Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/17/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Top Chef Star Uses Political Clout to Change Food Industry
Apr 17, 2017 | USA Today
By Brian Barth
You may know him as the steely blue-eyed judge of Bravo’s Top Chef, the reality TV-style cooking competition now in its 14th season. -
(ACC Mentioned) 6 Ways Trump's Administration Could Literally Make America More Toxic
Apr 17, 2017 | Mother Jones
By Jenny Luna
In late March, chlorpyrifos, a pesticide commonly used to ward off insects on fruit and vegetable crops, was nearing the end of a decade-long review process. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Just Appointed a Chemical Industry Honcho to Protect Us from Chemicals
Apr 17, 2017 | Mother Jones
By Tom Philpott
The American Chemistry Council represents the interests of the chemical industry—companies that "make the products that make modern life possible," as the group's web site somewhat haughtily puts it. -
‘Recycling Plastics Contaminate Children’s Toys with Toxic Chemicals’
Apr 17, 2017 | The Guardian
By Chinedum Uwaegbulam
Ahead of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention (SC COP-8) in Geneva, Switzerland, a new global survey has revealed that recycling plastics containing toxic flame retardant chemicals found in electronic waste results in contamination of new children’s toys and related products. -
Dem AGs Join Front Lines of Trump Opposition
Apr 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Democratic state attorneys general are taking a leading role in fighting the Trump administration’s environmental policies. -
Hold Power Plant Discharge Rule Pending Review, EPA Asks Court
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Amena H. Saiyid
Legal proceedings over the federal limits on power plant discharges should be put on hold until the EPA can revisit the 2015 regulation that put them in place, the government told a federal appeals court. -
Environmentalists Oppose Pausing Oil & Gas Methane Rule Suit
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
A coalition of environmental groups is opposing EPA's request to hold in abeyance litigation over the agency's first-time methane emissions limits for new oil and gas equipment, saying that the agency is wrong to claim that its administrative review of the rules “of unknown length and uncertain outcome” warrants indefinitely pausing the suit. -
Northern Pass Transmission Line Faces Hurdle in New Hampshire
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Adrianne Appel
Eversource Energy's proposed $1.6 billion transmission line to deliver Canadian hydropower to New England faces months of scrutiny in New Hampshire, where plans call for 192 miles of lines and towers through the White Mountains. -
N.Y. Fracking Ban Challenge Dismissed for Lack of Standing
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York's ban on high-volume hydraulic fracking has been settled law since 2015, but a state appeals court added one more nail in the coffin April 13. -
Manufacturers Worry Exports Will Drive Up Natural Gas Prices
Apr 14, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
American manufacturing companies are worried that a boom in liquefied natural gas exports will reduce domestic supply and raise prices. -
EPA: No Significant Chemical Discharge From US Steel Spill
Apr 14, 2017 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
Water samples from Lake Michigan and one of its tributaries show no significant discharge of a potentially carcinogenic chemical from a U.S. Steel Corp. wastewater spill in northern Indiana, the Environmental Protection Agency said Friday. -
Editorial: A Chemical Spill, Too Close for Comfort
Apr 14, 2017 | Chicago Tribune
By Editorial Board
Two beaches at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore had to be closed Tuesday and the National Park Service announced that "people and their pets should have no contact with the water of Lake Michigan or Burns Waterway in the West Beach and Portage Lakefront areas." -
U.S. Steel Restarts Plant After Lake Michigan Chemical Spill
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Stephen Joyce
U.S. Steel started its Portage, Ind., plant back up April 14 following a chemical spill that sent unknown quantities of chromium into a Lake Michigan tributary earlier in the week. -
BP Struggles to Control Damaged Well in Alaskan Arctic
Apr 16, 2017 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
The British oil giant BP worked through the weekend to control a damaged oil well on Alaska’s remote North Slope that had started spewing natural gas vapors on Friday morning, the company and Alaska officials said. -
Industry Suggestions to Trim Regulations Take Aim at EPA
Apr 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
President Trump’s call for suggestions to reduce the regulatory burden facing manufacturers has turned up a number of ideas from industry groups – many targeting the EPA. -
Trump Officials to Deliberate on Paris Climate Pact
Apr 14, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Top Trump administration officials plan to meet next week to decide whether the U.S. should end its participation in the Paris climate agreement. -
California's Top Court Should Review Carbon Auction: Industry
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Carolyn Whetzel
California businesses and industry groups want the state's Supreme Court to review a recent appeals court decision declaring the state's carbon cap-and-trade allowance auctions lawful. -
EPA Staff Policy Assessment Recommends Retaining Existing NO2 NAAQS
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA staff in a final policy assessment (PA) is recommending that the the agency leave unchanged its primary “health-based” nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), in line with advice from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that said the limit is adequate to protect public health. -
EPA Plan to Ease CWA Enforcement May Face Hurdles in Circuit Courts
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA's plan to ease or drop Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement that used a test by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy for determining when waters are subject to the law and shift to a narrower test by the last Justice Antonin Scalia may face hurdles in some federal circuit courts that have already issued rulings upholding Kennedy's test, sources say.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Top Chef Star Uses Political Clout to Change Food Industry
Apr 17, 2017 | USA Today
By Brian Barth
You may know him as the steely blue-eyed judge of Bravo’s Top Chef, the reality TV-style cooking competition now in its 14th season. Or perhaps you’ve indulged in the critically acclaimed farm-to-table fare at one of his eight restaurants scattered across the U.S. But the five-time James Beard Award-winning chef Tom Colicchio would like you to know that he’s a committed environmentalist and activist. And for the last five years, he’s been working toward a monumental goal: addressing the multi-faceted challenge of fixing our broken food system.
Colicchio’s political awakening happened in the mid-2000s, when he and his wife, filmmaker Lori Silverbush, became mentors for a young girl who struggled in school. The two helped enroll her in a private school, where they hoped she would get the extra attention she needed, only to hear from the principal a week later that she’d been found scrounging in school dumpsters for food.
Her previous school offered free breakfast to children of low-income families; her new school did not, which meant she started class on an empty stomach.
She isn’t the only child wondering where the next meal will come from. In 2015, roughly 42 million Americans were “food-insecure,” including 13.1 million children. The experience inspired Silverbush to produce A Place at the Table, her 2012 film on hunger in America. Colicchio took the issue to Washington.
“I realized people are going hungry in this country, not because we don’t have the resources to feed people, but for political reasons,” Colicchio says. “When kids show up for school hungry, they can’t learn. How can we expect them to be productive, to get a good education, to break the cycle of poverty? This is what woke me up.”
In 2012, Colicchio co-founded the Food Policy Action (FPA), a nonprofit organization with the goal of improving food access. But this was not to be just another anti-hunger campaign. Having already volunteered for several similar groups, Colicchio had drilled down into the root causes of hunger. He saw how inextricably linked they were with other challenges plaguing America’s industrialized food system: incomes too low to support farming families; egregious farmworker abuses; animal welfare abuses on factory farms; subsidies and incentives allocated for crops largely grown for livestock feed and fuel rather than for programs to make fruits, vegetables and sustainable agriculture more economically viable; and a litany of environmental assaults, including the infamous “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico (a product of fertilizer runoff throughout the Midwest) and clear-cutting the Amazon to graze cattle for American fast-food chains.
This industrialization has also led to cheap food, a boon for consumers looking to stretch the dollar, but a mindset opposite of what it should be, Colicchio says: “Because of fast food and the idea of disposable food, people don’t have the same connection to food that our grandparents had.”
To help change that, FPA brings foodies, farmers, environmentalists, agribusiness executives, social justice advocates and animal welfare activists together in a common vision of a healthy, just and sustainable food system. “A lot of these groups were working off in their own silos,” he says. “Coming together, finding a common cause, pooling resources and aligning their vision to support each other is why we started Food Policy Action.”
This united front has given unprecedented political clout to what Colicchio broadly refers to as “the food movement,” which until the last few years, he says, was “a loosely organized social movement, not a real political movement.” Now consumers have a means to put their food choices — and their vote — where their values are.
The organization’s most well-known initiative, a scorecard that rates members of Congress on their voting record on food-related issues, allows consumers to assess the political landscape of the food system with a few clicks at foodpolicyaction.org/scorecard.
Another initiative was the “Plate of the Union” campaign. In the fall of 2015, the Food Policy Action Education Fund (FPA-EF), a nonprofit sister organization of FPA, worked with the Union of Concerned Scientists and the HEAL Food Alliance to urge voters and presidential candidates to think more critically about food policy. In July, the Plate of the Union unveiled a food truck that visited the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and toured more than 20 cities ahead of the election to call on the next president to be a food system reform leader. At the end of the cross-country tour, the tactic had collected more than 110,000 signatures. After a short hiatus, the FPA-EF and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) revived the Plate of the Union initiative to continue to fight for food reform.
“Everyone eats, and everyone should have a say in what they eat and where it comes from,” says Colicchio, who often took part in the truck initiative.
Also central to Colicchio’s food movement vision is environmentalism. Since 1994, when he worked with Danny Meyer to open his first restaurant, Gramercy Tavern in Manhattan, Colicchio has made a point of sourcing ingredients from local, sustainable purveyors. But that’s the easy part, he says. Twenty years ago, it took considerable sleuthing, but these days those with the means and the determination can find responsibly raised meats, dairy and produce in many corners of the country. The acreage of certified organic farmland in the U.S. has more than doubled since 2003 to 4.1 million acres, which the environmental movement can certainly count as an accomplishment, but that figure is not as impressive once you realize it represents less than 1 percent of total U.S. farmland.
How to lessen the environmental impact of the remaining 99 percent? Ken Cook, the president and co-founder of EWG, an environmental advocacy organization, suggests a novel approach: Eat more of the food that farmers produce. Said another way: Waste less. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), about 40 percent of food in the U.S. is wasted — whether it rots in a farmer’s field, on a supermarket shelf or in your refrigerator. Often, edible produce is discarded simply because it doesn’t meet retailers’ aesthetic criteria, says Cook, who is also the founding chairman of FPA’s board of directors.
This is absurd on a purely economic basis: Americans waste the equivalent of $165 billion each year in food, according to the NRDC. It costs another $1.3 billion to dispose of it all, according to a 2008 Environmental Protection Agency study. And American households throw away about $640 each worth of food every year, according to a 2015 survey by the American Chemistry Council.
As for those 42 million food insecure Americans, conserving just one-quarter of the food wasted in this country would keep their pantries stocked year-round, without them spending a dime.
But back to Cook’s point about the environment. Wasting food also wastes all the resources that went into producing it: petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides, tractor fuel and water. Then factor in the habitat loss, soil erosion and water pollution associated with agriculture, not to mention human labor. On a global scale, if food waste were its own country, it would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter, reports the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization.
And because food waste is rarely composted, it decomposes anaerobically in landfills, releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Wasted food is also responsible for 25 percent of fresh water use in the country, a tremendous tax on beleaguered lakes, streams and reservoirs.
“This is one of the many ways that food intersects with not just social issues, but with environmental issues,” Colicchio says. “We can’t wave a magic wand and all of a sudden have organic farms across the country that will feed everyone; cutting back on food waste is something we can all work toward in the meantime.”
Cook offers an even more stinging perspective: “Waste is the greatest environmental insult, because you’ve inflicted damage on Mother Nature and then thrown the product of that damage in your refuse bin. We have to become more aware.”
Which is why environmental groups, anti-hunger groups and food system reformers such as FPA have issued a call to fight food waste on all fronts. Entrepreneurs are also stepping up. Imperfect Produce, a produce delivery company based in Emeryville, Calif., collects “ugly” fruits and vegetables — food that does not meet retailers’ cosmetic standards — from farms and sells it at a 30 percent to 50 percent discount. Since its 2015 launch, the company, which uses the Community Supported Agriculture model, has amassed 12,000 Bay Area customers.
Aleksandra Strub, Imperfect’s chief marketing officer, attributes the company’s success to “people getting really excited about fighting food waste together — but also to have affordable access to healthy food.”
It’s an example of that win-win alignment that Colicchio is always seeking to orchestrate. “Food waste is one place where practicality meets politics,” says the 54-year-old, who this year will push for the passage of the Food Date Labeling Act, which aims to standardize confusing and inconsistent supermarket terms like “sell by,” “use by” and “expires on,” which often cause consumers to toss out food prematurely. “As much as people want to tell me to keep politics out of the kitchen and out of food, it’s impossible not to.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2017/04/15/top-chef-star-uses-political-clout-change-food-industry/100475712/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 6 Ways Trump's Administration Could Literally Make America More Toxic
Apr 17, 2017 | Mother Jones
By Jenny Luna
In late March, chlorpyrifos, a pesticide commonly used to ward off insects on fruit and vegetable crops, was nearing the end of a decade-long review process. There's strong evidence suggesting that the insecticide inhibits kids' brain development, and at least 80,000 scientists, environmentalists, and members of the public had signed a petition urging the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the stuff outright. But in the final stages of review, EPA director Scott Pruitt greenlighted the chemical instead, arguing there was insufficient evidence to ban it. Now farmers can continue to apply it to crops like corn, strawberries, almonds, and tomatoes.
This year, more controversial pesticides are due for agency review, a process that weighs the latest scientific findings with public comment to determine whether the substance can continue to be used—though the White House has the final say. These reviews often lag for many years. And Trump's EPA, with its anti-regulatory bent and a new administrator pluckedstraight from the chemical-company-allied American Chemistry Council, can further stall the review process in a few ways, for instance by cutting research funding. Or, as Pruitt did last week, ax regulation when the review is in "the eleventh hour," as Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group, explained.
Pesticides aren't the only substances being vetted under Pruitt's supervision. Major reforms to the Toxic Substance Control Act in 2016 required the EPA to reevaluate90 widely-used potentially hazardous chemicals. Late last year, the agency announced that it would start with 10 priority chemicals (full list here). Should they be found to pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, the EPA will have two years to "mitigate" these risks.
Here are some of the most controversial chemicals now in the hands of Trump's EPA:
Atrazine
Use: This weedkiller is used on half of the country's corn crop and 90 percent of its sugarcane.
Health Risks: Studies from UC–Berkeley found that frogs exposed to the chemical experienced shrunken voice boxes and altered gonads, and some changed sex. When atrazine is sprayed, it can evaporate off fields and leach into water supplies. Agricultural runoffs in central Missouri and Illinois have sent the herbicide into local reservoirs. Scientists have found suggestive evidence associating atrazine with human diseases such as hairy-cell leukemia, though the Center for Disease Control states that there's not enough information to determine whether the pesticide causes cancer.
Producer: Syngenta, a $38 billion chemical company, is the largest producer of atrazine.
Banned in Europe? Yep, Europe banned the chemical in 2004.
Neonicotinoids
Use: This high profile class of pesticides is used on 95 percent of all canola and corn crops, and the majority of cotton. The pesticides rid crops of fleas and other sucking insects.
Health Risks: Neonicotinoids are associated with colony collapse disorder, the phenomenon of declining honeybee populations. On April 5, neonics were found in drinking water for the first time ever—runoff from Iowa's cornfields turned up in treated tap water—though researchers told the Washington Post the amount was probably too miniscule to pose any risk to human health.
Producer: Syngenta, Bayer, and Monsanto produce the majority of the world's neonicotinoids. Each say they have plans to increase research on the declining bee population.
Banned in Europe? Yes, Neonicotinoids are banned in Europe. And in recent years, Maryland, Portland and Eugene, Oregon, and Spokane and Seattle, Washington have banned their use as well.
Glyphosate
Use: Also known by its household name, Roundup, glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide on the planet. It's used to kill weeds that compete with a lot of crops, namely wheat, sugarcane, soybean, and corn. Traces of the chemical have even been found on breakfast cereals.
Health Risks: The official word is still out on glyphosate. Although the World Health Organization announced it was a probable carcinogen, a report from the EPA declared otherwise. But in a recent article, my colleague Tom Philpott pointed out that the EPA's report didn't look at glyphosate's health effects when it's grouped with other chemicals—the way it's used on farms.
Producer: Monsanto, which manufactures Roundup, recently came under fire when previously-sealed court documents surfaced showing that an international panel had deemed the chemical unsafe and carcinogenic.
Banned in Europe? A European Citizens Initiative was launched earlier this year to ban glyphosate's use in the European Union.
Pyrethroids
Use: This insecticide is found in household products such as bug spray, lice soaps, and pet shampoos.
Health Risks: It's toxic to bees. When freshwater fish were exposed to the chemical, they suffered behavioral and metabolic disorders. Other lab animals experienced damage to the liver, the nervous system, and thyroid. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, pyrethroids are harmful to humans only in large quantities.
Producer: Bayer, DuPont, and Syngenta all manufacture the insecticide.
Banned in Europe? The three most common pyrethroids are banned in Europe.
Asbestos
Use: Asbestos, a naturally occurring chemical, makes other materials strong and durable and fire-resistant. Asbestos is most often used in construction materials, notably in building's insulation and electrical wiring, but it's found in a wide range of products, from vinyl flooring and ceiling tiles to car brake pads and heat-resistant clothing.
Health Risks: Asbestos has been classified as a known carcinogen by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Exposure to significant amounts of the stuff may increase the risk of mesothelioma, a cancer that covers the thin layer of tissue covering the lungs and abdomen, and lung cancer. Although there are many laws regulating asbestos in public buildings and residential buildings, and bans on certain products that contain it, there is not a country-wide ban on the chemical. It is one of the 10 priority chemicals being reviewed by the EPA this year as part of the Toxic Substance Control Act.
Producer: Asbestos occurs in nature and was once mined in the Eastern US, though since 2009 it has not been produced in the US.
Banned in Europe? Yes.
1,4-Dioxane
Use: Small amounts of this chemical can be found in beauty care and hygiene products such as shampoos, detergents, and makeup.
Health Risks: Initial studies in the 1970's found an association between high exposure to 1,4-dioxane in animals and cancer. The FDA classifies the substance as a probable carcinogen, though it states that trace amounts in substances today are not enough to pose any health risks. In 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported traces of 1,4-dioxane in baby bubble bath and shampoo by Johnson & Johnson and other notable brands. The company says it has since reduced the number of products that contain the chemical and the any amount of 1,4-dioxane "is kept way below the levels the USDA...would consider to be safe." Recently, the chemical was found in a water supplies in Long Island, prompting New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to petition the FDA to ban it in personal care products. It is one of the 10 priority chemicals being reviewed by the EPA this year as part of the Toxic Substance Control Act.
Producer: 1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of the manufacturing process of other chemicals and therefore is often not on ingredient lists. Those other chemicals can often be identified as "Polyethylene" or contain the syllables "-eth-," or "-onynol-."
Banned in Europe? Yes.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/04/pesticides-chemicals-atrazine-asbestos-neonics-bees-chuck-schumer-shampoo-trump-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Just Appointed a Chemical Industry Honcho to Protect Us from Chemicals
Apr 17, 2017 | Mother Jones
By Tom Philpott
The American Chemistry Council represents the interests of the chemical industry—companies that "make the products that make modern life possible," as the group's web site somewhat haughtily puts it. Member companies include Big Oil subsidiaries Chevron Phillips Chemical and ExxonMobil Chemical, the Saudi chemical giant SABIC, pesticide behemoth Bayer and its pending merger partner, Monsanto, as well as DuPont and its pending merger partner, Dow Chemical.
In a bold move, the Trump administration has named the ACC's senior director of regulatory science policy, Nancy Beck, as the deputy assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency office that regulates the chemical industry. It's known as the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and it exists to "protect you, your family, and the environment from potential risks from pesticides and toxic chemicals."
Beck's new post marks her return to government work. Before moving into her post at the American Chemistry Council, where she started in 2012, she served as toxicologist/risk assessor/policy analyst for the US Office of Management and Budget, a job she started under President George W. Bush in 2002. A 2009 investigation by the House Science and Technology Committee criticized Beck by name for her role in what it called a "recurring problem in the Bush Administration's term in office": "White House staff re-writing the 'science'" around important policy issues.
The report specifically noted Beck's role in assessing the EPA's characterization of a highly toxic class of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which were widely used as flame retardants in furniture but have since been phased out. The report found that Beck attempted to edit an EPA statement on PBDEs in ways that "appear to enhance uncertainty or reduce profile of the [harmful] effect being discussed." The report called one of her edits "very disturbing because it represents a substantial editorial change regarding how to characterize the science."
And now, after her stint working directly for the chemical industry, Beck will have a direct role in shaping chemical policy at the EPA.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/04/trump-just-put-chemical-industy-hack-charge-assessing-chemicals-epa
-
‘Recycling Plastics Contaminate Children’s Toys with Toxic Chemicals’
Apr 17, 2017 | The Guardian
By Chinedum Uwaegbulam
Ahead of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention (SC COP-8) in Geneva, Switzerland, a new global survey has revealed that recycling plastics containing toxic flame retardant chemicals found in electronic waste results in contamination of new children’s toys and related products.
The substances include octabromodiphenyl ether (OctaBDE), decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). This study found all three toxic chemicals in recycled plastic children’s products. These chemicals are known to disrupt human hormone systems, adversely impacting the development of the ner- vous system and children’s intelligence.
In a survey of products from 26 countries including Nigeria, 90 per cent of the samples contained OctaBDE or DecaBDE. Nearly half of them (43per cent) contained HBCD. Recycling materials that contain persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and other toxic substances contaminates new products, continues human and environmental exposure, and undermines the credibility of recycling.
OctaBDE and DecaBDE are widely used in electrical equipment and are primary toxic components of electronic waste (e-waste). HBCD is primarily used in polystyrene building insulation but is also found in electronic equipment. Both HBCD and OctaBDE are listed in the Stockholm Convention for global elimination. DecaBDE is recommended for listing in the treaty for elimination.
The study was performed by IPEN (a global civil society network), Arnika (an environmental organization in the Czech Republic) and SRADev Nigeria. The toxic chemicals, OctaBDE, DecaBDE, and HBCD, are used in the plastic casings of electronic products and if they are not removed, they are carried into new products when the plastic is recycled.
In Nigeria, SRADev purchased 18 rubik’s cube-like toys and send them for analysis to the Czech Republic. Fourteen samples were chosen for laboratory tests. The analysis found that all fourteen samples contained OctaBDE and DecaBDE at elevated concentrations. One of the samples from the Nigeria tested with the highest concentration of OctaBDE among 111 samples from 26 countries. These chemicals are persistent and known to harm the reproductive system and disrupt hormone systems, adversely impacting intelligence, attention, learning and memory.
“Toxic chemicals in electronic waste should not be present in children’s toys,” said Leslie Adogame, Executive Director of SRADev Nigeria. “This problem needs to be addressed globally and nationally.
“Recycling materials that contain toxic chemicals contaminates new products, continues exposure, and undermines the credibility of recycling, “said Joe DiGangi, IPEN. “Governments should end this harmful loophole.”
Another critical decision of the Stockholm Convention Conference will be to establish hazardous waste limits. Protective hazardous waste limits would make wastes subject to the treaty’s obligations for destruction – and not permit their recycling. Surprisingly, some of the toxic chemical levels in children’s products in this study exceeded proposed hazardous waste limits.
Overwhelming majority (13) of tested cubes purchased in Nigeria (14) exceeded the proposed waste limit of 50 ppm for PBDEs/OctaBDE. The cubes contained 395 ppm OctaBDE on average. One exemplar containing 1174 ppm OctaBDE was far beyond the protective level.
“We need protective hazardous waste limits,” said Jitka Strakova, Arnika. “Weak standards mean toxic products and dirty recycling, which often takes place in low and middle income countries and spreads poisons from recycling sites into our homes and bodies.”
The application of strict hazardous limits is also critical for brominated flame retardants due to their presence in e-waste. In many countries, the Stockholm Convention standards will be the only global regulatory tool that can be used to prevent import and export of these contaminated wastes, in many cases from countries with stricter legislation to countries with weaker legislation or control.
https://guardian.ng/property/recycling-plastics-contaminate-childrens-toys-with-toxic-chemicals/
-
Dem AGs Join Front Lines of Trump Opposition
Apr 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Democratic state attorneys general are taking a leading role in fighting the Trump administration’s environmental policies.
Top legal officers from blue states, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, have gone to court to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attempt to repeal the Clean Power Plan. They’re also fighting the Energy Department’s delay of energy efficiency standards.
“We anticipate being significantly involved because President Trump has made clear his intention to roll back the Clean Power Plan and to increase the carbon footprint here in America,” said Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen.
“I feel very much in the mainstream here,” Jepsen added. “But I stress that these issues, while they might have their locus on the environment, have an economic impact as well, in addition to public health.”
Schneiderman, Jepsen and 15 other state attorneys general and the top legal officers from a handful of localities have sought this month to prevent the Trump administration from halting a court case against the Clean Power Plan while the EPA reviews the policy.
The Clean Power Plan requires the power plant sector to curb its carbon emissions.
The state attorneys plan to keep fighting to preserve the plan, including if Trump seeks to repeal it through a new regulation.
Meanwhile, a legal coalition that includes nine of the attorneys general sued the Energy Department over its delay of six energy efficiency rules covering appliances like ceiling fans and commercial boilers.
Democratic attorneys general have lined up against Trump on other issues as well. Washington’s Bob Ferguson and Hawaii’s Doug Chin, for example, have notched wins against Trump’s executive order banning travel to the United States from several countries. That policy remains in legal limbo.
State attorneys general have long used their power to shape federal policy, and their involvement in a case can have a significant impact, often giving litigants legal standing to challenge the government.
“From a legal perspective, it’s really helpful for a state to be on the case,” said Mark Templeton, head of the environmental law clinic at the University of Chicago’s law school, and a former environmental regulator in Missouri.
“There are specific and useful state interests in these national policies.”
But Peter Glaser, an environmental attorney at Troutman Sanders who works for industry clients, said he doesn’t think the involvement of Democratic attorneys general will necessarily sway the courts.
“These states have been in these cases for a long time, and their arguments tend to be virtually identical to the environmentalists,” said Glaser, who represents the National Mining Association in the Clean Power Plan lawsuit.
“I think the fact that it’s coming from states might add something additional optically … but in the end, it’s similar arguments, and courts will make up their minds based on how they see the facts and the law.”
Aside from notching policy victories, the court battles generate headlines and attention, often giving attorneys general a springboard to higher offices like governor or senator.
“The beauty from a political perspective is that it’s both great policy and great politics,” said Colm O’Comartun, a principal at state policy strategy firm 50 State and a former executive director of the Democratic Governors Association.
“This is one that is very effective with their base, is consistent with what Democrats think Democratic elected representatives should be doing — which is promoting health and safety — and is a great way to come together as a group and have a louder voice.”
Environmental protection is a winning issue with the Democratic base, so being involved is “an amazing place to be,” he said.
Numerous attorneys general from both parties have gone on to higher office, including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan (R), and even Trump’s EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, who sued the Obama administration more than a dozen times as Oklahoma’s attorney general.
James Tierney, who fought the Reagan administration on acid rain prevention as Maine’s Democratic attorney general, said the legal fights have grown more partisan over the years.
“It used to be we did this all on a bipartisan basis,” he said.
“I was a Democrat, but the Vermont AG [John Easton] was a Republican, and we frankly didn’t notice much whether somebody was a Democrat or Republican, we just went in and did it.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/328928-dem-ags-join-front-lines-of-trump-opposition
-
Hold Power Plant Discharge Rule Pending Review, EPA Asks Court
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Amena H. Saiyid
Legal proceedings over the federal limits on power plant discharges should be put on hold until the EPA can revisit the 2015 regulation that put them in place, the government told a federal appeals court.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to hold up legal action until Aug. 12 while it reconsiders parts of the wastewater effluent limits (RIN:2040-AF14) on 1,080 electric utilities, more than half of which are fueled by coal. The agency agreed April 12 to a petition by the Utility Water Act Group, the Southwestern Electric Power Co, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, and Union Electric Co., an Ameren Corp. subsidiary, as well as the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy to reconsider the rule. Their main concern was that the EPA underestimated the time, cost and equipment needed to treat wastewater.
The EPA said an “abeyance” is warranted because the briefing has not been completed and oral arguments haven't been scheduled in the case. The EPA's own brief was due May 4 in this case (SW. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 5th Cir., No. 15-60821, motion 4/14/17). The agency's motion is supported by the power industry, but opposed by environmental groups, which largely supported the effluent limits except for one provision dealing with legacy wastewater, and groups representing drinking water utilities.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109463927&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109463927&jd=109463927
-
Environmentalists Oppose Pausing Oil & Gas Methane Rule Suit
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
A coalition of environmental groups is opposing EPA's request to hold in abeyance litigation over the agency's first-time methane emissions limits for new oil and gas equipment, saying that the agency is wrong to claim that its administrative review of the rules “of unknown length and uncertain outcome” warrants indefinitely pausing the suit.
However, the environmentalists in an April 14 filing say they would not oppose a 90-day extension of the deadline to submit proposed briefing schedules “to provide a reasonable period for EPA to determine its course of conduct.”
EPA sought abeyance in an April 7 motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in American Petroleum Institute, et al. v. EPA, et al., which challenges the oil and gas new source performance standards (NSPS) for methane, as well as two related emissions rules for the sector.
The agency cited a nascent review of the June 2016 methane standards that was prompted by President Donald Trump's recent energy executive order.
Environmentalists note that the court has granted a series of extensions in the litigation to allow the agency to address several “technical” issues in the three regulations at issue in the suit. Now, “EPA asks this Court to put this entire litigation in abeyance indefinitely while the agency conducts a 'review' of the” methane NSPS.
The groups note that they have similarly opposed abeyance requests in two separate suits over EPA's power sector greenhouse gas limits. “It would in no way compromise EPA’s regulatory review were this Court to resolve the various legal issues presented in this litigation, many of which would be relevant in any future action related to [Clean Air Act] section 111 regulations for the oil and gas sector and other industrial sectors.”
They add that they are “willing and able to defend the 2016 Rule and litigate the issues raised by its challengers even if the government is not.
However, they say a 90-day deadline extension for briefing proposals would be appropriate because the methane NSPS litigation is “in its early stages,” especially compared with the power sector suits.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-oppose-pausing-oil-gas-methane-rule-suit
-
Northern Pass Transmission Line Faces Hurdle in New Hampshire
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Adrianne Appel
Eversource Energy's proposed $1.6 billion transmission line to deliver Canadian hydropower to New England faces months of scrutiny in New Hampshire, where plans call for 192 miles of lines and towers through the White Mountains.
Winning the approval of the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee is one of the last hurdles before construction can begin in 2018. William Quinlan, Eversource president in New Hampshire, told the state's Site Evaluation Committee at a hearing April 13 that the project would produce significant savings for the state and New England.
The Northern Pass Transmission LLC project would carry 1,090 megawatts of hydropower from Hydro-Quebec into southern New England, where it could power 1.1 million homes, mostly in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Both states have aggressive renewable energy portfolios, and contracting for the Northern Pass hydropower would help satisfy their promises to use more clean energy.
In New Hampshire, however, about a dozen towns and environmental groups, including the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests, have been vocal opponents of the project. Gov. Christopher Sununu (R), who took office in January, supports it.
Public Pressure Altered Project
Eversource revised the project in 2015 to try to win over more of the New Hampshire public. It agreed to bury 60 miles of lines and eliminate 400 structures in and near the White Mountains.
It also created a $200 million Forward New Hampshire economic development fund.
New Hampshire businesses and families would save $62 million annually with the influx of the added low-cost energy, which would depress the price of electricity in the market overall, Quinlan said. Northern Pass signed an agreement in June 2016 with Hydro-Quebec to transmit power for 40 years.
Who Will Buy the Power?
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) signed a bill (H. 4568) in August 2016 calling for the state to contract for 1,200 megawatts of hydropower, plus other sources of clean energy. The state has since issued a request for proposals, and Northern Pass plans to apply for a contract by July 27. The state will make a decision by January 2018, Quinlan said.
Quinlan said he is not worried if Massachusetts decides not to purchase the project's power.
“Given the large and growing demand for clean energy across the region we believe there will be a number of opportunities for a project like Northern Pass,” Quinlan said.
Vote by Summer
The New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee estimates it will hear daily public testimony for two months before voting on the project. The committee is made up of an assistant attorney general and one member of the public.
The project's chances in front of the panel seem strong. It is chaired by Martin Honigberg, head of the Public Utilities Commission, which approved the project in October 2016. Two other members of the PUC sit on the panel, as does the head of the Department of Transportation, which also already approved the project.
Northern Pass has reached out to 244 businesses and all 12 towns that would be directly affected by construction of the project, Quinlan said.
The project, through the Forward New Hampshire Fund, has begun offering loans to businesses in the regions that would be affected by the power lines.
Fund Activity Questioned
The committee members queried Quinlan closely about Northern Pass offering $5 million from the Forward New Hampshire fund to the Balsams Resort, in Dixville, N.H.
The resort opposed the project, but now supports it.
Quinlan said the funding for the Balsams is a loan that will allow the resort to expand. It is consistent with the goals of the fund to facilitate economic development in northern New Hampshire, Quinlan said.“We recognize the Balsams’ rebirth will be transformational for the North Country,” Quinlan said. The loan “exemplifies the substantial benefits the Forward N.H. Plan will bring to New Hampshire.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109463943&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109463943&jd=109463943
-
N.Y. Fracking Ban Challenge Dismissed for Lack of Standing
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York's ban on high-volume hydraulic fracking has been settled law since 2015, but a state appeals court added one more nail in the coffin April 13.
The State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed a case by a landowner who sought clarification from the state on whether or not the fracking ban applied only to commercial properties (Morabito v. Martens, N.Y. App. Div., 3d Dep't, 523288, 4/13/17).
The plaintiff challenged a determination from the director of the Division of Mineral Resources at the state Department of Environmental Conservation, who said the ban applied to all properties.
The court said the plaintiff, a Rochester attorney who represented himself, lacked standing to bring the case because he hadn't applied for a permit, nor did he offer “any proof that he met any of the requirements to obtain a permit.”
“He offered no proof of any plans to move forward with the process and conceded that any plans would necessarily involve commitments by oil and gas exploration companies, of which he had none,” the court said in a unanimous decision by Judge Robert C. Mulvey.
“Petitioner's standing at the time of filing was no different than that of any landowner in the state; thus he lacked standing to challenge the determination.”
The plaintiff, David R. Morabito, told Bloomberg BNA that he would appeal the case to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals.
“I respectfully disagree with the Court's decision both factually and with the law,” Morabito said in an email. “At this time, I only have one more hurdle to address in order to exhaust all state remedies in New York and thus be able to proceed in our federal courts.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109463926&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109463926&jd=109463926
-
Manufacturers Worry Exports Will Drive Up Natural Gas Prices
Apr 14, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
American manufacturing companies are worried that a boom in liquefied natural gas exports will reduce domestic supply and raise prices.
The Industrial Energy Consumers of America sent a letter to Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Thursday asking his department to deny expedited approval for export permits.
Cheap natural gas will create more jobs in the U.S., the manufacturing association argues.
“Accelerating LNG exports is inconsistent with President Trump’s ‘America First’ pledge and the desire to build a sustainable manufacturing sector with growing middle class jobs,” the association says in the letter. “Instead of a focus on LNG exports, U.S. natural gas policy should focus on how to use natural gas to maximize job growth.”
Low cost natural gas, the association says, is the driver behind 264 chemical projects representing more than $161 billion in new investment announced since 2010.
LNG advocates, meanwhile, argue that there is plenty of natural gas to serve industry and export at the same time.
“Numerous independent academic papers have shown that LNG exports will be advantageous for the United States, including the Department of Energy’s own study,” said Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, an arm of the Natural Gas Supply Association. “This is not a zero sum game. The U.S. has more than enough natural gas to benefit from exports and provide affordable natural gas to consumers and manufactures at home.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/04/14/manufacturers-worry-exports-will-drive-up-natural-gas-prices/
-
EPA: No Significant Chemical Discharge From US Steel Spill
Apr 14, 2017 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
Water samples from Lake Michigan and one of its tributaries show no significant discharge of a potentially carcinogenic chemical from a U.S. Steel Corp. wastewater spill in northern Indiana, the Environmental Protection Agency said Friday.
Results from about 200 water samples showed no significant trace of the chemical hexavalent chromium in the lake or the tributary called Burns Waterway after the Tuesday spill at U.S. Steel's Midwest Plant in Portage, about 30 miles east of Chicago, the agency said.
U.S. Steel said it expected "a controlled, phased and highly monitored restart" would begin Friday at the plant while the EPA and other government agencies conduct water and soil sampling. The restart would occur while a water company's nearby intake remained closed and access to parks and beaches in the area remained restricted, U.S. Steel said.
The plant has sat idle since Tuesday, when the company said an expansion joint failed in a pipe, allowing wastewater to flow into the wrong treatment plant at the Portage complex. That wastewater eventually flowed into Burns Waterway at a point about 100 yards from Lake Michigan.
"Preliminary results of water samples collected by EPA from Burns Waterway and Lake Michigan, including Indiana American Water's intake, on April 12, do not indicate hexavalent chromium impacts in either water body. All results were below EPA's method detection limit of 1 part per billion," the EPA said.
However, the Chicago Department of Water Management said Thursday that its own water sample from Lake Michigan about a mile north of the spill contained 2 parts per billion of hexavalent chromium. That's "a level higher than would be expected to be found in raw lake water," the department said, but just a fraction of the EPA's drinking water standard of 100 parts per billion for all forms of chromium.
U. S. Steel said the restart would begin with operations that do not use chromium and would include water sampling every two hours.
"If elevated levels of chromium are detected, all operations will be immediately shutdown," the company said. "If all non-chromium-involved lines restart successfully and sampling is acceptable, the lines that involve chromium would be restarted in the same controlled, phased, and highly monitored manner."
U.S. Steel issued a statement Thursday evening saying it had identified the source of the spill and "has made the necessary repairs."
The EPA said it recommended that U.S. Steel delay the restart until the agency had sufficient data to show there were no lingering effects to the tributary or Lake Michigan. The agency said it reviewed the restart plan, as did the National Park Service, which closed three beaches at nearby Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
The EPA has said hexavalent chromium — a toxic byproduct of industrial processes — might be carcinogenic if ingested. The toxic heavy metal is used in a variety of industrial processes, including steelmaking and corrosion prevention, and as a pigment in dyes, paints and inks. It's also found in ash from coal-fired power plants.
A case involving the chemical was made famous by the 2000 film "Erin Brockovich," which was based on a utility's disposal of water laced with hexavalent chromium in unlined ponds near Hinkley, California. That disposal method polluted drinking water wells and resulted in a $333 million settlement.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/04/14/us/ap-us-us-steel-chemical-spill.html
-
Editorial: A Chemical Spill, Too Close for Comfort
Apr 14, 2017 | Chicago Tribune
By Editorial Board
Two beaches at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore had to be closed Tuesday and the National Park Service announced that "people and their pets should have no contact with the water of Lake Michigan or Burns Waterway in the West Beach and Portage Lakefront areas."
The problem wasn't the familiar one of a high bacteria level, caused by leaky septic systems or farm runoff. It was something more alarming: a chemical spill from a U.S. Steel plant.
The chemical, hexavalent chromium, was accidentally discharged into a waterway just 100 yards from Lake Michigan, which provides drinking water for some 10 million people. None has been detected in the lake itself. You may not know the name, but if you've seen the movie "Erin Brockovich," you know this chemical as the pollutant found in the water supply in Hinkley, Calif., and blamed for cancer and other illnesses in residents. Pacific Gas & Electric eventually paid a $333 million settlement for its role in the contamination.
The exact risk posed by this chemical is subject to debate, but no one disputes that it's a potent toxin. Inhaled, it can cause lung cancer. On skin, it can produce irritation and ulcers. A 2008 report by the federal government's National Toxicology Program said that when ingested by lab animals in drinking water, it causes oral and small intestine cancers.
"Even a single gallon of hexavalent chromium could contaminate billions of gallons of drinking water," David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, told the Tribune's Michael Hawthorne.
The metal has been found in Chicago's drinking water, in amounts lower than the maximum allowed in California but higher than the goal set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in 2011. The Environmental Protection Agency has yet to set a specific standard for this type of chromium. It has been at work on a review of its health effects for years, but has yet to draft a regulation based on that review.
These are among the many responsibilities of this federal agency, a prime target of President Donald Trump's proposed budget cuts. His plan calls for reducing its appropriations by nearly a third and getting rid of one-fifth of its employees — the biggest suggested hit for any agency. The program that covers the EPA assessment of hexavalent chromium would be eliminated altogether.
Trump's rejection of President Barack Obama's efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is well known, reflecting the Republican Party's skepticism about the human contribution to global warming. Combating climate change is a new and formidable task for the EPA, and the efficacy and cost of such efforts make it a contentious topic of debate.
But assuring clean air and water is an old and fundamental task of federal regulators, as set out in environmental laws passed under the Republican administration of Richard Nixon nearly half a century ago. And it's not controversial. No one wants his or her family to have to breathe polluted air or drink unsafe water. No one wants to face the sort of dangers inflicted on the residents of Flint, Mich.
The question about this type of chromium is what concentration in drinking water is unsafe. Making that determination is up to the EPA, and it won't get done if the agency is deprived of the resources needed for that job. Before Congress agrees to Trump's cuts, lawmakers need to carefully assess what the public expects from the agency — and what is required to meet those needs.
It's easy to forget that some of what the federal government does in the way of regulation is valuable and popular. A toxic spill 100 yards from your drinking water supply is a bracing reminder.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-epa-chemical-spill-lake-michigan-edit-0417-md-20170414-story.html
-
U.S. Steel Restarts Plant After Lake Michigan Chemical Spill
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Stephen Joyce
U.S. Steel started its Portage, Ind., plant back up April 14 following a chemical spill that sent unknown quantities of chromium into a Lake Michigan tributary earlier in the week.
The EPA's preliminary results indicated no negative impacts from the hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6, in samplings from the tributary and Lake Michigan. But, Indiana American Water Works Co., which supplies water to about 130,000 customers, announced it will keep its Lake Michigan intake closed until at least April 17. The National Park Service won't open beaches along Lake Michigan near the facility while water-quality sampling continues.
The spill could influence an ongoing Environmental Protection Agency evaluation of the effects of chromium on water quality. The EPA's current total chromium drinking water standard is 0.1 milligrams per liter (mg/l) or 100 parts per billion for total chromium. The agency is reviewing the standard to determine whether it should be revised.
A 2008 Department of Health and Human Service's National Toxicology Program suggested chromium-6 may be a human carcinogen if ingested. EPA guidance issued Jan. 11, 2011, recommended certain surface water systems sample their source water, plant treated water and water in the distribution system for chromium-6 on a quarterly basis.
U.S. Steel spokeswoman Erin DiPietro did not immediately respond to a request from Bloomberg BNA for comment April 14. The company said the restart of the plant was “phased and highly monitored.” The Indiana Department of Environmental Management referred queries to the EPA.
Same Day Response
The EPA sent emergency responders to the Portage facility on April 11, the same day U.S. Steel notified the agency of the chemical release. The EPA collected approximately 200 water samples from the tributary, the Burns Waterway, and Lake Michigan from April 11 to April 13. Preliminary data suggest the chemical had not migrated into material amounts to the lake.
The Pittsburgh-based company told the EPA April 12 that all chemical discharges had stopped, the agency said. U.S. Steel, whose facility conducts metal-plating operations, said in an April 14 statement it continues to be in compliance with all applicable water permit limits. The EPA, Indiana Department of Environmental Management and National Park Service staff were on site April 14, continuing to mitigate and monitor for damages from the discharge.
State environmental agencies located across the Great Lakes basin are monitoring their water supplies for any harmful effects from the spill.“
Right now we are monitoring to determine if any contaminates have made it to Michigan drinking water,” Melody Kindraka, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, told Bloomberg BNA in an April 14 email. “Sampling so far has not returned any concerns.”
Local, State Involvement
“Illinois EPA has and will continue to actively monitor the situation and to consult with the U.S. EPA and the City of Chicago as precautionary sampling is conducted to ensure the safety of the drinking water,” Alec Messina, director at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, said in an April 14 statement. “We stand ready to assist federal, and local officials as needed.”
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said in an April 13 statement “good luck, and not good actions by U.S. Steel” was why chromium-6 hadn't been detected in the water supply of Chicago, which is less than 40 miles away from the plant on Lake Michigan.
Emanuel also used the spill to highlight his opposition to President Donald Trump's proposed 31 percent cut to the EPA budget for fiscal 2018. “[T]this incident is a warning to us all that if the Trump administration's plan to cripple the EPA is enacted, there will be no one left to protect residents from bad actors like U.S. Steel,” he said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109463942&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109463942&jd=109463942
-
BP Struggles to Control Damaged Well in Alaskan Arctic
Apr 16, 2017 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
The British oil giant BP worked through the weekend to control a damaged oil well on Alaska’s remote North Slope that had started spewing natural gas vapors on Friday morning, the company and Alaska officials said.
There have been no injuries or reports of damage to wildlife, but crews trying to secure the well have failed amid frigid winds gusting to 38 miles an hour.
Alaskan and federal officials have identified two leaks venting methane gas, a powerful greenhouse gas linked to climate change. While some crude has sprayed out of the well with the gas, BP said infrared cameras on a flight over the site appeared to confirm that the oil released was contained on the gravel pad surrounding the well head and did not reach the tundra.
By Sunday afternoon, crews had shut down one leak with a surface safety valve, but the second leak, although reduced, was still spouting gas, federal and state officials said. Specialists from Boots and Coots, a well control company, were arriving in the area on Sunday to assist in closing down the well.
The damaged well is on state land several miles outside Deadhorse, a remote town.
“Crews are on the scene and are developing plans to bring the well under control,” said Brett Clanton, a BP spokesman, “and safety will remain our top priority as we move through this process.”
He said that it was unknown how much gas had leaked and that the company would investigate the causes of the accident after repairs were made.
Oil workers operating near the well were evacuated because of the possibility of an explosion.
There are large quantities of gas in the northern Alaskan fields around Prudhoe Bay in part because, without enough pipelines to bring it to market, oil companies have been pumping excess gas back into the ground for decades.
“The cause of the discharge is unknown at this time,” federal and state officials said in a statement late on Saturday. The statement said that an effort to secure the well on Friday night “was unsuccessful due to safety concerns and damage to a well pressure gauge.”
BP has struggled to repair its reputation since the disastrous Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 that killed 11 rig workers. The new leak in an established production well, however, has little in common with the blowout of the ill-fated well in the Gulf of Mexico. That well was drilled for exploration purposes, and the accident was caused by a series of errors by BP and its service companies.
Nevertheless, environmentalists were critical of BP.
“Anytime you have an uncontrolled well, that is bad performance,” said Lois Epstein, the Arctic program director for the Wilderness Society, a conservation organization. “Deepwater Horizon was visible to everybody. The North Slope is far away and out of sight, out of mind to the public, and that’s why you and I are having a hard time getting the details.”
This was just the latest in a series of leaks from petroleum operations that have plagued Alaska in recent months, although leaks have been rare on the North Slope. Last week, divers placed a clamp over a gash in an underwater Hilcorp Alaska pipeline in Cook Inlet, halting the flow of millions of cubic feet of natural gas.
Alaskan oil production has been in a sharp decline in recent years as output from shale fields in Texas and North Dakota has come to dominate the industry. But the state may be poised for an oil renaissance, even after several companies have moved away from exploration offshore.
ConocoPhillips, Repsol of Spain and Caelus Energy of Dallas have announced giant discoveries in recent months that could raise the state’s production considerably, especially if oil prices rise in the years to come.
Some environmentalists seized on the new accident to campaign against all Arctic drilling. “This underscores the hazard and harm of drilling for oil in the Arctic and shows, yet again, that we have no business exposing more of this irreplaceable habitat to the peril of these inherently dangerous industrial operations,” said Bob Deans, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/business/bp-damaged-oil-well-alaskan-arctic.html
-
Industry Suggestions to Trim Regulations Take Aim at EPA
Apr 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
President Trump’s call for suggestions to reduce the regulatory burden facing manufacturers has turned up a number of ideas from industry groups – many targeting the EPA.
A large batch of the 175 comments the federal government has received target the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Labor Department.
Repealing Obama-era rules that aim to protect the air, water and workers were popular suggestions from industry groups, according to the Washington Post.
The Commerce Department is overseeing the process.
This is just the latest push by the Trump administration to tackle Obama-era regulations.
On the night of Trump’s inauguration, the White House ordered federal agencies to adhere to a strict regulatory moratorium.
The president has since issued several executive orders requiring agencies to trim the number of rules on their books.
Trump has also signed 13 resolutions passed by Congress to disapprove of Obama-era regulations.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329044-industry-suggestions-to-trim-regulations-take-aim-at-epa
-
Trump Officials to Deliberate on Paris Climate Pact
Apr 14, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Top Trump administration officials plan to meet next week to decide whether the U.S. should end its participation in the Paris climate agreement.
Politico reported Friday that the meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday at the White House.
As planned, the meeting would include National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, senior adviser Jared Kushner and chief strategist Stephen Bannon, Politico said.
They’re hoping to come to a consensus and recommend to President Trump whether he should stick to his campaign promise to pull the United States out of the non-binding global warming accord.
A White House spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment Friday on the Politico report.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said last month that Trump would decide a course of action on Paris before a meeting of leading industrial nations scheduled for late May.
Whatever his choice, Trump is unlikely to seek policies that would meet the 26 to 28 percent emissions cut that former President Obama promised for the U.S.
Trump and his administration are working to repeal nearly all of Obama’s climate agenda, including the Clean Power Plan, which would have done the most to meet the goals.
Bannon and Pruitt are the main forces opposing the Paris pact and pushing for Trump to pull out.
Pruitt has been outspoken in his opposition. He told “Fox & Friends” Thursday that the pact is “something we need to exit in my opinion and “a bad deal for America,” in part because nations like India and China are subject to what he sees as weaker standards.
Bannon, who used to lead the far-right website Breitbart News, is generally opposed to international governance and climate change policy.
Kushner is one of the main proponents of the pact, along with Tillerson, a former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp.
To them, it’s best to retain the Paris agreement as a diplomatic tool and to keep a seat at the table on international climate policy.
Trump may also choose to stay in the agreement and reduce the emissions commitment. Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and coal producer Cloud Peak Energy are among those asking for that outcome.
The accord was reached in 2015, with nearly 200 nations committing to limit their carbon dioxide emissions, thanks in large part to efforts by Obama. Since the cuts are not binding, Obama never submitted it for Senate ratification as a treaty, something that would have been nearly certain to fail.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/328894-trump-officials-to-deliberate-on-paris-climate-pact
-
California's Top Court Should Review Carbon Auction: Industry
Apr 17, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Carolyn Whetzel
California businesses and industry groups want the state's Supreme Court to review a recent appeals court decision declaring the state's carbon cap-and-trade allowance auctions lawful.
Only the state's highest court “can effectively review and resolve” the issues in this case, Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney Tony Francois, said in an April 14 statement announcing plans to challenge the decision.
The 2–1 opinion from the state Court of Appeals in Sacramento affirmed a trial court and rejected the claims by Morning Start Packing Co., the California Chamber of Commerce and others that the auctions amount to an illegal tax under Proposition 13—which requires a super-majority vote for taxes. The court also disagreed with plaintiffs’ claims that state regulators lacked authority under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (A.B. 32) to create the auction.“
Driven by a ravenous appetite for revenue, the state has given some of our most significant business and employers an offer they can't refuse—either buy emissions permits or get out of California,” Francois said. “The state Supreme Court needs to decide whether this strong-arm ultimatum is really, as the appellate court majority called it, a ‘voluntary’ arrangement that is somehow different and distinct from compulsory taxation.”
California's economywide cap-and-trade program is one of the state's key climate policies. It sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions for largest emitters. Covered entities, including oil refineries, electricity generators and transportation fuels and natural gas distributors, must meet declining annual emissions caps eitherby reducing emissions or purchasing allowances. They also have the option of selling excess allowances.
PLF represents Morning Star Packing Co. Woodland, Calif., tomato processor; Merit Oil Co., California Construction Trucking Association, Dalton Trucking Inc., Loggers Association of Northern California, Ron Cinquini Farming, Robinson Enterprises Inc., Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, the National Tax Limitation Committee and others.
The California Chamber of Commerce hasn't yet decided whether it will seek review of the decision.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109463934&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109463934&jd=109463934
-
EPA Staff Policy Assessment Recommends Retaining Existing NO2 NAAQS
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA staff in a final policy assessment (PA) is recommending that the the agency leave unchanged its primary “health-based” nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), in line with advice from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that said the limit is adequate to protect public health.
In the PA published in the April 14 Federal Register, EPA staff recommends that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt retain the existing primary ozone NAAQS set at 100 ppb over one hour, which staff says is adequate to protect public health with the “adequate margin of safety” required under the Clean Air Act. The PA document will inform EPA's ultimate decision to tighten the NAAQS, leave it unchanged or make it less stringent.
The recommendation is backed by CASAC, which advises EPA on where to set the level and form of the NAAQS. CASAC agreed with EPA's assessment that NO2 directly causes short-term respiratory harm, such as worsened asthma symptoms, but that the evidence for other health effects such as long-term respiratory damage or cardiovascular effects is less conclusive.
However, CASAC in a March 7 letter to Pruitt says EPA should pursue further research on possible health effects that occur below the 100 ppb limit. The Obama EPA tightened the standard to 100 ppb in 2010, using a novel one-hour averaging time, in order to protect against brief spikes in pollution. An older annual standard of 53 ppb, dating from 1971, remains in effect.
The agency in that rule also required states to establish a new near-road monitoring network, as the highest NO2 levels are generally found near the roadway. But NO2 levels have fallen significantly and even close to the road, EPA staff says in the PA, they are not found at levels that would endanger health.
EPA staff concludes that “it is appropriate to consider retaining the current primary NO2 standards, without revision, in this review. Accordingly, staff have not identified potential alternative standards for consideration.”
“In staff’s view, there is appreciable uncertainty regarding the degree to which reductions in asthma exacerbations or asthma development would result from alternative NO2 standards with levels lower than those of the current standards.”
CASAC in its letter to the agency says it “concurs with the EPA that the current scientific literature does not support a revision to the primary NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide.”
However, “CASAC notes that there is a future research need for more data from micro-scale environments such as on-road or sidewalk urban canyons, which may have some of the highest ambient NO2 concentrations.” Also, there is “limited and uncertain evidence of possible adverse effects at lower NO2 concentrations, such as 85 to 90 ppb,” and EPA should conduct research into these effects for the next review cycle, CASAC says.
The air law requires EPA to conduct NAAQS reviews every five years, but the agency habitually misses those deadlines. EPA's timetable for completing the current NO2 NAAQS review is unclear.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-staff-policy-assessment-recommends-retaining-existing-no2-naaqs
-
EPA Plan to Ease CWA Enforcement May Face Hurdles in Circuit Courts
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA's plan to ease or drop Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement that used a test by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy for determining when waters are subject to the law and shift to a narrower test by the last Justice Antonin Scalia may face hurdles in some federal circuit courts that have already issued rulings upholding Kennedy's test, sources say.
The legal barriers could also create uncertainty over EPA's pending effort to overhaul the Obama administration's CWA jurisdiction rule that used the Kennedy test and replace it with a rule using Scalia's test.
The Obama administration issued its Clean Water Rule -- known by some as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule -- in 2015, prompting myriad federal district and appellate court suits over the regulation. President Donald Trump, GOP lawmakers, some states, and industry groups argue the rule takes a far more expansive view of the water law than Congress ever intended, while environmentalists claim it is too narrow.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit litigation on the merits of the rule is on hold while the Supreme Court weighs litigation over whether district or appellate courts should first hear lawsuits over it.
Even with the litigation pending, Trump on Feb. 28 issued an executive order forcing EPA to rewrite the WOTUS rule based on Scalia's test -- a move that now appears to be causing EPA to slow CWA enforcement.
The plans to scale back enforcement are based on an internal document reviewed by Inside EPA that shows enforcement staff have been directed to quickly compile a list of ongoing enforcement cases based on the expansive “significant nexus” test by Kennedy in the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States. Rapanos was a 4-4-1 ruling: Kennedy in his opinion creating his test, Scalia joined by the three conservatives on his test, and the four liberals seeking a more expansive definition of CWA jurisdiction.
In the meantime, EPA and the courts must continue to use case-by-case jurisdictional determinations in potential CWA enforcement cases. After the 6th Circuit stayed implementation of the WOTUS rule, the Obama administration said it would continue using a 2008 George W. Bush administration guidance that seeks to use either test on a case-by-case basis, crafted to implement the divided Rapanos ruling.
That guidance has now been in place for nearly a decade. When it was first issued, environmentalists warned it could create confusion, though industry was generally supportive.
While many legal experts note that EPA has significant enforcement discretion and can change its position at will -- including as it crafts a new WOTUS rule to narrow the law's reach -- several sources point out that those efforts may be complicated by circuit courts that have already ruled the Kennedy test is the one that must be used within the circuit. The fact that several courts have endorsed use of the Kennedy test could create legal vulnerabilities for EPA enforcement actions based on the Scalia test, say industry and environmentalist attorneys.
Circuit Rulings
Since the Rapanos ruling, eight circuits have issued their own WOTUS jurisdictional holdings and of those, none have exclusively endorsed the Scalia test. The 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits say that only the Kennedy test applies. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 8th say that either test applies. The 4th Circuit is unsettled on the dispute, holding that wetlands at issue would be jurisdictional under either test so it did not have to choose.
The circuits based their decisions in part using a different Supreme Court ruling, Marks v. United States from 1977, that describes how to implement a plurality holding such as Rapanos.
“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds,” the Marks decision says.
Thad Lightfoot, an attorney with Dorsey Whitney and a clean water law expert who used to work at the Department of Justice (DOJ), tells Inside EPA April 10, “I think it will be difficult for the Trump administration to use a narrow test in circuits where the court of appeals has said the Kennedy test controls.”
He added, “In a circuit where a court of appeals has said the controlling precedent coming out of Rapanos is the application of Kennedy's test, I don't know that the administration has the enforcement discretion or the ability to interpose and enforce the interpretation that the Scalia test should control.”
However, at least two other industry attorneys note the vast enforcement discretion that EPA and DOJ have in such matters, especially in CWA jurisdictional cases where industry defendants are unlikely to complain and environmentalists have not intervened.
These sources note that it would not be surprising if environmental groups are contemplating strategic citizen suits in circuits that have backed the Kennedy test.
Lightfoot says, however, the circuit courts on their own may push back against an effort to use a less-stringent test. “I'm not sure the [Army] Corps [of Engineers] and EPA can ignore that and apply Scalia. And the party that might say that isn't a party at all. It might be the court [that says], 'We held as a matter of law coming out of Rapanos'” that the Kennedy test controls. “It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It may vary circuit to circuit.”
Reed Hopper, a senior attorney with the free-market Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) has been seeking to win a court ruling endorsing the Scalia-only test and has sought unsuccessfully to get the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. He tells Inside EPA April 11 that the status quo may persist for now, until EPA issues a revised WOTUS rule, especially in circuits that have endorsed the Kennedy test.
However, Hopper says that does not mean that the administration cannot hold off or drop enforcement cases based on its desire to use the Scalia test.
While the circuits that have endorsed it would be likely to continue to apply the Kennedy approach, the government could delay a case if it did not feel like it could get a court to “buy into” a Scalia test before a new WOTUS rule is issued, he says. DOJ would “hold off litigation or slow things enough that you don't get to court.”
Separately, Fox News reported April 13 that an oil and gas company is urging the Trump DOJ to end an Obama-era enforcement action in response to the president's WOTUS executive order, arguing that that case would never have happened if the narrower Scalia test was applied. However, environmentalists note that executive orders cannot by themselves withdraw regulations.
Pending Litigation
n the meantime, PLF is pursuing a case in the 9th Circuit, Duarte Nursery v. Corps of Engineers, et al, where it is seeking to persuade the circuit to switch from its original position backing the broader Kennedy test, which Hopper says it did without explanation, and instead endorse Scalia's test.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has rejected its argument that a 2016 9th Circuit ruling in United States v. Davis, addressing the question of how to apply Marks in general, should override the endorsement of the Kennedy test. But the district court rejected that argument in a March 24 order and PLF is seeking appeal.
Hopper also argues that a proper reading of Marks shows the Scalia test is the one that should be controlling and that the circuits that have interpreted otherwise are incorrect because they have relied on the dissenting opinion in Rapanos to determine the narrowest grounds on which the opinions agree.
Hopper says Marks allows only the concurring opinions to be factors. “So they erred right off the bat,” he says. “And so the question is which [test] is a logical subset of the other, and any fair reading of the Rapanos decision will reveal that the Kennedy test is a broader test, in that it takes in more waters than the Scalia test . . . And so that means that the Scalia test is a logical subset because it takes in fewer waters. So whenever the Scalia test is satisfied, Justice Kennedy would agree that the water is covered. That means you've got four [justices] in the plurality, plus Kennedy makes five, a majority, and that's a perfect Marks analysis.”
Hopper has written about this in a forthcoming article to be published this fall in the University of Denver Water Law Review that explains his view on how courts are misreading Marks.
EPA Enforcement
Additionally, some environmentalists see some parallels between eased Trump EPA WOTUS enforcement and Bush-era new source review (NSR) enforcement under the Clean Air Act.
One source says that the Bush EPA put its NSR enforcement “on ice” while it sought to ease NSR regulations, and then enforced on the cases that would be flagrant violations under their relaxed policies. This source expects environmental groups to bring citizen suits under WOTUS as they did under NSR.
A second source notes one of those enforcement cases, Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke, went to the Supreme Court, which sided with environmentalists.
The first source adds that the Bush-era NSR rulemaking effort was largely unsuccessful as the administration was able to make some minor changes but lost its bid to effectively eviscerate the program, which requires modern-day pollution controls at old facilities that upgrade.
As far as efforts to redo WOTUS, these sources note that in the meantime, the Trump administration is stuck with case-by-case determinations and that a new final rule adopting the Scalia test would set up automatic conflicts in a circuit that has endorsed Kennedy, laying the groundwork to seek a stay of any new WOTUS rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-plan-ease-cwa-enforcement-may-face-hurdles-circuit-courts
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested