than the Agency uses in its routine analyses of national, regional, and sector-wide impacts. Notwithstanding the district court’s views, EPA believes that it will need to undertake a significant data-collection effort consisting of several sequential steps to complete this task,” the motion says.
Even though it is saying that Bailey's order is too strict, DOJ seems to have nonetheless softened arguments it made under the Obama administration, where it said a two-year consultation with EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was necessary to allow agency researchers to navigate thorny issues of economic science involved with assigning employment impacts to particular regulations.
Instead, the new filing presents the problem as mainly one of time and effort, noting the extensive data collection needed to take stock of employment across the energy industry -- especially since Bailey's order requires review of not just power utilities but also coal mining.
EPA's Plan
“At a minimum, EPA will need to retrospectively evaluate the coal mines and power plants with coal-fired capacity that have closed, more than seasonally, since January 2009. EPA is also currently identifying those mines and plants that may be appropriate for a prospective evaluation of closure or reduced capacity. Next, EPA will need to identify the market relationships between individual coal mines and the set of power plants with coal-fired capacity that may have reduced their demand from those mines due to Clean Air Act regulations or enforcement actions,” DOJ's motion says.
It continues that regulators will also have to reach out to state and local officials and facility operators to gather more data, potentially develop surveys for at-risk facilities, and submit the report for peer review.
Plaintiffs in the case, a group of coal-sector firms, argued that EPA has neglected its duty under section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act to perform “continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result” from air rules and their implementation. DOJ argued on the agency's behalf that estimates of new rules' future economic impacts satisfy that requirement, but Bailey held that only a backward-looking study of concrete effects will suffice.
DOJ's new filing does not explicitly say whether it will contest that finding, noting only that Bailey ruled against it “Despite the fact that EPA submitted to the district court 64 documents that it contended constituted performance of evaluations described in Section 321(a).”
However, it seems unlikely that the Trump administration will take that step, since during the the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee's Jan. 18 confirmation hearing for Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA nominee, he answered “yes” to a question from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) on whether he would follow Bailey’s order to perform the jobs review.
But three environmental groups seeking to intervene on the agency's behalf might still be able to litigate that point if they win a ruling from the 4th Circuit that Bailey was wrong to deny their petition for intervention. Such a decision would allow them to pursue an appeal of the case's substantive issues even if DOJ does not -- a possibility they raised in their original motion to intervene.
DOJ's new motion does not address a briefing or argument schedule for that part of the appeal.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-will-pursue-appeal-deadline-study-air-rules-jobs-effects
-
A Conservative Case for Climate Action
Feb 8, 2017 | The New York Times
By Martin S. Feldstein, Ted Halstead and N. Gregory Mankiw
CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.
During his eight years in office, President Obama regularly warned of the very real dangers of global warming, but he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem, largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye. Instead, Mr. Obama left us with a grab bag of regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, often established by executive order.
In comes President Trump, who seems much less concerned about the risks of climate change, and more worried about how excessive regulation impedes economic growth and depresses living standards. As Democrats are learning the hard way, it is all too easy for a new administration to reverse the executive orders of its predecessors.
On-again-off-again regulation is a poor way to protect the environment. And by creating needless uncertainty for businesses that are planning long-term capital investments, it is also a poor way to promote robust economic growth.Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTSAnne-Marie Hislop 7 minutes ago
Yeah, we'll see. The reason for the "heavy-handed regulation" is, in no small part, because the very same GOP refused to co-operate in...Tom 14 minutes ago
I find the proposal one of the very very few from the Republican side of the aisle that has merit, but the average Republican voter I know...Mike Roddy 1 hour ago
Thanks for this effort by the small tribe of remaining rational Republicans, and your ideas have merit in a rational world. Climate change...SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
By contrast, an ideal climate policy would reduce carbon emissions, limit regulatory intrusion, promote economic growth, help working-class Americans and prove durable when the political winds change. We have laid out such a plan in a paper to be released Wednesday by the Climate Leadership Council.
Our co-authors include James A. Baker III, Treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan and secretary of state for President George H. W. Bush; Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary for President George W. Bush; George P. Shultz, Treasury secretary for President Richard Nixon and secretary of state for Mr. Reagan; Thomas Stephenson, a partner at Sequoia Capital, a venture-capital firm; and Rob Walton, who recently completed 23 years as chairman of Walmart.
Our plan is built on four pillars.
First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It might begin at $40 per ton and increase steadily. This tax would send a powerful signal to businesses and consumers to reduce their carbon footprints.
Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments.
Third, American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they’ve paid on those products, while imports from such countries would face fees on the carbon content of their products. This would protect American competitiveness and punish free-riding by other nations, encouraging them to adopt their own carbon pricing.
Finally, regulations made unnecessary by the carbon tax would be eliminated, including an outright repeal of the Clean Power Plan.
Our own analysis finds that a carbon dividends program starting at $40 per ton would achieve nearly twice the emissions reductions of all Obama-era climate regulations combined. Provided all four elements are put in force in unison, this plan could meet America’s commitment under the Paris climate agreement, all by itself. Democrats and environmentalists may bemoan the accompanying regulatory rollback. But they should pause to consider the environmental value proposition.
These four pillars, combined, invite novel coalitions. Environmentalists should like the long-overdue commitment to carbon pricing. Growth advocates should embrace the reduced regulation and increased policy certainty, which would encourage long-term investments, especially in clean technologies. Libertarians should applaud a plan premised on getting the incentives right and government out of the way. Populists should welcome the distributive impact.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, the bottom 70 percent of Americans would come out ahead under a carbon dividends plan. Some 223 million Americans stand to benefit.
The idea of using taxes to correct a problem like pollution is an old one with wide support among economists. But it is our unique political moment, combined with the populist appeal of dividends, that may turn the concept into reality.
Republicans are in charge of both Congress and the White House. If they do nothing other than reverse regulations from the Obama administration, they will squander the opportunity to show the full power of the conservative canon, and its core principles of free markets, limited government and stewardship.
A repeal-only climate strategy would prove quite unpopular. Recent polls show that 64 percent of Americans are concerned about climate change, 71 percent want America to remain in the Paris agreement, and an even larger share favor clean energy. If the Republican Party fails to exercise leadership on our climate challenge, they risk a return to heavy-handed regulation when Democrats return to power.
Much better would be a strategy of “repeal and replace.” This would be pro-growth, pro-competitiveness and pro-working class, which aligns perfectly with President Trump’s stated agenda.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested