Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 06/06/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) David Vitter Tackles Energy Issues at New Orleans Law Firm
Jun 6, 2017 | Bloomberg Big Law Business
By Rachel Leven
Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has joined Butler Snow LLP to work on energy issues, the law firm announced June 6. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Commits To Ending PMN Backlog By August
Jun 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced plans to "fully eliminate" the backlog of TSCA new chemical submissions reviews by the end of July. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s EPA Actually Seems To Be Doing A Pretty Good Job Regulating New Chemicals
Jun 6, 2017 | HuffPost
By Alexander C. Kaufman
The Environmental Protection Agency plans by next month to clear its backlog of hundreds of new chemicals waiting to be deemed safe enough to sell to the public. -
Pruitt Promises To Eliminate Chemical Review Backlog By July
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA announced yesterday that it has halved the backlog of new chemicals under review from roughly 300 to 150 and plans to fully eliminate it by the end of next month. -
FY18 Cuts To EPA CompTox Research Could Hinder TSCA Implementation
Jun 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Significant cuts to EPA's computational toxicology research efforts could stymie the agency's ongoing efforts to implement sweeping revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which include mandates for the agency to reduce animal testing and craft a strategy to adopt non-animal toxicity testing methods. -
Pace And Outcomes Of EPA New Chemical Reviews Appear To Be On Track
Jun 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday updated its website to provide a current snapshot of the status of new chemical reviews it has been conducting under last year’s amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
US EPA Issues Snurs For 37 Chemicals
Jun 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Franklin
The US EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (Snurs) for 37 chemicals that were subject to pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). The applicable review period for each ended prior to passage of the Lautenberg Act on 22 June 2016. -
Getting Risk Right: Geoffrey Kabat's Guide To Resisting Health Scares
Jun 5, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Jon Entine
Type “BPA” and “toxic” into Google and you get more than 500,000 results, many detailing how this chemical additive, which is used to strengthen plastics and line metal cans to prevent food poisoning, is disrupting your endocrine system and slowly killing you. It’s in your urine! It’s in your blood! -
Standard Filters Don't Work On PFC Contamination
Jun 6, 2017 | Denver Post (In E&E Greenwire)
By Bruce Finley
Carbon filters being installed by communities in Colorado to remove toxic chemicals from drinking water are failing to fully remove the chemicals, according to researchers at the Colorado School of Mines. -
Industry Holds Ground On Battle Over Product Labels
Jun 6, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
By Laurel Rosenhall
California lawmakers have been pushing for new labels on products such as nail polish, cleaning supplies and garden plants in an effort to tell people more about what they buy at the store. -
Council Of The European Union Releases BSR Conventions Statements
Jun 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Council of the European Union has released a compilation of statements delivered at the recent meetings of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BSR) Conventions. -
Enviros Spar With Critics Over Future Of Fracking Rule Case
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Friends and foes of the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule squared off yesterday over whether a legal battle should advance while the Trump administration reconsiders the regulation. -
Dow Chemical Completes Texas Plastics Plant
Jun 6, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Dow Chemical said Tuesday it completed construction of its new plastics plant south of Houston as it nears finalizing its overall expansion effort. -
Court Gives EPA 10 Days To Justify Delay Of Oil Rules
Jun 6, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered EPA to respond by June 15 to environmental groups' lawsuit over the agency's 90-day stay of key methane leak detection and repair requirements for new oil and gas wells. -
19 State AGs Pledge To Enforce Pact
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Democratic attorneys general promised today to keep fighting climate change in the wake of President Trump's announced exit from the Paris Agreement. -
Trump Ignites Climate Pledges With Paris Order
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Anne C. Mulkern
Governors, mayors and CEOs are clamoring to sign onto a slate of new climate pacts organized over the weekend after President Trump announced he would leave the Paris Agreement. -
Former EPA Official Perciasepe Talks 'We Are Still In' Coalition, Business Response To Paris Exit
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E TV
By Monica Trauzzi
During today's OnPoint, Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and a former deputy administrator at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration, discusses the influence this coalition could have in international climate discussions. -
Post-Trump, Climate Boosters Hedge On U.S. Emissions Pledge
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Bloomberg Philanthropies will work with a coalition of governors, mayors and business leaders who have pledged "we are still in" the Paris Agreement to quantify greenhouse gas reductions.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) David Vitter Tackles Energy Issues at New Orleans Law Firm
Jun 6, 2017 | Bloomberg Big Law Business
By Rachel Leven
Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has joined Butler Snow LLP to work on energy issues, the law firm announced June 6.
Vitter, who served as ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee from 2013 to 2015, will practice law in the firm’s New Orleans office. He will also keep his job as co-chairman of Mercury Public Affairs, where he is registered to lobby the Trump administration on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and others.
“David has a long and successful track record as a legislator and political leader,” Donald Clark, Jr., chairman of Butler Snow, said in a statement. “His significant experience, especially in helping lead major public policy and economic development initiatives, makes him a really valuable addition to Butler Snow in Louisiana.”
Vitter left the Senate following a failed run to be Louisiana’s governor. He served in the House from 1999 to 2005 and Senate from 2005 to 2017, and is known for his leading role in helping pass legislation including a landmark chemical law—the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) — and for holding up then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to be EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, for more than 100 days due to transparency concerns.
https://bol.bna.com/david-vitter-tackles-energy-issues-at-new-orleans-law-firm/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Commits To Ending PMN Backlog By August
Jun 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced plans to "fully eliminate" the backlog of TSCA new chemical submissions reviews by the end of July.
It says it has already cut in half the pile up of cases under review, from roughly 300 to 150.
This number had climbed as high as 600 at the beginning of the year: as the agency struggled to keep pace reviewing new submissions under the law’s changed mandates, while simultaneously reassessing the hundreds of submissions that had been in progress when the Lautenberg Act was passed last year.
The agency says it has added temporary new staff to make the pre-manufacture notice (PMN) review process more efficient. And it is working with manufacturers to ensure it has all information it needs to stay within the required 90-day review period.
"We are committed to working with companies to gather all the relevant information early in the process, to inform safety reviews for new chemicals," added EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
The agency has also pledged to release weekly online updates on the review status of chemicals, "to increase transparency for the public and the regulated community".Industry welcomes improvements
The American Chemistry Council’s president and CEO, Cal Dooley, applauded the agency’s news.
The new TSCA law "demanded that EPA deliver a higher quality new chemicals review, with greater transparency and on schedule – and EPA is now making solid progress towards achieving these statutory objectives," he said.
The agency’s announcement comes amid mounting discontent from industry groups over the pace of PMNs review since TSCA’s reform last June.
Under the new law, the EPA is now required to make an "affirmative finding" of safety for both the known and "reasonably foreseen" uses of a new substance. This has resulted in the agency requesting additional information from submitters, an increase in consent orders and slower turnaround time.
Industry has complained that the uptick in the percentage of regulated substances is stifling innovation, and that the slowdown is disrupting supply chains.
And in comments to the Department of Commerce earlier this spring, chemical manufacturers called the TSCA new chemicals programme one of the biggest regulatory burdens impeding domestic manufacturing.
But Mr Dooley says that, in just the last month, "significant progress has been made to relieve the backlog."
"We welcome the administrator’s commitment to have the programme functioning smoothly again by the end of July," he added.New substance statistics
Accompanying the announcement, the agency released an initial batch of statistics on the new chemicals review programme.
The agency says that, in a typical year, it receives about 1,000 new chemical notices. The 90-day review periods mean that under normal circumstances it should be reviewing around 300 PMNs at a time.
But when the Lautenberg Act was signed into law, it treated as newly submitted the 334 new chemicals cases it was already reviewing, even as new submissions continued to stream in. This resulted in a sizeable backlog.
The agency says it saw a total of 1,364 new substance cases in the period from 22 June 2016 to the end of May. This includes PMNs, microbial commercial activity notices (Mcans), significant new use notices (Snuns) and low-volume and other exemptions.
As of 30 May, it had completed reviews on 843 of these, and was still working on 443 others. It found 78 to be invalid or incomplete.
Of the 373 reviews completed for PMNs, Mcans and Snuns during this same period, the agency made the following determinations:81 were found "not likely" to present unreasonable risk and allowed to commercialise without restriction;178 were allowed to commercialise with restrictions – such as through a TSCA section 5(e) consent order and accompanying significant new use rule (Snur) – due to a "may present an unreasonable risk" or insufficient information finding;three were barred from commercialisation pending development of information due to a "may present" finding; andnone received a "will present an unreasonable risk" designation, which would have led to a section 5(f) or 6(a) rule to ban it.
The original submitters withdrew the remaining 111 cases.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56646/epa-commits-to-ending-pmn-backlog-by-august
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s EPA Actually Seems To Be Doing A Pretty Good Job Regulating New Chemicals
Jun 6, 2017 | HuffPost
By Alexander C. Kaufman
The Environmental Protection Agency plans by next month to clear its backlog of hundreds of new chemicals waiting to be deemed safe enough to sell to the public.
So far, despite giving deference to the chemical industry and adding lobbyists to its ranks, the agency has flagged nearly half the new products submitted by companies for review.
Of the 373 new chemicals reviewed so far, 178 ― 48 percent ― were allowed to go to market only with significant limitations and guidelines. Eighty-one, or 22 percent, were given the green light to commercialize without restrictions. Just three were turned down for presenting an unreasonable risk, and none were banned.
“If you look at those statistics ― 22 percent go onto the market ― that’s 1 out of every 5, and it used to be the inverse of that,” Richard Denison, lead scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, told HuffPost by phone on Monday. “That’s a pretty dramatic change.”
The process for approving new chemical products changed last June when then-President Barack Obama signed into law an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act, mandating safety reviews for all new chemicals, replacing a cost-benefit standard with a health-based safety one and setting aggressive, enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions
The EPA reviews about 1,000 chemicals per year, and the passage of the law forced the agency to reappraise droves of chemicals, creating a logjam. On Monday, the EPA said it planned to reach decisions on the remaining 150 chemicals by July.
“The EPA is flagging many more chemicals than it did in the past, and is imposing more restrictions or testing requirements on those chemicals than ever before,” Denison said. “I can’t give an independent judgment on whether what they’re doing is enough, but it’s a lot more than it used to be.”
The approval process for new chemicals was so lax before that companies used to submit chemicals they didn’t even plan to bring to market, Denison said. Now that the process is more onerous, companies are withdrawing chemicals they don’t plan to sell. Between June 2016 and May 2017, companies rescinded 111 submissions, freeing up regulators’ resources at a time when the agency has been facing historic budget cuts under the new administration.
The chemicals division has been largely spared the ax brought down by the White House on EPA programs that address climate change or environmental justice. Denison attributed the success of the new chemical guidelines to “the commitment by career program staff to implement this new law in the way Congress intended.”
But he said he is concerned about new rules for regulating existing chemicals already on the market. The EPA is still finalizing formal regulations to establish procedures for evaluating existing chemicals. During the requisite public comment period before issuing new rules, industry players made clear that they opposed the rules or wanted them significantly weakened.
I am concerned that the industry could have significant influence.Environmental Defense Fund lead scientist Richard Denison
To lead that effort, the Trump administration appointed Nancy Beck as deputy assistant EPA administrator in charge of the office that regulates the chemical industry. She previously served as a senior policy director at the American Chemical Council, an industry group whose members include Exxon Mobil Chemical, DuPont and agricultural chemical giant Monsanto.
“It’s too early to know what the fact of those rules will be, but I am concerned that the industry could have significant influence,” Denison said.
In March, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt denied a decade-old petition seeking to ban chlorpyrifos, rejecting his agency’s own review that found the insecticide, commonly sprayed on crops such as strawberries and broccoli, caused damage to fetal brains and nervous systems. Despite multiple independent studies yielding those findings, Dow Chemical, which sells the pesticide under the brand Lorsban, argued that the evidence indicating harm was inconclusive.
One of the chemicals now under review is methylene chloride. The chemical, used in paint and coating stripper, is linked to the death of a 21-year-old Tennessee man, who suffered cardiac arrest after being overcome by fumes while refinishing a bathtub.
“There have been 50 of these kinds of deaths from different uses of this chemical in recent years,” Denison said. “There’s a hugely strong case for banning this, as the agency proposed to do in December. We’re urging the agency to complete that.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-new-chemicals_us_5936b0fbe4b013c4816aff71
-
Pruitt Promises To Eliminate Chemical Review Backlog By July
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA announced yesterday that it has halved the backlog of new chemicals under review from roughly 300 to 150 and plans to fully eliminate it by the end of next month.
The updated Toxic Substances Control Act changed how EPA reviews requests for new chemicals. The agency must now make an "affirmative finding" of whether a substance presents a risk and address it before commercialization.
"We are committed to working with companies to gather all the relevant information early in the process, to inform safety reviews for new chemicals," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
"Reviewing new chemicals quickly will enable those deemed safe to enter the marketplace to support jobs and our economy," he said.
The backlog reduction comes from "prioritizing and implementing process efficiencies," like grouping the review of similar chemicals, said the agency.
Chemicals companies and some environmental groups cheered the announcement.
"Administrator Pruitt and his team at the EPA have made great progress over a very short period of time to accelerate new chemical reviews, providing American manufacturers with new and safe materials that will help drive innovation and manufacturing growth," said Mike Witt, a Dow Chemical Co. executive.
In a blog post published today, Richard Denison, lead scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, called the announcement "welcome" and urged EPA to "stay the course."
"The statistics show that, despite being faced immediately with a substantial increase in responsibilities and workload as a result of the major changes made to TSCA, EPA has made enormous progress in implementing the new requirements," he said.
The announcement did not convince everyone. Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called it a "red herring by the chemical manufacturers."
"Whether the Pruitt EPA is reviewing new chemicals or existing chemicals, the greatest threat is that they are acting in the interests of chemical manufacturers, and not the people exposed to toxic chemicals," Rosenberg said.
He said EPA's hiring of chemicals advocate Nancy Beck to help lead the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention "raises serious doubt about whether EPA will follow the law and protect public health and the environment."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/06/stories/1060055617
-
FY18 Cuts To EPA CompTox Research Could Hinder TSCA Implementation
Jun 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Significant cuts to EPA's computational toxicology research efforts could stymie the agency's ongoing efforts to implement sweeping revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which include mandates for the agency to reduce animal testing and craft a strategy to adopt non-animal toxicity testing methods.
The cut is "short-sighted. It will have significant medium to long-term consequences to [EPA's ability to] meet the requirements of the law," EPA's former toxics chief Jim Jones told Inside EPA during a brief interview at the Safer Sustainable Products Summit in Washington, D.C. on June 1. "These technologies allow the agencies to make decisions more quickly. . . . This is a meaningful way to make government more efficient."
Yet despite the proposed budget cuts, EPA officials must continue their efforts to develop and advance nascent alternatives to animal testing. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, EPA's acting toxics chief, said in keynote remarks at the June 1 summit that the agency is seeking to comply with a host of deadlines in the new TSCA reform law, including starting work on a directive due in June 2018 on "a strategy for moving away from vertebrate animal testing and moving to alternative test methods for developing toxicity information on chemicals."
She noted that EPA's toxics office staff is "working closely with our colleagues in the Office of Research and Development [(ORD)] in their [computational toxicology] program. . . and really looking to how we can bring to bear all the fantastic cutting edge science that's been going on there from in vivo to in vitro methods for assessing chemicals and developing reliable toxicity data on chemicals without using millions of animals, without taking a very long time to do the testing, without costing millions and millions of dollars."
"There is a lot of promise there and hopefully the new law that we are implementing will help incentivize and help push that work . . . Getting good information on chemicals is a huge challenge that all of us face," she added.
While President Donald Trump is proposing massive cuts to EPA's overall budget for fiscal year 2018, it also contains a $14.4 million increase for EPA's toxics office, specifically for implementing the changes to TSCA that provide the agency with new authority and responsibilities.
But like the rest of the EPA's ORD -- which faces a 46 percent reduction if Congress does not increase the proposed ORD budget, from $512.9 million in FY17 to $276.8 million -- the agency's computational toxicology research program faces substantial cuts.
EPA's National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) has been largely responsible for the agency's advances in using newer, non-animal toxicology methods, starting with ToxCast, a curated collection of high-throughput in vitro toxicity assays that have to date been used to screen thousands of chemicals. This effort has been complimented by other computational and non-animal methods to explore exposure and risk.
NCCT scientists are tasked with supporting EPA's toxics office in developing non-animal testing methods for use in implementing the new TSCA. Advancing such approaches for use by the toxics office is both a directive of the new law and a reality given the agency's need to screen tens of thousands of "existing" chemicals -- those that were already on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976 -- though many have only limited data.
Reduced Funding
The Trump EPA's FY18 Congressional Justification proposes reduced funding for certain related efforts within EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research program, which includes the computational toxicology research. It is one of six research programs within ORD.
First, it proposes a $4.5 million cut and a loss of 13 full-time equivalent employees (FTE) which "reduces resources for the development of high-throughput toxicity testing and the agency's development of improved methods for chemical evaluations."
Next, the budget proposes a drop of $14 million and 44 FTE from "development of virtual tissue models and tools that potentially can be used to conduct chemical toxicity screening to understand impacts on human development and health outcomes, while minimizing the use of animal testing."
Kate Willett, director of regulatory toxicology, risk assessment and alternatives with the U.S. Humane Society, says the cuts represent a 27 percent decrease in NCCT's budget. "Having a 27 percent increase in NCCT is horrible in itself, because that means the number of chemicals . . . the number of concentrations [of chemicals they can run through their screens] will decrease. Their ability to look at more assays is compromised," she said. "But the overall cut to ORD is bad because they need that work to understand NCCT's work."
Willett pointed in particular to the CSS research program, which includes the NCCT. Overall, the Trump EPA's proposal for CSS research is a 31 percent decrease from FY17 annualized funding levels, a drop from $89.1 million to $61.7 million.
"NCCT doesn't work in a vacuum. There are other aspects of ORD that are critical for that data to be used and applied in these other programs," Willett explained, such as adverse outcome pathway research in the broader CSS and ORD. The understanding of the cell behavior, and how to map that to whole animal biology through pathways, is essential to understand the results of high throughput non-animal assays, Willett said.
"EPA has put a lot of effort into the software to understand these, and also the biological understanding. They look at the biological mechanisms that chemicals work through," she said. "This office, which EPA has been investing so heavily in this for the past 10 years, is so essential to make their legislation work, particularly the new TSCA."
Willett's remarks echo a letter that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sent Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this year, raising concerns about one of the TSCA implementation rules underway and urging him to ensure that non-animal testing research continues to receive funding at EPA.
The March 30 letter says PETA "enthusiastically support[s] initiatives of the [ORD], the [NCCT], the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), and [Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)] that reduce animal use, and it is vital that the Agency allocate funds for their continued support. For example, the Agency's [ToxCast] initiative leads the world in developing automated, high-throughput technologies to screen thousands of chemicals rapidly, reliably, and cost-effectively. NCCT research also includes virtual tissues, advanced computer models capable of simulating how chemicals affect humans."
Budget Justification
The cuts to the computational toxicology research are puzzling, in part because the justification document lauds the program's recent achievements and lays out an ambitious description of activities for the next year.
"EPA has been a leader in developing innovative computational and high-throughput methods for efficiently screening large numbers of chemicals in a shorter amount of time and using fewer research dollars than conventional methods," the document states. "In FY 2018, CompTox research will provide essential support to agency activities across diverse regulatory frameworks (e.g., TSCA, [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act]). Novel applications can add significant efficiency and effectiveness to agency operations and provide states with the information to support effective decisions and actions."
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the bipartisan new statute reforming TSCA, adds language requiring that EPA reduce its use of animal testing while continuing to use the best available science in its risk analyses and decision making.
A new TSCA section 4(h) now calls on the EPA administrator to "reduce and replace, to the extent practicable, scientifically justified, and consistent with the policies of this title, the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances or mixtures." The new section goes on to require that EPA consider existing information, including computational toxicology and high-throughput screening before requiring any new animal testing.
Section 4(h)(2) also requires that EPA develop within two years of the law's enactment "a strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine, or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for assessing risks of injury to health or the environment of chemical substances or mixtures."
Further, EPA is to update the list of approaches that can be used and report to Congress every five years.
EPA's budget justification acknowledges this requirement in its description of new responsibilities that the toxics office must undertake in implementing the Lautenberg Act. "The amendments to TSCA also promote the use of non-animal alternative testing methodologies. The agency will publish an Alternative Testing Methods Strategy by June 2018, two years after the date of enactment, as required by the new law," the document states.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/fy18-cuts-epa-comptox-research-could-hinder-tsca-implementation
-
Pace And Outcomes Of EPA New Chemical Reviews Appear To Be On Track
Jun 6, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday updated its website to provide a current snapshot of the status of new chemical reviews it has been conducting under last year’s amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The statistics show that, despite being faced immediately with a substantial increase in responsibilities and workload as a result of the major changes made to TSCA, EPA has made enormous progress in implementing the new requirements.
Because the changes made by the Lautenberg Act to TSCA’s new chemicals program were both extensive and immediately effective upon enactment, a temporary backlog developed while EPA implemented the new requirements in reviewing both chemicals that were under review at the time of the law’s passage and those that came in subsequently.
Yesterday's announcement and the related statistics indicate that the backlog has markedly declined since January, falling from 300 to below 150 cases. In a press release EPA says it is committed to eliminating the backlog entirely by July.
Equally important in the statistics is the fact that many more chemicals are being subject to orders imposing conditions on their commercialization, relative to the old law: For about half of the reviews completed to date, EPA has issued a consent order. This is to be expected: The new law requires EPA to issue such orders whenever it either lacks sufficient information to evaluate a new chemical, or makes a risk- or exposure-based finding that indicates potential concern. In such cases, the orders must impose conditions sufficient to mitigate the concern.
Yesterday’s announcement is welcome. EPA needs to stay the course. And the chemical industry needs to recognize that restoring public and market confidence in our chemical safety system requires a robust new chemicals program.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/06/06/pace-and-outcomes-of-epa-new-chemical-reviews-appear-to-be-on-track/
-
US EPA Issues Snurs For 37 Chemicals
Jun 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Franklin
The US EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (Snurs) for 37 chemicals that were subject to pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). The applicable review period for each ended prior to passage of the Lautenberg Act on 22 June 2016.
Of these, six are subject to risk-based section 5(e) consent orders. The corresponding ‘5(e) Snurs’ are consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent orders that mitigate the potential unreasonable risk posed by the substance.
The remaining 31 substances are not subject to such orders because EPA’s review – completed prior to enactment of Lautenberg – did not find the use scenario described in the PMN to require risk mitigation measures.
Thus it is issuing ‘non 5(e) Snurs’ for these substances, which designate as a significant new use any condition that deviates from those described in the original PMN. A person wishing to take up such a use is required to inform the agency at least 90 days prior to doing so with a significant new use notification (Snun).
The agency’s greatly diminished use of non 5(e) Snurs has been a point of frustration from industry groups. Since passage of the Lautenberg Act, the EPA has increasingly been issuing consent orders on the original submitter for ‘foreseeable uses’ not named in the PMN.
Industry says this practice has resulted in delays in new substances coming to market and customer reluctance to purchase regulated chemicals.
In recent months, the EPA has signalled its intent to begin using these instruments again. Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma), says this is a "positive development".
The EPA should be applauded for its hard work in implementing new TSCA and the administration's stated commitment to eliminating the backlog of PMNs is very encouraging, he added.
But he said that because this notice involves PMN submissions pre-TSCA reform, "it doesn't have much relevance to the ongoing concerns we are having with delays and EPA's very broad interpretation of the new chemicals provision" under the reformed law.
The EPA is issuing the 37 Snurs as direct final rules. These will take effect 60 days from publication of the notice in the Federal Register, if there is no receipt of a notice to submit an adverse comment.
If the agency receives such comments before the deadline, it will withdraw the relevant Snur and reissue it as a proposed rule.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56636/us-epa-issues-snurs-for-37-chemicals
-
Getting Risk Right: Geoffrey Kabat's Guide To Resisting Health Scares
Jun 5, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Jon Entine
Type “BPA” and “toxic” into Google and you get more than 500,000 results, many detailing how this chemical additive, which is used to strengthen plastics and line metal cans to prevent food poisoning, is disrupting your endocrine system and slowly killing you. It’s in your urine! It’s in your blood!
The first Google page is dominated by dire warnings of imminent health catastrophes, some even linking to articles on presumably legitimate websites, such as Newsweek, Mother Jones, Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): Infertility. Destroys your body. Impotence. Heart Disease. Cancer.
Perusing Dr. Google, you’d have to scroll through four pages before you find even one entry resembling scientific information—in this case, a backgrounder by the Environmental Protection Agency. It instead assures us: “Studies employing standardized toxicity tests used globally for regulatory decision-making indicate that the levels of BPA in humans and the environment are below levels of potential concern for adverse effects.” A few pages later, the US Food and Drug Administration concludes much the same, that “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods.”
So why do government agencies declare BPA is safe as used while the NRDC calls it “poisonous?” Why the disconnect between what regulators conclude and the gloom and doom served up by many in the media and on advocacy websites?
Bringing clarity to this confused situation requires someone versed in the methods of assessing risk and, in addition, who is not afraid to criticize shoddy research and overstated claims. And we have one in risk expert Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, who offers a penetrating look at the science and politics of the BPA controversy, and many other health scares, in his new book Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks.
Kabat’s main achievement in this highly readable and informative book is to help us appreciate that not all science is of equal quality or importance. He contrasts two very different outcomes of science, which are rarely distinguished in public discussions. One is the science that devises hypotheses to answer burning questions (for example, why did Ebola break out in Central Africa near rainforests? Why is a certain disease more common in one population or one region than another?), tests them against the empirical evidence and goes where the evidence leads. This process can yield vital new knowledge, which has the potential to affect millions of lives. But, typically, it is slow and painstaking, and does not attract sensational media attention.
And then by contrast, he discusses how science is often carried out in the klieg lights of the media, focusing on sensational issues hyped by advocacy groups but with modest public health consequences—such as the 10-year obsession over the effects of BPA. The result is regulatory agencies are pressured to accept weak evidence of imminent threats because political constituents believe they need it. Public health suffers.
Kabat provides us with a framework that enables us to assess which type of science we are dealing with. And he gives in-depth examples of two of each kinds of science.
One case study focuses on “endocrine-disrupting chemicals” in the environment, an issue that dates from the early 1990s. Bisphenol-A became the poster child for the threat from ED chemicals after the publication of controversial studies claiming it might interfere with hormonal functions because it mimics estrogen.
Led by an award-winning but now discredited set of exposés by Susanne Rust in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, BPA exploded into the headlines with stories about “toxic baby bottles” and “poisoned packaging.” Good Morning America issued a “consumer alert.” An editorial in the New York Times urged Congress to ban BPA in baby products.Understandably alarmed parents purged their pantries of plastic containers and Walmart started pulling sippy cups from shelves. The FDA—under intense public pressure but with no actual evidence of danger—eventually banned its use in toddler cups. Today, few plastic consumer products use BPA, which has been replaced at the urging of activists and panicked legislators by a presumably safer, but untested, substitute, BPS.
A victory for science? Hardly.
It was not a high point in responsible public health decision-making. As Kabat notes, the levels of estrogen-like compounds in BPA are thousands of times lower than that in birth control pills and much lower than in many foods, such as soy products—levels below which scientists believe could possibly cause harm. Minute traces that could be present are eliminated from the body through a detoxification process in the liver.
“The news media bombard us with reports of the latest threat to our health lurking in our food, air, water, and the environment, and these messages are often reinforced by regulatory agencies, activist groups, and scientists themselves,” Kabat writes.
International agency after agency has since weighed in on what many scientists now call the “BPA fiasco”. The German Society of Toxicology reviewed thousands of studies, concluding, “[BPA] exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.” A joint WHO/US Food and Agriculture Organization panel disputed claims that BPA was a dangerous ‘endocrine disruptor. And the hyper-precautionary European Food Safety Authority reviewed new scientific information on BPA in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2015, concluding each time there was no evidence to revise its finding of “no consumer health risk from bisphenol-A exposure.”
“Is it possible that exposure to BPA poses some hazard to some people?” Kabat asks. “Yes, we can never rule out the possibility of some effect. But, based on a large amount of accumulated scientific evidence, any adverse effect, if one exists, is likely to be very small.” In other words, there are more consequential factors that affect our health that we should be paying attention to.
BPA is one of many health travesties Kabat addresses. In an influential paper published in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis concluded that most published findings in the medical literature are wrong. As many as 20 false findings may find their way into journals for every one that’s true. But those facts haven’t stopped the flood of doomsday papers followed by hyped reporting, encouraged by advocacy groups whose rationale for existence often depend on stirring public concerns.
Kabat reviews a range of controversies, contrasting instances in which the mainstream science community got it right while advocacy groups and the media detoured into scare scenarios.
That’s the case in the long-simmering debate over whether cell phones cause brain cancer. While evidence from several quarters casts serious doubt on this hypothesis, fear has been kept alive by advocates who champion the questionable findings of a single group of researchers.In contrast, the largest epidemiologic study, which included cases from 13 countries, found no persuasive evidence of an association. This underscores one of Kabat’s themes: no matter how poor the quality of the research, results that purport to show a threat carry more weight with the media, advocates and some regulatory agencies under pressure from a frightened public than methodologically superior studies that show no evidence of a risk.
“Perhaps what is most disturbing,” Kabat writes, “is how a small group of highly motivated activists can present a distorted picture of the evidence that can have wide influence.”
Non-financial conflicts-of-interest
Kabat refers to the public health debate as ‘two sciences”—one guided by empirical data and a balancing of risks and rewards, and another suffused by what’s known as the “precautionary principle”—the ‘better safe than sorry’ view of many environmental groups that is often invoked to block innovation because there might be ‘unintended consequences’—even if the evidence for those unanticipated disaster scenarios is far-fetched.
Kabat highlights this divide to freshly reinterpret the issue of conflicts-of-interest in science studies. Given our distrust of profit-driven industry, it is all too easy to find a culprit to blame for an alleged public health threat—for example, cell phone companies for making radiation-generating handsets or chemical companies for manufacturing BPA, all in the name of capitalist avarice.
At the height of the BPA scare, in 2008, Bill Moyers ran an ”investigative” piece prompted by the Journal Sentinel series titled “Chemicals Fallout.” There was no real discussion of the science; his program was designed to finger the ”perpetrators behind the crime”—those responsible for letting this “killer chemical” seep into our lives.
“Even though studies show that the chemical bisphenol-A can cause cancer and other health problems in lab animals, the manufacturers, their lobbyists and U.S. regulators say it’s safe,” he lectured.
That pre-baked conclusion soaked with innuendo—that regulators work in a hidden conspiracy to protect corporate interests—is a common belief among groups like EWG, NRDC and other NGOs that fueled the campaign to demonize BPA. The conflict of interest charge is a familiar tactic in the advocacy business.
Kabat adds context to the debate, drawing attention to the analysis of epidemiologist Ken Rothman, who noted that conflicts can extend beyond research sponsorship, and go both ways. Each of the ‘BPA will harm you’ entries that show up in a Google search are linked to organizations with ulterior motives: Dr. Axe’s secret detox recipes; Joe Mercola’s latest health book. pitches to get EWG newsletters; subscriptions to Mother Jones; donations to the NRDC.
For the vocal cadre of researchers who push media-hyped narratives, there are additional incentives—money to support their research careers that would be going nowhere if a ‘dangerous chemical’ was acknowledged as comparatively safe. Academic scientists need to publish papers. Finding ‘no effects’ means the federal research dollar spigot turns off, and that means no promotions and no tenure.
Despite their best efforts to keep the money train moving, reality has caught up with the BPA researchers. As Science magazine reported earlier this year, tens of millions of dollars spent by the US on BPA research has been money down the drain. “None [of the 161 studies funded by the
government] reported an effect at small doses”—a direct rebuke of the ‘low dose endocrine disruption’ (ED) theory that continues to fuel redundant, dead-end studies and questionable journalism on endocrine disruption. And study after study now shows the various BPA substitutes such as BPS urged upon us by advocacy groups may pose actual, rather than theoretical, harm to human health.“The landscape in which health risks are studied and in which findings are disseminated is pervaded by false claims, oversold results, biases operating at the level of observational studies as well as psychological and cognitive biases, and professional and political agendas,” notes Kabat with some degree of sadness.
In other words, according to the world’s top independent scientists, many environmental activist groups consistently get the science dead wrong—on BPA, cell phone usage and other overhyped risks, diverting our attention from much more important factors that are well-established to affect our health.
Kabat’s recommendation? “If research in public health were conducted out of the spotlight, one could leave it to internal mechanisms of the discipline and to time to weed out what stands up and what is important…. It is these real accomplishments that should serve as models of what science can achieve and, at the same time, provide a standard for judging overstated claims, implausible findings, and appeals to irrational fear.”
That may be too much too expect in this era of fake news and misinformation, but his book represents a valiant attempt to help us to distinguish between real advances and unabashed efforts to scare us. If you are interested in penetrating the massive confusion surrounding health risks in the environment, this pithy book provides an indispensable primer.
Jon Entine (@jonentine) is executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project. Dr. Geoffrey Kabat (@geokabat)is on the Board of Scientific Advisors at the American Council on Science and Health and is on the the advisory board of the GLP.
http://www.science20.com/jon_entine/getting_risk_right_geoffrey_kabats_guide_to_resisting_health_scares-225125
-
Standard Filters Don't Work On PFC Contamination
Jun 6, 2017 | Denver Post (In E&E Greenwire)
By Bruce Finley
Carbon filters being installed by communities in Colorado to remove toxic chemicals from drinking water are failing to fully remove the chemicals, according to researchers at the Colorado School of Mines.
CSM environmental engineer Christopher Higgins said levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) found at a site near Peterson Air Force Base were more than 100 times higher than a federal health advisory limit and that filters in towns like Fountain and Whitehead were failing to remove them.
"We found 30 different compounds, and we weren't looking that hard," Higgins said.
A primary source of the contamination is a firefighting foam used by the Air Force for decades. The military is dealing with similar contamination at hundreds of sites around the country in a costly and contentious cleanup process that has angered some local and state officials (Greenwire, Jan. 31).
"At these levels, it becomes probable that health effects will occur in exposed babies or children," said Jamie DeWitt, a toxicologist at the East Carolina University medical school.
State and county officials were also tracking a plume of PFC-contaminated groundwater moving toward Pueblo, but funding from U.S. EPA has run out, and those levels are no longer being measured (Bruce Finley, Denver Post, June 5). — SM
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/06/stories/1060055600
-
Industry Holds Ground On Battle Over Product Labels
Jun 6, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
By Laurel Rosenhall
California lawmakers have been pushing for new labels on products such as nail polish, cleaning supplies and garden plants in an effort to tell people more about what they buy at the store.
Bills in the Democratic-controlled Legislature are supported by environmentalists and consumer advocates, but industry lobbyists say more labels could cause unfounded fear in consumers.
Industry wins in most cases.
Already this year, the Legislature sidelined a bill that would require labeling on soda and other sugary drinks indicating that they contribute to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.
"You're fighting the manufacturers, the retailers, the chemistry industry and a long list of business groups who are probably irrelevant with the general public but are highly relevant within the Capitol," said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California (Laurel Rosenhall, San Francisco Chronicle, June 5). — CS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/06/stories/1060055598
-
Council Of The European Union Releases BSR Conventions Statements
Jun 6, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Council of the European Union has released a compilation of statements delivered at the recent meetings of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BSR) Conventions. The meetings took place in Geneva on 24 April to 5 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56645/council-of-the-european-union-releases-bsr-conventions-statements
-
Enviros Spar With Critics Over Future Of Fracking Rule Case
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Friends and foes of the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule squared off yesterday over whether a legal battle should advance while the Trump administration reconsiders the regulation.
In legal briefs yesterday to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, environmental groups advocated for moving ahead with the case, which centers on whether a lower court was correct in finding last year that the federal government has no authority to regulate fracking on public and tribal lands.
The lower court's 2016 decision shocked the Obama administration and its environmental allies, which promptly appealed to the 10th Circuit. The two sides were ready to head to oral arguments in March when the appeals court unexpectedly asked the Trump administration to clarify whether the federal appellants' position on the fracking rule had changed (Energywire, March 10). Arguments were then postponed.
Now, President Trump's Interior Department is reconsidering the fracking rule. While the government maintains that it has authority over the oil and gas extraction technique, it has asked the appeals court to freeze the case while Interior's review plays out (Energywire, May 8).
While states, industry groups and the Ute Indian Tribe yesterday endorsed the government's preference for pausing the case, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Earthworks and several other groups defending the rule argued that the appeal "presents a pure question of law."
"The sole question in this appeal — whether BLM can set standards for hydraulically-fractured wells on public lands — will be just as central to BLM's new rulemaking process as it is to this case," the environmental intervenors said. "BLM's consideration of whether and how to alter the Rule necessarily turns on the scope of its authority. Here, the agency is not working on a blank slate, but rather in the shadow of a judicial opinion concluding that it lacks legal authority over the topics addressed by the Rule."
The groups, represented by Earthjustice, reiterated their strong objections to the lower court's decision, which they say "conflicts with nearly a century of precedent, and represents a radical shift in the law that threatens to upend BLM management of public lands nationwide in ways that go well beyond invalidating the 2015 Rule."
That fundamental question of federal fracking authority, they argue, should be decided now to keep the Trump administration from making an "end-run" around the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to go through formal processes to undo regulations. Otherwise, they say they'll suffer serious hardship.
"Leaving the district court's decision setting aside the Rule in place harms the Citizen Groups (and the public interest) by allowing thousands of new oil and gas wells to be drilled each year without adequate federal protections for public health and the environment," they said.
They added that if the 10th Circuit declines to decide the case, it should instead dismiss it as moot and vacate the underlying decision from the district court. The Trump administration indicated last month that it would not oppose that approach if the appeal becomes moot after the regulatory review process.Challengers
In their own briefs to the 10th Circuit yesterday, fracking rule challengers supported the Trump administration's request to freeze the case.
Wyoming, Colorado and Utah argued in a brief that the legal questions at issue in the case are unripe for review given Interior's imminent plans to revamp the fracking rule. The agency's Bureau of Land Management has said it will kick off an official rulemaking process by June 13.
North Dakota lawyers similarly argued that, given the administration's review process, "the ruling requested by the Citizen Groups is the very definition of an improper advisory opinion."
The Ute Indian Tribe agreed, noting that "the Tribe anticipates that BLM will issue a rule revoking in whole the challenged fracking regulations, and that BLM will then adopt that revocation as quickly as it can consistent with rulemaking."
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance — the first to sue after the fracking rule's unveiling in March 2015 — also urged the court to pause the case, spending a full page citing examples of other regulatory lawsuits in which federal courts have paused proceedings while agencies reconsidered the rules at issue.
The fracking rule opponents also weighed in on the court's question of whether the environmental groups could continue the appeal if the Trump administration pulls out of the case. They all agreed that the groups would be unable to move ahead with the litigation because they would be unable to show that they had independent standing to defend the rule.
"Intervenors' general preference for the policies reflected in the hydraulic fracturing rule does not constitute the basis for [constitutional] standing," the industry groups told the court. "Intervenors have no legal right to have any particular policy implemented through regulation. And to the extent Intervenors wish to advocate for their preferred policies, the administrative rulemaking process, not the federal courts, is the appropriate forum for that advocacy."
The Utes added that the environmental groups have no standing to litigate claims related to the fracking rule's application to tribal lands because the groups failed to address the issue in earlier briefs to the 10th Circuit.
The environmental groups fired back in their brief, arguing that the Trump administration and the fracking rule challengers are misinterpreting relevant legal precedent and adopting an overly narrow view of standing.
"The Citizen Groups, who are full parties to the case, have standing to appeal the district court's order because it causes them an immediate, concrete and particularized injury by eliminating a variety of new protections that benefit the groups and their members," they said.
The 10th Circuit is expected to make its decision this summer on whether to allow the case to move forward.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/06/stories/1060055584
-
Dow Chemical Completes Texas Plastics Plant
Jun 6, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Dow Chemical said Tuesday it completed construction of its new plastics plant south of Houston as it nears finalizing its overall expansion effort.
The new polyethylene plant, which can churn out 400,000 metric tons of plastic a year, is part of Dow's more than $6 billion expansion along the Gulf Coast, primarily at its massive Freeport campus.
The project comes a little more than two months after Dow finished its crown jewel ethane cracker facility at the campus. The cracker will churn out 1.5 million metric tons a year of ethylene, which is derived from natural gas liquids and is used as the primary building block of most plastics. The facilities will commence operation soon.
"This milestone further reflects the steady progress our teams are making to bring these multi-phased investments online to enhance our cost-advantaged integration and industry-leading innovation," said Jim Fitterling, Dow's president and chief operating officer.
The new plastics plant, which Dow calls its Elite enhanced polyethylene facility, makes plastics to serve as flexible packaging for food, personal hygiene products and industrial packaging.
The final part of the Freeport expansion won't come until late 2018 when Dow finishes its polyolefin elastomers plant. The facility will make polymers that Dow contends bridge the gap between plastics and rubbers. Dow also is in the process expanding its plastics facilities one state over in Plaquemine, Louisiana.
Although short on details, Dow said last month it's planning to spend $4 billion in further expansions in Texas, its Michigan headquarters and in Europe.
The chemical giant will keep growing its largest industrial campus — south of Houston in Freeport and Lake Jackson — to continue taking advantage of cheap and abundant shale natural gas that's used as the primary feedstock to make chemicals and plastics.
The upcoming Freeport expansion will add two heating furnaces to the cracker's existing eight furnaces, upping its total ethylene capacity to 2 million metric tons and making it the world's largest ethylene facility.
Dow also will build a new 600,000 metric ton plastics plant, but hasn't announced whether it will be built in Freeport or Louisiana along the Gulf Coast.
Dow is currently planning to complete its $130 billion, so-called merger of equals with DuPont in August. The merged DowDuPont will later splinter into three separate companies in 2018 and 2019.
Dow CEO Andrew Liveris emphasized recently that Dow's Texas operations will see little effect from the merger. One of the three splintered companies, to be named Dow, would continue to own and run the Freeport complex, as well as DuPont's facilities in Orange, Texas, near the Louisiana border.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Dow-Chemical-completes-Texas-plastics-plant-11199353.php
-
Court Gives EPA 10 Days To Justify Delay Of Oil Rules
Jun 6, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered EPA to respond by June 15 to environmental groups' lawsuit over the agency's 90-day stay of key methane leak detection and repair requirements for new oil and gas wells.
The green groups on Monday filed an emergency motion asking the court to intervene and lift EPA’s stay. A three-judge panel has ordered EPA to respond by 4 p.m. on June 15, with the green groups’ reply due by June 20. The rapid timeline indicates the court may decide whether to block EPA’s stay, thereby restoring the leak requirements, by the end of the month.
Environmentalists argued that the stay, as well as a longer stay EPA is preparing to propose, will harm public health by continuing to allow pollutants to leak from oil and gas facilities. Some 18,000 wells and other sites in 22 states are affected, according to the groups.
WHAT'S NEXT: EPA must file a legal brief outlining its justification for delaying the methane rule by 4 p.m. on June 15. Environmental groups' reply is due June 20, and the court is likely to weigh in soon after that.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
19 State AGs Pledge To Enforce Pact
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Democratic attorneys general promised today to keep fighting climate change in the wake of President Trump's announced exit from the Paris Agreement.
Attorneys general from 18 states and the District of Columbia joined governors, mayors and business leaders who pledged yesterday to stick with the pact aimed at curbing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. "We are still in" for Paris goals, they declared (E&E News PM, June 5).
"I stand ready to vigorously enforce the law to curb climate change and protect our air, land, and water — because the future of our people and our planet are at stake," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said in a statement.
Schneiderman, who is leading a coalition of states and localities in defending the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan in court, also vowed to stand his ground against U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
"It's important to note: President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement doesn't change the EPA's legal obligation to limit carbon pollution from its largest source: fossil-fueled power plants," Schneiderman said. "I'll continue to fight in court to ensure that the EPA fulfills its legal responsibility to protect New Yorkers' health and environment, no matter President Trump's retrograde policies."
Pruitt and other foes of the EPA climate rule had advised Trump to pull out of the Paris Agreement to safeguard his energy agenda.
As Trump deliberated, Republican attorneys general from 10 states wrote him a letter warning the agreement's nonbinding nature "does not mean there are no consequences to remaining in or withdrawing from the agreement." As long as the U.S. remained a party to the agreement, they wrote, "there is a risk that some individual or organization will attempt to enforce its terms."
The "We Are Still In" declaration was also signed by attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.
Chief legal officers in blue states have already signaled a willingness to play an aggressive role in environmental enforcement in the Trump years (Greenwire, March 1).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/06/stories/1060055608
-
Trump Ignites Climate Pledges With Paris Order
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Anne C. Mulkern
Governors, mayors and CEOs are clamoring to sign onto a slate of new climate pacts organized over the weekend after President Trump announced he would leave the Paris Agreement.
Twelve states, including two with Republican governors, are joining the U.S. Climate Alliance, launched by California, New York and Washington. A different coalition of nine states, 125 cities, and hundreds of businesses and universities signed an open letter that declared "we are still in" the international deal (E&E News PM, June 5). The Mayors' National Climate Action Agenda, a group aligned on actions to limit warming, more than tripled its membership.
Trump's move is galvanizing climate action and energizing states, localities and companies. Organizers say their success at gathering signatures shows that strong climate leadership will continue in the United States, although they acknowledge that they're still figuring out how to work together to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
"[The Climate Alliance] is only five days old, including a couple business days," said Sam Ricketts, director of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's (D) office. "The initial outpouring here is this incredible momentum; the U.S. is not done taking action and living up to its moral and international obligations in fighting climate change."
So far, the group has attracted Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia, in addition to the initial three states.
The various efforts give climate advocates something to point to when they argue that the United States will continue to curb emissions as federal action diminishes.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the U.N. secretary-general's special envoy for cities and climate change, yesterday offered the "We Are Still In" letter as proof of America's commitment, according to Reuters.
The next steps will be more difficult. Setting specific goals, asking for quantifiable carbon cuts and laying out ways to track progress have proved trying, according to Angel Hsu, director of Yale University's Data-Driven Environmental Solutions Group.
Hsu and her colleagues reported in Nature Climate Change in 2015 that just five of 29 action plans signed at a summit the year before in New York can even be tracked (Climatewire, May 22, 2015).
Leaders in this new wave of action will need to "put their money where their mouths are," she said.
People will have to pressure elected officials and businesses to follow through, "not just put their name on a petition or list with others supporting, but get specific," she added.Nighttime scramble
Despite a tough road ahead, longtime observers of climate action groups say the "We Are Still In" letter is unprecedented.
"It's a platform that we've never really seen before that's come together in record time to show that subnational groups across this country want to continue to demonstrate climate leadership in the absence of federal leadership," said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "We're still in, we're still at the table in our own way."
For businesses, it meant working overtime to get approval to join.
"It was a weekend filled with conference calls at all hours of the night," said Anne Kelly, senior policy director for the business group Ceres. "Calling people on vacation, sending it up the chain, and they had to make it a priority ... with all the other things they are confronting — tax, immigration, health care, a whole lot of other issues."
More than 900 companies, big and small, signed the letter.
Kelly said it's a big deal for them to join an effort with governors and mayors. Because the letter is so public, "it makes it that much more difficult to back down," she said.
"This goes way beyond saying, 'Of course we believe in climate change and humans are causing it and we've got to do something about it,'" she added. Many of the businesses already have specific greenhouse gas and renewable power targets, for example.
Companies and state and local officials had until 1 p.m. yesterday to fill out an online form to participate. An FAQ explained that the letter is meant to "clearly communicate to the administration and the international community that subnational leaders in the United States are still committed to ambitious action on climate change."
It added that the statement is the broadest cross-section of subnational and nonstate actors ever assembled but noted that the letter doesn't commit organizations to any specific action.
The businesses that signed onto the letter are from 47 states. The U.S. Climate Alliance, on the other hand, represents states that produce about 18 percent of energy-related carbon emissions, noted Climate Central. Two of the participating states have Republican governors, but all of them voted for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.GOP governor has critics
Mayors are also reasserting their roles in curbing climate change. The Mayors' National Climate Action Agenda, or Climate Mayors for short, saw its membership triple after Trump's announcement Thursday.
It now has 210 members, up from 61, said Matt Petersen, chief sustainability officer for Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D), who helped launch the group in 2014. Climate Mayors' Twitter followers also increased to nearly 5,200 from 700 last week.
"It's really a true coalition of mayors who are speaking up and stepping up," Petersen said in a phone interview from Beijing, where he is representing Garcetti as California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) promotes action on climate change and clean energy.
Climate Mayors is sending a message that the United States will do its part, even without the president, Petersen said.
"Mayors we've seen can do a lot and will do a lot," he said. "From the political will to the substantive action, it's really meaningful, and it adds up."
Mayors can promote energy efficiency in buildings, install renewable energy, encourage conservation, and work with businesses and universities.
Some mayors have been working on a joint program to convert their transportation fleets to electric vehicles. They've asked automakers to detail how many electric vehicles they can provide, how soon and at what cost. The mayors said they could provide a "record-breaking" order of EVs. Petersen said that effort might expand with the surge in membership.
Many of the cities that are part of Climate Mayors have also joined the "We Are Still In" coalition.
Some are already hearing from skeptics, though. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) yesterday got some flak when he tweeted about signing.
"Oh you're so tough. Give me a break! You don't have a clue about what that means or what you are committing to. Vote pandering won't help," one Twitter user responded.
"I hope you have some concrete plans and incentives lined up," said another.
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) heard mixed feedback after joining the Climate Alliance of governors. Several dozen people issued thanks, but one tweeted, "That loud flushing noise you hear is the economy of Massachusetts going down the toilet."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/06/stories/1060055590
-
Former EPA Official Perciasepe Talks 'We Are Still In' Coalition, Business Response To Paris Exit
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E TV
By Monica Trauzzi
This week, more than 1,000 leaders of cities, states, businesses and universities in the U.S. signed on to a letter signaling their continued support for the Paris Agreement. During today's OnPoint, Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and a former deputy administrator at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration, discusses the influence this coalition could have in international climate discussions. Perciasepe also talks about the next steps for the Clean Power Plan.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and a former deputy administrator at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration. Bob, it's nice to see you again.
Bob Perciasepe: Same thing, Monica. Great to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: So it's been a busy couple of days trying to unpack the Trump administration's Paris decision and what it substantively means for next steps. On the whole, how significant of a move do you believe this is?
Bob Perciasepe: Well, I think what the president announced last week at his press conference was a mistake. I think the United States has all the flexibility it needs to make adjustments to its commitments under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a very flexible vehicle that the majority of the world, obviously, is part of. And most multinational corporations and businesses in the United States are very interested in creating a global framework. So the president has sort of thrown that into disarray. However, he did say he wants to renegotiate. And so there's an opening there for what that might mean.
Monica Trauzzi: And you have news today about how businesses and states in the U.S. are reacting.
Bob Perciasepe: Yes. I think — well, we saw before the announcement, major businesses in the United States, representing trillions of dollars of the economy, asked the president through ads in newspapers to stay in the climate agreement. That it was in the best interest of American businesses, it was best for international trade, it was best to avoid any retaliatory measures by other countries, and it was just good for business and growth. What we're seeing now, after the announcement, is a groundswell of that — that emotion. And we've seen — we're seeing hundreds and hundreds of businesses signing on to a "We're still in" statement that — and they're going to be joined by governors, and hundreds of mayors, and dozens and dozens of college presidents. And this is a growing phenomenon that has started. And I think it will continue. And the hope is that these folks will continue to be able to coordinate at the subnational level.
Monica Trauzzi: Does this signal, or does this mean that the business community is somewhat concerned that this makes U.S. businesses less competitive internationally, specifically on clean energy?
Bob Perciasepe: Absolutely. I think most American businesses believe that the United States is the bona-fide leader of clean energy and innovation in the world. And they're not really ready to cede that to China or Europe or other parts of the world. And so they want to maintain that, and they're committed to maintaining that even in the absence of a federal or national framework for them to work with.
Monica Trauzzi: But the Trump administration is firmly selling this as America first and that this is about promoting American businesses. So do you believe that somewhere down the line it will all come together?
Bob Perciasepe: You know, that is hard to say. We want a robust economy, we want everybody participating in the economy, but we also have to think about the future. The United States has never had major growths of economic prosperity by going backwards. We've always gone forward. And I think what we see here is a choice of: How do we go forward and still bring everybody along?
And so I — one can say the president is struggling with how to do that. On the other hand, I think the majority of American businesses see the future in a clean energy economy and they are definitely wanting to move in that direction.
Monica Trauzzi: And looking globally, do you believe that the Trump administration's move last week opens the door for other countries to leave the Paris Agreement?
Bob Perciasepe: You know, that remains to be seen. I think what we've seen from the G-7 meetings a week or so ago and from other statements other governments have made, they actually see this as a vacuum to move into. And I think we lose some competitive advantage if we let that get too far down the road.
Monica Trauzzi: This does reopen some old questions about how the Obama administration sort of handled the negotiations relating to Paris and pre-Paris, and whether the Obama administration should and could have done more or acted earlier. Do you think it's fair to raise some of those questions now and talk about that?
Bob Perciasepe: Well, look, I think — I'm the first to say — and I worked on things in the Obama administration, including the Clean Power Plan and clean automobile — low-emitting automobile standards. There is no one way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the United States. And so if there's another way that's more efficient — and there's certainly many who talk about prices on carbon or carbon fees or taxes as a way to get the economy to recognize the need for these transitions, and reward the more innovative technologies. There's a lot of bipartisan support or at least bi — multi-spectrum political views on that, that I think could be another approach that we could take.
Monica Trauzzi: And on the Clean Power Plan, specifically, Administrator Pruitt has said it's yet to be determined whether the CPP will be replaced or not. The business community continues to move forward. Many states as well continue to act on climate. So, considering that, is it necessary to have that policy tool?
Bob Perciasepe: Well, the signals that were sent to the economy and to the power sector by all the work that went into creating the Clean Power Plan and the years that went into that; leading up to the proposal, then after the proposal, and then the final — engaged most of the industry in that discussion. And what's happened during that time period is the prices continued to go down for renewable energy, like solar and wind; natural gas continues to outcompete coal and other sources of energy. And so as that trend continues, the trajectory of emissions from the power sector continue to go down. And I'm pretty confident that those market forces will probably get the power sector in the vicinity of the Clean Power Plan goals sometime in the next decade.
Monica Trauzzi: So we've also been tracking what we've seen coming out of the Trump administration in terms of the budget, the EPA budget specifically where climate programs are not included and in some cases cut. Is this having a chilling effect at the agency?
Bob Perciasepe: I think that if you're trying to implement the law, which the EPA is required to do. There are many laws from the Clear Air Act to the Clean Water Act to the Superfund law. One of the ways you implement those laws is with funding. Funding for the research, funding for the processes, funding for the reviews, funding for the technical assistance to the business community. And if those funds are reduced — and actually funding for our partners at the state level, which is the federalism that's set up in all of those environmental laws — then it's hard to reconcile the need to move forward and no resources to do it. So I think it does put a dent in the morale at the agency.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. A lot of moving parts. A lot to watch. Thank you, as always, for your insight.
Bob Perciasepe: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: Thanks for coming on the show. And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2228/transcript
-
Post-Trump, Climate Boosters Hedge On U.S. Emissions Pledge
Jun 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Bloomberg Philanthropies will work with a coalition of governors, mayors and business leaders who have pledged "we are still in" the Paris Agreement to quantify greenhouse gas reductions.
Daniel Firger, an adviser to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said today that the organization does not expect to send a formal submission to the United Nations but will develop a "societal nationally determined contribution."
"That work will take time," Firger cautioned on a call with reporters.
After President Trump's announcement that he has decided to withdraw the U.S. from the accord, states, localities, companies and universities have rallied around new climate pacts. But organizers are not yet projecting how close they will come to meeting the Paris goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The "We Are Still In" declaration attracted 220 additional signatories in the 24 hours since it was announced (E&E News PM, June 5). However, it's missing commitments from parts of the country responsible for big emissions.
For instance, the list lacks any representation from Texas universities among the 218 college presidents who have signed on.
Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski talked about the potential to gain more support from local leaders in regions of the country that are underrepresented, like the Midwest. She said the issue would be highlighted at an upcoming U.S. Conference of Mayors event.
Chancellor Tim White of the California State University system said higher education leaders from around the country are also engaging with elected leaders in their states.
Firger argued Trump has yet to roll back many of the Obama-era climate change regulations that mandate carbon reduction efforts. Democratic state attorneys general, public interest groups and others will keep battling in court to prevent the rollbacks the Trump administration wants, he predicted.
"We expect that many of these rules will remain in force," Firger said.
Bloomberg, the U.N. secretary-general's special envoy for cities and climate change, yesterday submitted the letter, addressed jointly to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa, as proof of unity on climate.
Firger said Bloomberg would be working closely with the UNFCCC executive secretariat in Bonn, Germany, to which it recently pledged $15 million (Greenwire, June 5). Over the coming months, he said, the organization expects to do more work with interested parties to figure out how subnational actors can contribute.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said she is pursuing policies that will continue the trend of emissions reductions. A transportation package she is developing with the state Legislature would support projects like mass transit, electric vehicles and bikes, she said.
Brown suggested some of the deeper reductions from states like Oregon, California and Washington could help offset places with less aggressive climate plans.
"We will be partnering with folks at the global level because we have to," Brown said.
Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, called it "hugely encouraging" to see U.S. leaders step up in the wake of Trump's announcement. "The speed at which this diverse coalition came together is impressive and shows the force of will behind climate action in the U.S.," Tubiana said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/06/stories/1060055622
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested