Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/7/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) This Is What Chlorine Really Does to You
Aug 7, 2017 | INSIDER
By Emily DiNuzzo
There are 10.4 million residential swimming pools in the US...The majority of those pools will be cleaned using chlorine, a disinfectant that destroys and deactivates germs. The American Chemistry Council writes that chlorine's disinfectant qualities... -
US House Considers New Regulatory Reform Measures
Aug 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US House of Representatives is considering two new regulatory reform measures, unveiled last week. -
Dow, DuPont Set Aug. 31 for Closing of Historic Chemical Merger
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co., the two largest U.S. chemical makers, have received all the regulatory approvals needed to close their historic merger. -
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Praise Law Banning Flame Retardants in Furniture
Aug 4, 2017 | AP (In U.S. News & World Report)
By Marina Villeneuve
Firefighters and national chemical safety groups said they hope the nation follows Maine's lead in passing a tough flame retardants law that the chemical industry lobbied against. -
(ACC Mentioned) National Groups Hail Maine's New Flame Retardants Law
Aug 4, 2017 | In Maine Public
Firefighters and national chemical safety groups are praising Maine's new law banning flame retardants in furniture. -
(ACC Mentioned) First-in-Nation Law Bans All Flame Retardants in Big Win for Families and Firefighters
Aug 5, 2017 | AlterNet
By Nika Beauchamp
Decisively overriding the Governor’s veto, Maine legislators late Wednesday passed the first law in the nation to phase out all toxic flame retardants in upholstered furniture, protecting the health of families and firefighters. -
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Passes First-In-Nation Law on Flame Retardants in Upholstered Furniture
Aug 4, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
This week, by a decisive bipartisan vote to override Governor LePage’s veto, Maine Legislators prioritized the health and safety of Maine children, families, and firefighters—and established a precedent-setting standard for the nation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Childhood Intelligence Harmed by Flame Retardant Exposure, Study Shows
Aug 7, 2017 | Newsweek
By Douglas Main
The more flame retardants a pregnant woman is exposed to, the greater the chances her child will have lower intelligence. -
(ACC Mentioned) Prenatal Exposure to Fire Retardants Linked to Lower IQs in Children, Review Says
Aug 5, 2017 | UPI
By Randy Dotinga
Exposure to certain flame-retardant chemicals in pregnancy may be linked to lower intelligence in children, a new research review suggests. -
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Chemicals Linked to Lower IQs in Kids
Aug 4, 2017 | CBS San Francisco Bay Area
By Melissa Caen
Flame retardants are in couches and many consumer products and no San Francisco is trying to outright ban them. -
Chemical Footprint Project Calls for Increased Transparency
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Chemical Footprint Project has identified increased transparency around restricted substances lists (RSL) and chemicals policies as "the greatest opportunity for improvement" among its participating companies. -
For Cosmetics, Let the Buyer Beware
Aug 7, 2017 | New York Times
By Jane E. Brody
When you wash your hair, clean or moisturize your skin, polish your nails, or put on makeup, deodorant or sunscreen, do you ever think about whether the product you’re using may do more harm than good? -
Energy Industry Urges Appeals Court to Rehear Obama-Era Methane Rules
Aug 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Opponents of Obama-era rules governing new sources of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are urging a federal appeals court to rehear a legal challenge to the rules, arguing that a three-judge panel erred when it lifted a stay last month. -
BOEM Issues Final Programmatic EIS for Gulf of Mexico
Aug 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has issued its final broad environmental review of the potential impacts of future offshore oil and gas leases and underwater surveys in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 10 years. -
BLM Gauges Interest in Oil, Gas Leases in Alaska
Aug 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
The Bureau of Land Management is gauging oil and gas developers' interest in new leases in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. -
Why Are These Billions in Pipeline Projects Stalled?
Aug 5, 2017 | Politico
By Eric Wolff and Darius Dixon
Billions of dollars’ worth of shovel-ready infrastructure projects have been held up by a bureaucratic morass that President Donald Trump helped to create. -
City Pledges for ‘100% Renewable Energy’ Are 99% Misleading
Aug 4, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Charles McConnell
Dozens of cities have made a misleading pledge: that they will move to 100% renewable energy so as to power residents’ lives without emitting a single puff of carbon. -
Fires Extinguished After CSX Train Derailment in Pennsylvania
Aug 4, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Eric M. Johnson
Firefighters on Friday extinguished a string of sulfur fires that broke out in a small Pennsylvania town after dozens of CSX Corp rail cars careened off the tracks, the company said, but residents remained under evacuation orders. -
(ACC Mentioned) Waste Industry to Save Millions Under EPA Monitoring Proposal
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Douglas Moran
Waste storage and processing facilities would save $28 million under an EPA proposal to ease air pollution monitoring requirements. -
Trump Vow to Keep Door Open to Climate Deal Convinces Few
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Donald Trump's vow to keep the door open to an international climate deal—even as he notifies the UN the U.S. is out—rings hollow given he has long derided it as bad for the economy. -
U.S. to Join Climate Talks Despite Planned Withdrawal From Paris Accord
Aug 4, 2017 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The White House formally notified the United Nations on Friday that it intends to abandon the Paris agreement on climate change but remains open to “re-engaging” on the accord. -
States Should Be Front Line of Enforcement, EPA Official Says
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
The Environmental Protection Agency will look to the states as the first line of environmental enforcement as part of Washington's cooperative federalism approach, a senior environment official said. -
The EPA Won’t Be Able to Protect Anyone Without Money
Aug 6, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By John O'Grady
The president’s pick to lead the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Susan Parker Bodine, certainly has a relevant background for her nomination. -
5th Circuit Weighs Authority to Hear Suit over SO2 NAAQS Designations
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is weighing whether it has authority to hear a challenge by Texas and electric utility Luminant to EPA's designation of certain areas of the Lone Star State as violating federal sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards...
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) This Is What Chlorine Really Does to You
Aug 7, 2017 | INSIDER
By Emily DiNuzzo
There are 10.4 million residential swimming pools in the US.
The majority of those pools will be cleaned using chlorine, a disinfectant that destroys and deactivates germs. The American Chemistry Council writes that chlorine's disinfectant qualities come from its ability to bond with and destroy the outer surfaces of bacteria and viruses. Chlorine has the power to clean and sterilize swimming pools, along with hospitals and hotels, but it can also affect your body.
INSIDER spoke with dermatologists to determine what chlorine really does to you.Chlorine is extremely drying to the skin.
Pools are perfect for cooling off and beating the heat. Being in the water doesn't mean your skin is being hydrated, though. Chlorine is known to dry the skin, and some people may also find their skin feeling scratchy or irritated by it, too.
"Chlorine is extremely drying to the skin," Dr. Debra Jaliman, an American Academy of Dermatology Spokesperson with a private practice in New York told INSIDER. "It's especially important to take a shower right after getting out of a chlorine pool." She also advises putting on moisturizer to replace essential oils that chlorine can strip away from skin.Chlorine can make your hair brittle or fragile.
In the same way that chlorine can dry out hair, it can dry skin. Letting your hair sit in chlorine water can do damage to your locks.
Dr. Adam Friedman, Associate Professor of Dermatology and Director of Supportive Oncodermatology at George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, says that it can also make hair brittle. On Columbia University's website Go Ask Alice, where health professionals answer anonymous questions, the team answered a question about the impact of chlorine on hair. According to their response, chlorine sucks sebum (oil secreted from your glands) out of your hair. "[This] may cause the cuticle to crack," the team wrote. "This damage causes your hair's natural sheen to diminish, and the unprotected cortex to potentially 'split,' creating split ends."
Those with color-treated hair have often been told to be especially careful when swimming in pools, but Friedman said that it's not chlorine that sometimes turns color-treated hair green. "While swimming in a swimming pool has been known to turn hair green, it is actually the copper in the pool, not the chlorine, that does this," he told INSIDER.However, doctors agree that chlorine is an effective cleaner.
Although the smell of chlorine is distinct, it's known for its effective cleaning properties.
Dr. Ali Hendi, a board-certified dermatologist who practices in Chevy Chase, Maryland, doesn't think there is any danger in swimming in chlorinated water — but he does believe there are risks in unclean water.
"There's a known and significant danger of swimming in water which is not clean and may have bacteria such as E. coli," he told INSIDER. "In fact patients with chronic and recurrent skin infections are often advised to take dilute bleach baths using one cup of Clorox in a bathtub water to help minimize risk of recurrent infections."
Friedman agrees, and added that not using chlorine can allow pathogens to flourish which could potentially cause infection.More testing is needed to determine if any serious side effects occur from swimming in chlorinated pools.
Is there any proof that chlorine can be harmful? Besides occasionally irritating the eyes or skin, David J. Leffell, MD Professor and Chief, Dermatologic Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, said he isn't aware of any good scientific studies "that have questioned any meaningful health risk." Leffel also agreed that chlorine is effective in cleaning pools so that they're safe enough to swim in.
However, Friedman explained that because chlorine is meant to kill bacteria in pools, it doesn't discriminate against bacterial types. "It can also kill the normal microbial communities on your skin," he said. "More and more research is emerging speaking to the importance of the skin microbiota and how dysbiosis, an imbalance in the bacterial communities, can result in an array of skin disease from acne to eczema." The science is still out on this claim, and Dr. Friedman is not aware of any studies that evaluate this situation specifically.
While further research needs to be done to determine if swimming in chlorinated pools can cause any serious side effects, it's important to remember that, even though chlorine can dry out skin and hair, it's a necessary evil to keep pools safe and clean.
http://www.thisisinsider.com/what-chlorine-does-to-you-2017-8
-
US House Considers New Regulatory Reform Measures
Aug 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US House of Representatives is considering two new regulatory reform measures, unveiled last week.
The Reset Act of 2017, introduced by Ted Budd (R–North Carolina), calls for a review of all major federal regulations currently on the books. And it would authorise Congress to overturn any regulation through a majority vote in both chambers.
Meanwhile, Bill Posey (R–Florida) has brought forward a measure that would sunset new federal regulatory rules after three years.
The bills join a slate of regulatory rollback measures that have been introduced since President Trump took office.
House Republicans have introduced or passed a variety of bills aimed at streamlining the regulatoryprocess, requiring the EPA to make regulatory decisions based on "best available science", and increasing the transparency behind regulatory actions.
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have introduced a separate slate of regulatory reform measures.
The president has also issued several executive orders to curb regulations. These include a requirementthat agencies cut two regulations for each new one issued, and another directing them to determine the most burdensome regulations and to seek to repeal or modify them.
HR 3442 and HR 3506 have both been referred to the committee on oversight and government reform, as well as the judiciary committee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58053/us-house-considers-new-regulatory-reform-measures
-
Dow, DuPont Set Aug. 31 for Closing of Historic Chemical Merger
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co., the two largest U.S. chemical makers, have received all the regulatory approvals needed to close their historic merger.
The deal will be completed after the stock market closes on Aug. 31, the companies said in a statement Aug. 4. Shares of DowDuPont Inc. will begin trading Sept. 1 under the ticker DWDP.
The companies, with a combined market value approaching $150 billion, would surpass BASF SE as the world's largest chemical company. Within 18 months of closing, DowDuPont has said it will split into three separate companies focused on agriculture, specialty products and materials.
In response to investor concerns, the boards of both companies are reviewing the planned three-way separation to determine what combination of spinoffs would create the most value for shareholders. The review is being led by Dow Chief Executive Officer Andrew Liveris, DuPont CEO Ed Breen, DuPont lead director Sandy Cutler and Dow lead director Jeff Fettig.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118144605&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118144605&jd=118144605
-
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Praise Law Banning Flame Retardants in Furniture
Aug 4, 2017 | AP (In U.S. News & World Report)
By Marina Villeneuve
Firefighters and national chemical safety groups said they hope the nation follows Maine's lead in passing a tough flame retardants law that the chemical industry lobbied against.
Lawmakers on Wednesday overrode Republican Gov. Paul LePage's veto of a law supporters say will reduce firefighters' exposure to carcinogens. Starting in 2019, Maine will prohibit the sale of new upholstered furniture made with materials that contain more than 1 percent of a flame-retardant chemical.
The restrictions don't apply to furniture used in schools, jails and hospitals; it instead goes through safety tests. The law uses about $165,000 from the state's medical marijuana fund to hire an environmental specialist for two years to monitor furniture sales.
A decade ago, Maine banned some flame retardants, but some firefighters say that law was insufficient to protect them from newer substitutes. Household furniture can meet safety standards without such chemicals, and smoke detectors and sprinklers — not fire retardants — save lives, said Portland Fire Capt. Mike Nixon.
He said fire gear companies are beginning to roll out suits that keep retardants from coming into contact with skin, but added, "there's still nothing perfect out there."
Nixon said he was diagnosed with late stage melanoma in 2012 when he was 41 and later received two surgeries and 11 months of chemotherapy. He can't say exactly what led to his diagnosis, though a 2006 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine review of 32 studies suggested a possible increased likelihood of skin cancer for firefighters.
Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center and Prevent Harm, called Maine's law the toughest in the nation at a time when cancer has become the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths for professional firefighters.
"The Maine ban tells the chemical industry to give up its futile attempt to weaken national protections," Belliveau said.
A dozen states regulate flame retardants in consumer products, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Maine's bill received plenty of pushback at a February hearing, where a state Department of Environmental Protection representative said the ban could endanger residents and burden regulators.
Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance, said the group is "disappointed" in a vote that could "remove a critical layer of fire protection and could increase the vulnerability of Mainers when fires occur."
"We will continue to work with the legislature to try to effect change that will result in Mainers having access to the best available protection when fires occur," Goodman said.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2017-08-04/national-groups-hail-maines-new-flame-retardants-law
-
(ACC Mentioned) National Groups Hail Maine's New Flame Retardants Law
Aug 4, 2017 | In Maine Public
Firefighters and national chemical safety groups are praising Maine's new law banning flame retardants in furniture.
Maine lawmakers this week overrode Republican Gov. Paul LePage's veto of a law that supporters said would reduce firefighters' exposure to carcinogens.
Starting in 2019, a person can't sell upholstered furniture whose materials contain more than one percent of a flame-retardant chemical. The restrictions don't apply to used furniture.
Furniture bought for use in schools, jails and hospital are also exempted, and instead have to go through safety tests.
The American Chemistry Council had lobbied against the bill, arguing that flame retardants protect consumers from fire.
But Maine firefighters said smoke detectors and sprinklers save lives and that it's best to ban all flame retardant chemicals rather than wait for replacements that may be just as harmful.http://mainepublic.org/post/national-groups-hail-maines-new-flame-retardants-law
-
Aug 5, 2017 | AlterNet
By Nika Beauchamp
Decisively overriding the Governor’s veto, Maine legislators late Wednesday passed the first law in the nation to phase out all toxic flame retardants in upholstered furniture, protecting the health of families and firefighters.
“Once again, Maine common sense leads the nation. This new law phases out all flame retardant chemicals in residential upholstered furniture, because none are needed for fire safety. And the Maine ban tells the chemical industry to give up its futile attempt to weaken national protections,” said Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center and Prevent Harm, which worked with Maine firefighters to pass the bill.
LD 182, “An Act To Protect Firefighters by Establishing a Prohibition on the Sale and Distribution of New Upholstered Furniture Containing Certain Flame-retardant Chemicals,” saw an overwhelming override vote today: 123-14 in the House, and 31-1 in the Senate.
Flame retardants are linked to cancer, and professional firefighters suffer from more than 10 types of cancer at higher rates than the general population. Cancer is now the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths for professional firefighters.
Flame retardant chemicals are also harmful to children, increasing the risk of birth defects and learning disabilities as small children breathe them in with household dust. Moreover, safety experts and firefighters agree that flame retardants are not needed to slow down fires.
LD 182 is groundbreaking for two reasons. First, because flame retardants are unnecessary for fire safety, the new law phases out all such chemicals. This avoids “regrettable substitution,” in which alternatives also prove dangerous. Second, the law helps chill chemical industry lobbying for changes in national fire safety standards to counter California’s decision to no longer require flame retardant chemicals in residential upholstered furniture.
Regardless of industry efforts, after January 1, 2019, such furniture can no longer be sold in the State of Maine if it contains flame retardant chemicals.
"We are thankful to the members of the Maine House and Senate who overwhelmingly showed their support to lessen the risks of cancer for Maine firefighters, and firefighters and families across the country,” said John Martell, president of the Professional Firefighters of Maine.
Representative Jeff Pierce’s (R-Dresden) father was a firefighter who died of esophogeal cancer, and Pierce believes chemical exposures were responsible. “Too many firefighters in this state are suffering from cancer, plain and simple, and now LD 182 will finally help protect them,” Pierce said after the law’s passage. “I thank my fellow representatives for their support for this much-needed law.”
“This is a day that I have been looking forward to for over ten years,” said Ronnie Green, 4th district vice president of the Professional Firefighters of Maine. “Maine’s firefighters put their lives on the line to protect us all, and our legislators have finally stood up to say that firefighters need to be protected in turn from toxic, unnecessary flame retardants. We hope more states follow our lead and protect firefighters from these harmful chemicals.”
“An incredible team fought for this law to protect public health,” said Emily Postman, outreach and organizing manager at the Environmental Health Strategy Center. “Health advocates and firefighters and their families—including firefighters’ widows—traveled to Augusta throughout the winter and spring to speak on behalf of this bill.”
“No state in the nation requires the use of these toxic chemicals, and most furniture manufacturers have stopped using them for obvious reasons. It is time to get the last remaining companies using these chemicals to stop,” said Beth Ahearn, political director of Maine Conservation Voters. “We are proud to stand with firefighters and the many families who have been affected by this issue to protect the health of Maine people, and Maine heroes.”
“Hours of testimony from firefighters and safety experts as well as good bipartisan lawmaking went into this law,” said Representative Ralph Tucker, chair of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, where the bill was debated and finalized before being sent for votes by the full Legislature. “This law’s passage demonstrates what our Legislature can do when we come to the table and work together to help Maine people.”
“It was a long road to victory on LD 182, and I’d particularly like to thank Maine’s firefighters for the incredible work that they put into getting this bill passed,” said Walter A. Kumiega III (D-Deer Isle), the bill’s sponsor.
Indeed, the story behind this victory is truly a David and Goliath one.
Maine firefighters, firefighters’ widows, parents, teachers, and health advocates were pitted against the multinational chemical industry, which profits from flame retardant sales, to turn this bill into law.
The chemical industry’s trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) lobbies—often successfully—against state legislation that would harm chemical sales, such as LD 182. The chemical industry has manipulated scientific findings to overstate the effectiveness of toxic flame retardants and downplay the health risks for years, as the Chicago Tribune revealed in an award-winning investigative series as far back as 2012.
“The state of Maine has sent a message to the chemical industry that the health and well being of firefighters and families is more important than their profits. Misinformation circulated during the process of getting this bill passed was unfortunate and uncalled for,” Martell said. “The facts show these chemicals don't work and are unsafe. There are safer alternatives for life safety in our homes."
“Safer States is extremely proud of Maine's firefighters, state advocates, parents, and everyone else who helped get this policy adopted,” said Sarah Doll, national director for Safer States, a network of environmental health coalitions and organizations in states around the country. “Restricting all toxic flame retardants in residential furniture sets a national precedent that will protect firefighters and communities in Maine and beyond.”
Nika Beauchamp is the digital communications manager at the Environmental Health Strategy Center.
http://img.alternet.org/environment/first-nation-law-bans-all-flame-retardants-big-win-families-and-firefighters
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Passes First-In-Nation Law on Flame Retardants in Upholstered Furniture
Aug 4, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
This week, by a decisive bipartisan vote to override Governor LePage’s veto, Maine Legislators prioritized the health and safety of Maine children, families, and firefighters—and established a precedent-setting standard for the nation.
Firefighters and families worked alongside a powerful coalition of labor and environmental groups, including the Environmental Health Strategy Center and its action arm, Prevent Harm, to pass what now is the first law in the nation to phase out all toxic flame retardants in upholstered furniture. This first-in-the-nation law establishes a new national precedent for protecting public health.
Our staff members organized volunteers and joined firefighters and their families to speak out on behalf of this bill, making the long trek to the State House in Augusta to talk directly with legislators, from early this year right up to the legislators’ override vote on Wednesday.
It wasn’t easy. Not at all. We were up against intense lobbying by out-of-state representatives of the chemical industry. Misleading information and debunked pseudoscience repeatedly made its way to Maine legislators and media outlets.
The chemical industry’s trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) lobbies—often successfully—against state legislation that would harm chemical sales, such as LD 182. The chemical industry has manipulated scientific findings to overstate the effectiveness of toxic flame retardants and downplay the health risks for years, as the Chicago Tribune revealed in an award-winning investigative series as far back as 2012.
In the end, Maine common sense prevailed. The override vote was 123-14 in the House, and 31-1 in the Senate.
The facts swayed Maine legislators: toxic chemical flame retardants are linked to cancer, the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths among firefighters, and increase the risk of birth defects and learning disabilities among children. Moreover, safety experts and firefighters agree that flame retardants are not needed to slow down fires.
“Once again, Maine common sense leads the nation. This new law phases out all flame retardant chemicals in residential upholstered furniture, because none are needed for fire safety. And the Maine ban tells the chemical industry to give up its futile attempt to weaken national protections,” said Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center and Prevent Harm.
LD 182 is groundbreaking for two reasons. First, because flame retardants are unnecessary for fire safety, the new law phases out all such chemicals. This avoids “regrettable substitution,” in which alternatives also prove dangerous. Second, the law helps chill chemical industry lobbying for changes in national fire safety standards to counter California’s decision to no longer require flame retardant chemicals in residential upholstered furniture.
“The state of Maine has sent a message to the chemical industry that the health and well being of firefighters and families is more important than their profits. Misinformation circulated during the process of getting this bill passed was unfortunate and uncalled for,” said John Martell, president of the Professional Firefighters of Maine, which joined forces with the Environmental Health Strategy Center and Prevent Harm to pass LD 182. “The facts show these chemicals don’t work and are unsafe. There are safer alternatives for life safety in our homes.”
Regardless of industry efforts, after January 1, 2019, such furniture can no longer be sold in the State of Maine if it contains flame retardant chemicals.
“Safer States is extremely proud of Maine’s firefighters, state advocates, parents, and everyone else who helped get this policy adopted,” said Sarah Doll, national director for Safer States, a network of environmental health coalitions and organizations in states around the country. “Restricting all toxic flame retardants in residential furniture sets a national precedent that will protect firefighters and communities in Maine and beyond.”
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/08/04/maine-passes-first-in-nation-law-on-flame-retardants-in-upholstered-furniture/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Childhood Intelligence Harmed by Flame Retardant Exposure, Study Shows
Aug 7, 2017 | Newsweek
By Douglas Main
The more flame retardants a pregnant woman is exposed to, the greater the chances her child will have lower intelligence. A new paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives calculated that every tenfold increase in exposure to chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) was linked to a 3.7 point decline in IQ test scores in children. This potential effect is significant. By comparison, a tenfold increase in prenatal exposure to lead—a notorious neurotoxin—is associated with a 7 point decline in intelligence scores in children.
The new study is a meta-analysis summarizing and evaluating all of the relevant research on the safety of these chemicals. The researchers included 10 studies that show a link between flame retardants and intelligence, and analyzed another nine that looked for a connection between the chemicals and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. These nine papers don’t provide sufficient proof of a link between exposure to the substances and attention-related problems, says Juleen Lam, an associate research scientist at the University of California-San Francisco and lead author of the paper.
But for flame retardants, which are meant to prevent material from catching on fire, the connection is stark. “The evidence strongly suggests that PBDEs are damaging kids’ intelligence,” Lam says, and thus children should be protected from these substances to “prevent intelligence loss. We’re really seeing this as a wake-up call to policymakers.”
Exactly how PBDEs cause a decline in intelligence is unknown. However, research increasingly suggests they impair the activity of the endocrine system, the body’s delicate system of hormone-producing glands that controls everything from daily sleep-wake cycles to sexual development. And during pregnancy, the endocrine system has an enormous effect on the development of the fetus’s brain.
The paper is a “high-quality study that provides the most robust estimate” of the link between prenatal flame retardant exposure and IQ, says Ami Zota, an environmental health scientist at George Washington University who studies flame retardants but wasn’t involved in the paper.
Several PBDEs—there are many types—have been banned or phased out in the United States. Arlene Blum, a scientist with the Green Science Policy Institute who wasn’t involved in the study, says most new furniture doesn’t contain these flame retardants, as was once the case. But they aren’t going away. A study published in mid-March in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, of which Hurley was the lead author, found that bodily levels of flame retardants have plateaued over time and even increased in certain people. Hurley hypothesizes this is because the flame retardants have made their way into the environment after the materials were thrown away and then incinerated,
Hurley says this is likely because the chemicals are now getting into the food supply, as old furniture and foams containing these chemicals have been thrown into landfills or incinerated, leading flame retardants to leach into runoff or to be spewed into the air.
Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, declined to comment specifically on the study findings, but notes that “flame retardants provide consumers with a critical layer of fire protection, and they help save lives.” He also adds that “the major manufacturers of flame retardants have spent millions of dollars on research both before and after their products go on the market.”
Whether flame retardants like PBDEs make fires less deadly is a point of controversy. Some research suggests they do the opposite, showing that the chemicals can give rise to toxic fumes. Their efficacy, Zota says, is “not really backed up by well-supported data.”
Blum recommends buying new furniture and checking labels (which should say if the material contains flame retardants) to reduce exposure to these chemicals. Regular dusting can also help; PBDEs used to be commonly inserted into foam in furniture, and often become part of household dust. Washing your hands before eating can also help, as chemicals from dust can get onto the hands and into your mouth, Blum says.
“I lost IQ points from lead, and my daughter probably lost them from PBDEs,” Blum says. “It’s time to learn from the [likely effects] of these, and question the use of chemicals that may be harmful.”
http://www.newsweek.com/childhood-intelligence-harmed-flame-retardant-exposure-study-shows-646790
-
(ACC Mentioned) Prenatal Exposure to Fire Retardants Linked to Lower IQs in Children, Review Says
Aug 5, 2017 | UPI
By Randy Dotinga
Exposure to certain flame-retardant chemicals in pregnancy may be linked to lower intelligence in children, a new research review suggests.
The synthetic chemicals are known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. Although phased out in manufacturing in the United States, they remain in many products, including old couches and other household items, building materials and electronics, the researchers said.
Together, the studies reviewed suggested that IQs dip by 3.7 points for every 10-fold increase in prenatal exposure to these flame retardants.
"Even the loss of a few IQ points on a population-wide level means more children who need early interventions, and families who may face personal and economic burdens for the rest of their lives," said study co-author Tracey Woodruff.
Although the findings don't show a direct cause-and-effect relationship, they "go beyond merely showing a strong correlation," Woodruff said, noting her team "considered factors like strength and consistency of the evidence."
PBDEs became widespread four decades ago to disrupt combustion and spread of fire in furniture, clothing and electrical devices. The problem is, they can leach out from products, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Despite some bans and phase-outs, "everyone is exposed to PBDEs, so this means that there are potentially millions of IQ points that are lost across the population," said Woodruff, a professor with the University of California, San Francisco.
What's more, "children can be affected for generations to come," she added.
Over the past 40 years, prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders -- such as autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) -- has increased, the study authors said in background notes. Genetics, improved diagnostics or known environmental risk factors can't completely explain the uptick, they noted.
The researchers included 15 studies in the review covering nearly 3,000 mother-child pairs in all. Four looked at links between exposure to the chemicals and IQ levels in children. One of these examined women who were pregnant on Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City, the day the Twin Towers were attacked.
Study co-author Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, described the IQ effect this way: "A subtle downward shift in IQ in a population of children can have a substantial shift on the number of children who fall below an IQ of 70 points, which is considered challenged."
Moreover, children are simultaneously exposed to a "whole host of toxic chemicals that diminish intellectual ability, like lead, mercury, air pollutants, pesticides and PBDEs," he added.
"Some children will be exposed to sufficiently high levels of several chemicals, and the cumulative impact -- especially among impoverished communities where these exposures are often concentrated -- can be substantial," Lanphear said.
The researchers also looked at studies examining possible links between the chemicals and ADHD, and found what they described as moderate-quality evidence of a "limited" effect.
Bryan Goodman, speaking for the American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance, said the chemicals were voluntarily phased out of production years ago.
Major manufacturers of flame retardants "have spent millions of dollars on research both before and after their products go on the market," Goodman said. Also, he pointed out, flame retardants are subject to review by regulators.
The findings were published Aug. 3 in Environmental Health Perspectives.
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/08/05/Prenatal-exposure-to-fire-retardants-linked-to-lower-IQs-in-children-review-says/8851501957639/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Chemicals Linked to Lower IQs in Kids
Aug 4, 2017 | CBS San Francisco Bay Area
By Melissa Caen
Flame retardants are in couches and many consumer products and no San Francisco is trying to outright ban them.
Over the years there have been dozens of studies of how they affect our health, but a new study takes that information and puts it all together, to reveal some frightening effects.
A new study says flame retardant chemicals can harm children’s intelligence
Dr. Tracey Woodruff, the director of UCSF’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment said, “Everybody’s exposed to these chemical flame retardants and so it’s really important to understand what they might be doing.”
Dr. Woodruff’s part of the team that just released a study on the effects of flame retardant chemicals on children.
“So these studies followed children up until about five to seven years of age to see how it affected their neurodevelopment, essentially their IQ and their potential for ADHD,” Dr. Woodruff explained.
The new study analyzes previous studies to get a big picture of the data. They focused on one flame retardant, known as PBDE.
Dr. Woodruff said, “We found that women who were exposed to higher levels of flame retardant chemicals, their children were more at risk for having lower IQ. For about a 10-fold increase in the levels, we saw about a 3.7 drop in IQ.”
Bryan Goodman with the American Chemistry Council points out that PBDE was banned in 2004.
He said, “This particular study looked at a group of flame retardants that were phased out many years ago.”
Goodman said, “Flame retardants that are currently on the market are subject to review by the U.S. E.P.A. and regulatory bodies around the world.”
But products manufactured before 2004 could still be in stores.
San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell isn’t taking any chances, he’s introduced legislation to ban the sale of items with any flame retardant in San Francisco.
“They’ve proven actually not to reduce fires, they’ve actually proven only to cause diseases including cancer and other types of forms of fatal diseases amongst adults and kids. That’s why we’re banning them,” Farrell said.
He says the chemical lobby has been too powerful for too long
Farrell said, “We’re doing this as a reaction to the chemical industry’s lobby over the course of the past few decades in our state and standing up and protecting the health of San Francisco residents and our kids in our city.”
Dr. Woodruff said, “I was surprised to see that these chemicals that, sometimes the industry claims are safe are actually really not safe and actually can be a problem for children.”
The San Francisco bill has a lot of support and is likely to succeed.
We talked to the deputy director with the Green Policy Center and she said the chemicals are mostly spread through dust, so clean and dust often and wash your hands frequently. She also says new couches have a tag saying whether or not they were made with flame retardant chemicals. If your product doesn’t have a tag, you can call the manufacturer to find out.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/04/flame-retardant-chemicals-lower-iq-kids/
-
Chemical Footprint Project Calls for Increased Transparency
Aug 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Chemical Footprint Project has identified increased transparency around restricted substances lists (RSL) and chemicals policies as "the greatest opportunity for improvement" among its participating companies.
Two dozen companies, with a joint yearly revenue of more than $670bn, took part in the second annual survey of the CFP – an initiative of the NGO Clean Production Action and other partners that helps corporations measure their progress on transitioning to safer chemicals.
Survey responders included both small companies and international conglomerates representing a variety of sectors, including personal care products, apparel, toys, building products, electronics, toys and packaging.
The survey is divided into four categories that evaluate companies’ performance in:
· management strategy;
· disclosure and verification;
· chemical inventory; and
· footprint measurement.
Overall, companies scored highest in the chemical inventory section. According to the report, this indicates they are using RSLs, collecting data on chemicals in products and their supply chains and engaging suppliers in their efforts.
But the report found that disclosure and verification scores lagged behind, with companies slow to share their progress on developing environmentally sound chemical management policies. It concludes "companies are actually doing more than they make known to the public".
Although 92% of companies reported having a policy on chemicals of high concern (CoHCs) – a list of more than 2,000 substances flagged up by the CFP – only half of these made their policy available to the public. And despite 71% of companies having RSLs, only 41% chose to disclose them publicly.
CFP co-founder Mark Rossi told Chemical Watch that companies struggle on chemical transparency for "an array of reasons, including that the incentives for corporate transparency on chemicals are low." He added companies prefer to "report on successes rather than where they are on the journey to safer chemicals."
But, he said, the CFP programme "is changing that dynamic with demands from investors and purchasers."Company-specific survey disclosure
Although 24 companies took part in the survey, only 22 publicly disclosed their participation. Of these,Beautycounter, BD, Case Medical, Inpro Corporation and Replenish were the only ones that allowed their answers to be published on the CFP website.
Participating companies were scored on their chemicals management practices through a series of 20 questions, with a highest possible score of 100 points.
Personal care company Beautycounter scored the highest with 92.
The average was 49 points, which was an increase from 41 in the previous survey. The 11 companies that took part both years increased their overall scores by 20%.
Mr Rossi said that companies had scored better for management strategy, chemical inventory, and footprint measurement for several reasons. These include that they are putting corporate policies in place and making them public, improving their engagement of suppliers and tracking RSLs to full chemical ingredient. They are also starting to 'footprint' – beginning with getting a count of CoHCs and moving into measuring the mass of CoHCs.Companies that revealed CFP survey participation
· Adidas AG;
· Alima Pure;
· Angelica Corporation;
· Beautycounter;
· Becton Dickinson (BD);
· Case Medical Inc;
· Construction Specialties;
· Gojo Industries;
· Herman Miller;
· HP;
· Inpro Corporation;
· Johnson & Johnson;
· Kimball Hospitality;
· Levi Strauss & Co;
· Nora systems, Inc;
· Radio Flyer;
· Replenish;
· Seagate Technology PLC;
· Sealed Air Corporation;
· Seventh Generation;
· Walmart Stores; and
· WaterWipes
https://chemicalwatch.com/58027/chemical-footprint-project-calls-for-increased-transparency
-
For Cosmetics, Let the Buyer Beware
Aug 7, 2017 | New York Times
By Jane E. Brody
When you wash your hair, clean or moisturize your skin, polish your nails, or put on makeup, deodorant or sunscreen, do you ever think about whether the product you’re using may do more harm than good?
Maybe you should. Thanks to a lack of federal regulations, the watchword for consumers of cosmetics and personal care products should be caveat emptor: Let the buyer beware.
To be sure, these products are not nearly as worrisome as drugs, which require extensive testing and premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Still, disasters can and sometimes do occur from the use of cosmetics and personal care products, and the government is powerless to act until a slew of consumer complaints raise a red flag about a product.
In a recent editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Robert M. Califf, who served as F.D.A. chief under President Obama, noted, “The cosmetic industry remains largely self-regulated. History has repeatedly shown that when there is insufficient regulatory oversight, a few unscrupulous people or companies will exploit the vulnerable public for profit.”
Even when a hazard comes to light, a product can remain on the market for years until negotiations make their way through the legal system or the company decides to halt sales. (Although the F.D.A. finally banned antibacterial chemicals like triclosan from soaps, triclosan is still in toothpastes and other consumer products.)Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEWhy a Chemical Banned From Soap Is Still in Your Toothpaste SEPT. 7, 2016Their Hair Fell Out. Should the F.D.A. Have the Power to Act? AUG. 15, 2016Ban on Microbeads Proves Easy to Pass Through Pipeline DEC. 22, 2015Personal HealthDry Eyes Deserve AttentionJUL 31The Subtle Signs of a Thyroid DisorderJUL 24With Cancer Screening, Better Safe Than Sorry?JUL 17Do Egg Donors Face Long-Term Risks?JUL 10What I Wish I’d Known About My KneesJUL 3
See More »
A current case is a classic example. The F.D.A. normally receives about 300 to 400 complaints a year about bad reactions to cosmetics and personal care products, all of which are sold over-the-counter without prior government scrutiny. When in 2013 the agency received 127 reports of adverse effects from a single line of hair-care products called WEN, it discovered that the manufacturer, Chaz Dean, Inc., had been sitting on more than 21,000 complaints of hair loss and scalp damage associated with the products’ use.
A class-action lawsuit filed by more than 200 women against the company and its infomercial producer Guthy-Renker was settled last year for $26.3 million. Yet the company claims that WEN hair care products are “totally safe” and continues to sell them.
Unlike drugs, cosmetics can be sold based solely on manufacturers’ tests (or no tests at all) and claims for effectiveness and safety. Even the ingredients don’t have to be filed with the government. (Only color additives require premarket approval.)
“The F.D.A. must wait for clues to accumulate from voluntary reports suggesting that a product may not be as completely safe as presumed,” Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, health policy expert and vice chancellor at Duke University School of Medicine, wrote.
Asked in an interview whether more can be done to protect the public, he said, “It’s highly unlikely in the current administration. There’s a tiny work force at the F.D.A. to deal with an enormous industry that’s currently self-policing. Voluntary reporting of adverse events linked to cosmetics and personal care products is a lot better than nothing, but it’s way inadequate for the job. There’s no legal requirement for manufacturers to forward reports of adverse events to the F.D.A.”
(Only manufacturers of drugs and medical devices are required to submit reports of hazards associated with their products to the federal agency.)
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act defines cosmetics as “articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body … for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.”
Dr. Califf’s editorial accompanied a rather startling report in the journal by Dr. Shuai Xu, a dermatologist, and two colleagues at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. On the heels of the thousands of complaints uncovered about WEN products, the F.D.A. made publicly available its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System, a repository of adverse events related to foods, dietary supplements and cosmetics.
This enabled Dr. Xu and colleagues to analyze all the adverse eventsassociated with cosmetics and personal care products voluntarily submitted from 2004 through 2016 by consumers and health care professionals. Through 2014, they averaged 396 a year. There was a 78 percent increase in reports in 2015 and a 300 percent rise in 2016, largely driven by complaints about WEN products.
“Over all,” the researchers found, “the three most commonly implicated products were hair care, skin care and tattoos,” and “significantly higher than average reports of serious health outcomes” involved baby, personal cleanliness, hair care and hair coloring products.
Consumers who experience bad reactions to such a product might consult a physician or contact the manufacturer, “but they rarely think of going to a government agency,” Dr. Xu said in an interview.
The F.D.A. wants to encourage consumers to submit reports to it directly and has created a website to do so at: www.fda.gov/cosmetics/complianceenforcement/adverseeventreporting
At the same time, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, have proposed a bill, the Personal Care Products Safety Act, that would require manufacturers of cosmetics and personal care products to submit a list of all ingredients and reports of adverse events to the F.D.A. and give the agency authority to order product recalls.
Dr. Xu said, “As a dermatologist, I live and breathe personal care products day and night. Patients ask me about them all the time. I warn patients that labeling can be very tricky. One needs a Ph.D. in chemistry to be able to interpret all the terms. What does it mean for a product to be labeled ‘natural’? That doesn’t make it safe. Poison ivy is perfectly natural.”
However, Dr. Xu said, “I’m not alarmist – I haven’t thrown out all the soaps and creams in my house. I’m not in favor of overregulation that could result in higher costs for products like moisturizers. But it should not be controversial to ask for better reporting and a better data system that includes information from consumers, doctors and manufacturers. That’s important not only to detect problems but also to allay public fears.”
Dr. Califf said that technological mechanisms for gathering such information already exist, in particular through electronic health records. As a member of a family prone to melanoma, he said he is especially concerned about sunblocks, found in myriad cosmetic products as well as those sold specifically as sunscreens.
“It’s not known how much of these chemicals is absorbed through the skin and what effect they may have over a lifetime of use,” he said. “The right studies of health effects have not been done.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/well/for-cosmetics-let-the-buyer-beware.html
-
Energy Industry Urges Appeals Court to Rehear Obama-Era Methane Rules
Aug 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Opponents of Obama-era rules governing new sources of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are urging a federal appeals court to rehear a legal challenge to the rules, arguing that a three-judge panel erred when it lifted a stay last month.
Meanwhile, attorneys general for 13 states and the District of Columbia, along with lawyers for the City of Chicago and several environmental groups, filed a separate response urging the court to reject rehearing the case. A ruling is expected in the near future.
At issue are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rules governing fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps and professional engineer certification requirements as outlined in updates to the agency's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Last May, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed a 90-day stay over the rules, but a three-judge panel lifted the stay following a 2-1 vote on July 3.
On Thursday, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and other trade associations representing the oil and gas industry filed a reply in support of a petition to rehear the case en banc. They argue that the panel erred when it said Pruitt's 90-day stay constituted a reviewable final agency action.
"The petitioners fail to recognize that the stay here is a 'neutral, time-limited stay,' distinguishing it from other stay authorities," the respondents said, quoting parts of the argument outlined by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, the panel's lone dissenting judge. "The stay is not the end of EPA's decision making process.
"Merely hitting 'pause' does not end the process. If this limited, three-month stay to preserve the status quo is 'final agency action,' then 'every interlocutory action that leaves compliance to the discretion of the regulated party would justify judicial review.'"
The respondents include API, the GPA Midstream Association (GPA), the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Western Energy Alliance (WEA), as well as numerous state organizations representing producers. The states of North Dakota and Texas are amici curiae in the case, which is Clean Air Council et al. v. EPA[No. 17-1145]. The same groups filed a petition for rehearing on July 27.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and the Environmental Defense Fund filed a separate response on Wednesday that urges the court to reject rehearing the case.
"This case does not come close to satisfying the demanding standards for granting en banc rehearing," the petitioners said in their filing. "The panel correctly decided that Administrator Pruitt's stay of a duly promulgated regulation was reviewable and was arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of his authority."
The petitioners also pointed out that the EPA "has not even sought rehearing." They added that the oil and gas industry and other intervenors "do not raise any serious argument that casts doubt on the decision, much less show that this case presents a question worthy of en banc review."
Other environmental groups against rehearing the case include the Clean Air Council, Earthworks, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. Attorneys general from 12 states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- are also opposed. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is also on the list of petitioners.
It is unclear how long the updated NSPS rules would remain in effect. The EPA is accepting public comments until Wednesday (Aug. 9) over a proposed two-year stay of the rules. Environmental groups opposed to the two-year stay packed a public hearing on the proposal last month, while API testified in favor of the stay.
Last Monday, the court reaffirmed in a 9-2 ruling that Pruitt exceeded his authority when he proposed the 90-day stay. The ruling effectively put the updated NSPS rules into effect. Six conservation groups filed a lawsuit over Pruitt's stay last June.
Although it has not asked to rehear the case, the EPA took the unusual step last month of asking the court to recall its mandate, thereby giving the agency more time to weigh its options. Court records show API, GPA, INGAA, IPAA and WEA filed a motion in support of the EPA's request.
EPA first unveiled the 2016 NSPS during the Obama administration. The rules were designed to reduce methane, volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants.
Last April, the EPA said it would reconsider the rules to comply with an executive order (EO) signed by President Trump on March 28. The EO included a directive for EPA to immediately review regulations on energy sources, and then to either suspend, revise or rescind them.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111316-energy-industry-urges-appeals-court-to-rehear-obama-era-methane-rules
-
BOEM Issues Final Programmatic EIS for Gulf of Mexico
Aug 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has issued its final broad environmental review of the potential impacts of future offshore oil and gas leases and underwater surveys in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 10 years.
The final programmatic environmental impact statement for activities in the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico gives would-be developers an idea of the kinds of restrictions and actions they would be required to take to reduce the impact of their activities on such things as marine mammals, fisheries and recreation.
Companies, for example, would have restrictions on which months they could do certain activities in coastal waters to reduce the potential harm to dolphins during their reproductive season. BOEM has also established new procedures for seismic airgun surveys to lower the impact the sound of those surveys could have on manatees, whales and sea turtles.
The baseline assumptions about the existing conditions in the potential lease areas has also been changed to include the damage done, and still occurring, as a result of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
WHAT'S NEXT: The programmatic EIS serves as a baseline guide that BOEM will use over the next 10 years when it reviews the potential impacts of site-specific activities.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
BLM Gauges Interest in Oil, Gas Leases in Alaska
Aug 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
The Bureau of Land Management is gauging oil and gas developers' interest in new leases in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
BLM's call for nominations on all unleased tracts in the NPR-A follows Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke's May directive for staff to explore the potential for amping up oil production in the reserve and to assess how much oil and gas could be extracted from part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The call is slated to be published in the Federal Register on Monday.
BLM is also seeking comments on whether any tracts should receive special consideration or analysis.
The U.S Geological Survey in 2010 estimated the NPR-A held about 895 million barrels of economically recoverable oil and 52.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
WHAT'S NEXT: BLM will accept nominations and comments for 30 days after the notice is published.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Why Are These Billions in Pipeline Projects Stalled?
Aug 5, 2017 | Politico
By Eric Wolff and Darius Dixon
Billions of dollars’ worth of shovel-ready infrastructure projects have been held up by a bureaucratic morass that President Donald Trump helped to create.
Trump’s slowness to fill vacancies at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is one reason for a growing backlog of natural gas pipelines and a gas export terminal awaiting approval from the agency, which has been unable to conduct major business since February. The waiting list has grown to at least $13 billion worth of projects expected to generate more than 23,000 construction jobs, according to a POLITICO analysis — largely in states Trump won in November.
Finally, the agency is ready to get back to work after the Senate confirmed two FERC nominees late Thursday. The commission was crippled by leadership vacancies just two weeks after Trump’s inauguration when he demoted its former chairman, who promptly quit. Since July 1, four of the agency’s five seats have been vacant.
FERC oversees interstate pipelines, liquefied natural gas exports and wholesale electricity markets. For the projects’ supporters and people who follow the agency, Thursday’s confirmation of Pennsylvania regulator Rob Powelson and Republican Senate aide Neil Chatterjee could not have come too soon.
“I would not begin to minimize even the passage of another month,” said former FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable, “because there are high stakes in the matters that come before FERC each and every day — vast amounts of capital at issue, vast amounts of consumer cost or savings at stake.”
Many of the largest pipeline projects waiting for approval run right through Trump country, carrying gas out of shale plays in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio — all states Trump won last year and hopes to win again. One project alone, called Atlantic Coast, would bring 10,000 jobs to West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, and the $2 billion NEXUS line would put 3,300 people to work in Michigan and Pennsylvania, states Trump flipped to red for the first time in decades.
Encouraging domestic energy production and rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure were major campaign themes for Trump, whose promises of a $1 trillion infrastructure plan have yet to yield concrete progress on Capitol Hill.
FERC’s holdup came as the agency, which has a $350 million annual budget and 1,500 employees, has found its once-quiet regulatory responsibilities increasingly politicized as its work draws closer to the center of some of the nation’s most significant energy and climate policy debates.
The small independent agency does not formally take direction from the White House, but it has ample power to shape Trump’s agenda of U.S. “energy dominance.” FERC is in charge of authorizing facilities to export natural gas; balancing the environmental risks and benefits of the fracking boom; setting rates for increasingly complicated energy markets; and deciding how far states can go in propping up nuclear power plants by paying more for their carbon-free energy.
Environmentalists, who besieged the agency’s meetings with protests last year, say FERC takes too narrow a view of its mandate to ensure affordable, reliable energy supplies and has ignored larger questions of climate change and environmental protection. Their protests have intensified in the wake of the fracking boom that led to higher demand for new pipelines and export terminals.
Industry supporters say any policy changes need to come from Congress and complain that their projects are falling victim to partisan infighting.
But virtually everyone who has a history with FERC agrees that the polarization around the agency did not begin this year. The agency’s long state of paralysis is complex enough that Trump is not solely at fault.
“There are a number of things that had to go wrong to put FERC in this current position, and every single one of them went wrong,” said Marc Spitzer, a former Republican FERC commissioner. “It’s unfair to put all the blame on any one person.”
FERC was set at the precipice of dysfunction by former President Barack Obama, when GOP Commissioner Phil Moeller resigned in October 2015 and fellow Republican Tony Clark followed him out the door 11 months later. Obama never nominated anyone to fill the two GOP-designated seats, in part because of Democrats’ larger political feud with Senate Republicans after Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court without any hearings or votes.
But it was Trump who pushed FERC off that cliff, when he stripped the chairmanship from Norman Bay and gave it to Cheryl LaFleur, another Democrat. Bay followed the lead of most chairs who lose the gavel and resigned, taking the agency’s quorum with him. As of July 1, when Honorable resigned, LaFleur became the agency’s sole member.
Democrats fault the White House for the pace of confirming new commissioners.The Senate has traditionally confirmed nominees to bipartisan commissions such as FERC by packaging picks from both parties together before bringing them to the floor for votes. But the White House only formally nominated Democratic aide Rich Glick on Wednesday, five weeks after announcing plans to do so.
Others blame the lack of trust in a polarized Washington.
“The Senate functions based on trust and unanimous consent. If everything in the Senate has to go the whole nine yards, then virtually nothing gets done,” said one longtime industry official close to pending projects who asked not to be named in order to speak freely. The Senate can move swiftly, the source added, “but in order for that to happen, there needs to be some measure of trust.”
Two of Trump’s FERC picks, Republicans Chatterjee and Powelson, cleared the Senate energy committee in June, but without Glick’s nomination, Senate Democrats were unlikely to allow a delay-free confirmation. Once Glick’s papers came in, Democrats let them through on the last day before a monthlong recess.
But industry members spent the intervening months watching the clock tick while projects stayed frozen.
“FERC’s lack of a quorum since early February represents an unnecessary drag on the economy, sidelining billions of dollars in private capital otherwise poised to put thousands of Americans to work expanding and improving our nation’s energy delivery system,” said Adam Parker, a spokesman for the NEXUS pipeline project being built by Enbridge.
Enbridge will miss a year-end deadline to begin operating the $2 billion, 256-mile natural gas link between a Marcellus shale natural gas field in eastern Ohio and markets in Michigan and Canada. The project, which would put 3,360 people to work, finished its environmental review in November — the penultimate regulatory step before construction can begin — and has been waiting since for the commission to get staffed up.
NEXUS is one of 18 pipelines and gas projects that have completed environmental reviews since last fall but could not receive FERC’s final OK while it lacked a quorum. Others include TransCanada’s WB Xpress; the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which has six companies behind it; the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, being built by a partnership of Duke, Dominion, Piedmont Gas and Southern Co.; and PennEast, whose backers include Southern Co. and Spectra Energy. Each of these projects will carry natural gas out of the Marcellus shale to population centers in the East or Midwest.
An unusual deep-water LNG export terminal that Delfin LNG wants to build at Port Delfin in Louisiana has its Department of Energy approval, but it needs FERC to sign off onshore parts of the project before construction can begin.
Together, the projects stand to employ more than 23,000 people in mostly temporary construction jobs and would inject more than $13 billion in investments into the economy, according to the companies behind them.
For many of these pipelines, the lack of a quorum may have cost them a year of work: Summer and fall are ideal times to build in much of the country. Foul weather stops construction in winter, and environmental considerations often make spring work untenable.
The delays provided a temporary win to the growing ranks of anti-pipeline protesters, who have been arrested at FERC meetings and sometimes even camped outside of commissioners’ homes to protest approvals of the infrastructure necessary to move all the new natural gas unlocked by the fracking boom.
Some of those same activists were hoping Senate Democrats would do everything possible to keep the open seats from ever being filled. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whom activists cite as an ally, opposed the two nominated commissioners in committee, and he opposes a bipartisan energy bill that would speed up pipeline approvals.
Keeping FERC without a quorum slowed that process.
“As long as there’s no quorum established, no pipelines are being approved. That helps us,” said Karen Feridun, founder of Berks Gas Truth, an anti-fracking group out of Berks County, Pennsylvania, that is part of the umbrella FERC Vacancies Coalition.
Pipeline approvals are not the only backlog awaiting Trump’s new FERC commissioners. They will also be thrust into the center of testy regional and state-level battles over programs designed to address climate change by subsidizing nuclear power plants, and potentially price carbon emissions.
“FERC, and what’s subject to its jurisdiction, kind of got dragged into the climate debate,” the industry official said, noting that the agency has found itself the target of ever-increasing interest on Capitol Hill from “those in Congress who wanted to stop the [Obama administration’s] Clean Power Plan and were unable to do so.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/05/trump-energy-commission-pipeline-projects-delayed-241347
-
City Pledges for ‘100% Renewable Energy’ Are 99% Misleading
Aug 4, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Charles McConnell
Dozens of cities have made a misleading pledge: that they will move to 100% renewable energy so as to power residents’ lives without emitting a single puff of carbon. At a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in late June, leaders unanimously adopted a resolution setting a “community-wide target” of 100% clean power by 2035. Mayors from Portland, Ore., to Los Angeles to Miami Beach have signed on to these goals.
States are getting in the game, too. Two years ago Hawaii pledged that its electricity would be entirely renewable by 2045. The California Senate recently passed a bill setting the same goal, while moving up the state’s timeline to get half its electricity from renewables from 2030 to 2025.
Let’s not get carried away. Although activists herald these pledges as major environmental accomplishments, they’re more of a marketing gimmick. Use my home state of Texas as an example. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas oversees 90% of the state’s electricity generation and distribution. Texas generates more wind and solar power than any other state. Yet more than 71% of the council’s total electricity still comes from coal and natural gas.
The trick is that there’s no method to designate electrons on the grid as originating from one source or another. Power generated by fossil fuels and wind turbines travels together over poles and underground wires before reaching cities, homes and businesses. No customer can use power from wind and solar farms exclusively.
So how do cities make this 100% renewable claim while still receiving regular electricity from the grid? They pay to generate extra renewable energy that they then sell on the market. If they underwrite enough, they can claim to have offset whatever carbon-generated electricity they use. The proceeds from the sale go back to the city and are put toward its electric bill.
In essence, these cities are buying a “renewable” label to put on the regular power they’re using. Developers of wind and solar farms win because they can use mayoral commitments to finance their projects, which probably are already subsidized by taxpayers.
But the game would never work without complete confidence in the reliability of the grid, which is dependent on a strategy of “all of the above,” generating power from sources that include coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar.
The mayor of Georgetown, Texas, announced earlier this year that his city had reached its goal of 100% renewable electricity. But in a 2015 article announcing the pledge, he acknowledged what would happen if solar and wind were not able to cover the city’s needs: “The Texas grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, will ensure generation is available to meet demand.”
Two years ago the mayor of Denton, Texas, announced a plan to go 70% renewable, while calling a target of 100% unrealistic. “One of the challenges of renewable energy is that it’s so hard to predict,” he said. “You don’t know exactly when the sun is going to shine or when the wind is going to blow. To maintain that reliable power, you must have backup power.”
There is no denying that wind and solar power are important to a balanced energy portfolio. But coal is the bedrock of affordable electricity, and it will remain so, no matter how much wishful thinking by environmental activists. Coal is abundant and reliable. Unlike wind and solar, coal generation can be dialed up and down in response to market conditions and to satisfy demand.
The headline-grabbing 100% renewable pledges intentionally overlook these facts. Fossil fuels are not only the largest and most critical component of the energy portfolio, they are the foundation upon which renewable power must stand. Wind and solar generators ride free into the electric grid on the backs of fossil generators that have installed and paid for the infrastructure on which all Americans depend. The rise of renewable generation is made possible by fossil fuels, not despite them.
We should celebrate the growth of renewables, but not with false and misleading claims. What’s needed is transparency and a shared objective to provide consumers with the most reliable, resilient and affordable energy available.
Mr. McConnell, executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University, was an assistant secretary of energy, 2011-13.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/city-pledges-for-100-renewable-energy-are-99-misleading-1501888640
-
Fires Extinguished After CSX Train Derailment in Pennsylvania
Aug 4, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Eric M. Johnson
Firefighters on Friday extinguished a string of sulfur fires that broke out in a small Pennsylvania town after dozens of CSX Corp rail cars careened off the tracks, the company said, but residents remained under evacuation orders.
Emergency agencies were awaiting results of air quality tests in the area before determining as early as Saturday when residents of tiny Hyndman, Pennsylvania could be allowed to return home, CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle said in a written statement.
He said hazardous substance experts also continued working with firefighters at the scene to contain leaks and minimize environmental damage.
There was no word from federal transportation regulators, the company, or Pennsylvania State Police on the cause of the derailment in Hyndman, about 100 miles (160 km) southeast of Pittsburgh.
Thirty-two cars came off the rails as the train moved through the town just before 5 a.m. on Wednesday, the company said, and emergency managers said portions of the train plowed into a residential garage and caught fire.Continue reading the main story
CSX initially said one rail car containing liquefied petroleum gas and one car containing molten sulfur leaked and were on fire. As of Friday, CSX said the propane fire had been extinguished, though small sulfur fires continued to burn.
The governor's office said roughly 1,000 people had been ordered to leave the town and there was no timeline, as of early Friday, for when residents might be allowed to return to their homes.
A CSX spokeswoman did not immediately respond on Friday to questions about service disruptions on the railway. The company said earlier that a nearly 80-mile stretch between Connellsville, Pennsylvania, and Cumberland, Maryland, would be affected for about a week.
The train of five locomotives and 178 rail cars was traveling from Chicago to Selkirk, New York, when it jumped the tracks, CSX said. It said 128 cars carried mixed freight, including construction materials, paper and wood pulp.
Crews were working to remove overturned rail cars from the site, the company said on Friday.
Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Railroad Administration were in Hyndman, the agencies said.
Wednesday's accident marked the third derailment for a CSX train since November. The crash happened two days after CSX Corp Chief Executive Officer Hunter Harrison apologized to customers for service disruptions and said some railroad employees were resisting planned cost-cutting measures.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/08/04/us/04reuters-csx-derailment.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Waste Industry to Save Millions Under EPA Monitoring Proposal
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Douglas Moran
Waste storage and processing facilities would save $28 million under an EPA proposal to ease air pollution monitoring requirements.
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed changes (RIN:2060-AT48) would ease monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices on containers. The notice, to be published Aug. 7, said the action would “not substantially change the level of environmental protection” provided under the toxic air pollution standards for waste processors.
Those standards cover 49 facilities that store, treat, recover, or dispose of certain wastes, used oil, and used solvents. The agency projected that the existing monitoring requirements for containers require the average facility to make about $570,000 in capital investments to comply.
The EPA issued its proposal in response to a request from the Eastman Chemical Co. and the American Chemistry Council. The American Chemistry Council declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA. Eastman Chemical, a manufacturer of chemicals, fibers, and plastics that runs multiple facilities affected by the regulation, could not be reached for comment.
In May 2015, the two organizations jointly petitioned the EPA to reconsider certain provisions of the toxic pollutant emissions limits, including monitoring requirements for portable containers.
“It is extremely challenging, if not impossible for these facilities to design and implement a monitoring system for portable containers,” the organizations said.
James Pew, a staff attorney for Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA that the proposal would weaken enforcement of the toxic pollutant standards by allowing facilities to conceal their emissions. States would have difficulty enforcing the standards because they won't know what the emissions are without monitoring, he said.
“The rule is really about letting these sources hide their actual emissions as much as it is about saving them money,” Pew said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118144611&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118144611&jd=118144611
-
Trump Vow to Keep Door Open to Climate Deal Convinces Few
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Donald Trump's vow to keep the door open to an international climate deal—even as he notifies the UN the U.S. is out—rings hollow given he has long derided it as bad for the economy.
“Some are suggesting they're leaving that door open. I think that's a sideshow,” Nat Keohane, who was special assistant for energy and environment in President Obama's National Economic Council, told Bloomberg BNA.
The Trump administration formally notified the UN Aug. 4 that it plans to leave the 2015 Paris climate pact reached by more than 190 nations. The administration has hinted it's open to rejoining the deal, but environmental groups and even some business advocates suggest that's just for show.
“They're announcing the direction they want to take, which is a firm ‘we're getting out.’ In my mind that leaves no room” to assume Trump would entertain rejoining the pact at a later date, said Keohane, who is now head of the Environmental Defense Fund's global climate program.
Trump has repeatedly pledged to pull out of the Paris climate deal, the first to include actions from developing as well as developed nations, saying it will unfairly penalize the U.S. However, in originally announcing the withdrawal June 1, Trump suggested he would be willing to rejoin the pact on terms more favorable to the U.S. The White House and the State Department had been negotiating the wording of the withdrawal letter for weeks, according to sources familiar with the effort, which in recent versions included language suggesting the U.S. could still re-enter the deal at a later date.
But even some industry-friendly groups that support pulling out of the Paris deal see that language as a red herring.
“As far as including re-entry language, it doesn't bother me,” Myron Ebell, energy and environment director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Bloomberg BNA.
Such conciliatory language is likely a concession to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other administration officials who favor staying in the climate pact, he said.
“Well, that side is now 0-2” after failing to convince Trump to stay in the Paris pact and now failing to keep him from sending a formal letter to the UN formalizing that decision, he said.
“What that tells me is they are able...to give the appearance that there was a good debate to the media,” he said.
Letter Comes Years Early
The State Department released a statement late Aug. 4 confirming that the U.S. has “submitted a communication” to the UN “regarding the U.S. intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is eligible to do so, consistent with the terms” of the climate accord.
Sending such a letter now—the United Nations does not actually require notification to leave the agreement until 2019 under the Paris Agreement—is seen by many as premature.
“What this move suggests is the exact opposite, that Trump is moving recklessly to signal a retreat from the world ahead of schedule,” Heather Coleman, director of Oxfam America's climate and energy program, told Bloomberg BNA.
Countries that signed on to the Paris deal agreed to language requiring them to wait at least three years before beginning a formal withdrawal from the accord. That would mean the U.S. technically has to wait until 2019 to send that notice, a sort of three-year cooling-off period dating from the pact's entry into force in November 2016.
The text of the Paris agreement actually says that the UN is only to consider such a withdrawal after that cooling-off period has expired. A spokesman for the UN secretary-general's office said Aug. 4 that it had not yet received formal notification from the U.S. of its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
The State Department did not release the text of the letter, but it sought to suggest that Trump “is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.” However, suggestions the U.S. could return to the table are not likely to be embraced by other parties to the agreement.
“We've been hearing from other countries in recent weeks that the president remains open to the possibility of renegotiation as long as it has not formally withdrawn from the agreement itself,” Coleman said.
Pledge of Continued Participation
The State Department stressed in its statement that U.S. “will continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings,” including the next UN climate summit in November, talks which serve as the 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP-23) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The U.S. will still be at the table, the department said, “to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration. Such participation will include ongoing negotiations related to guidance for implementing the Paris Agreement,” it said.
Withdrawing from the deal, Ebell said, just acknowledges that Trump's rollback of climate policies means the U.S. will almost surely miss its Paris pledge to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118144596&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118144596&jd=118144596
-
U.S. to Join Climate Talks Despite Planned Withdrawal From Paris Accord
Aug 4, 2017 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The White House formally notified the United Nations on Friday that it intends to abandon the Paris agreement on climate change but remains open to “re-engaging” on the accord.
The United States will participate in United Nations climate negotiations later this year despite its planned withdrawal, according to the administration’s statement of intent.
The letter has no legal weight and does not set in motion the United States’ departure from the pact of nearly 200 nations to curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, it is a political document that affirms President Trump’s declaration in June that the Paris agreement is a bad deal for America.
“As the President indicated in his June 1 announcement and subsequently, he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the U.S. can identify terms that are more favorable to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers,” the State Department statement says.
When Mr. Trump revealed his decision to withdraw from the accord, he suggested the United States might be willing to stay if he could “make a deal that’s fair.”
President Emmanuel Macron of France, after inviting Mr. Trump to Paris, said he believed he had convinced the American president to stay in the climate accord.
“We talked in detail about what could enable him to come back into the Paris accords,” Mr. Macron told reporters.
According to the White House announcement, the United States will continue to participate in United Nations climate discussions including one in Bonn, Germany, in November aimed at fleshing out the Paris agreement. Continued American presence at such talks is to “protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration,” the statement says.
The announcement adds that the United States “supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security.” In language that mirrors wording the White House team was able to insert in Group of 20 discussions, it calls for working with other nations to “help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently.”
Under terms of the Paris accord, the United States cannot formally begin the process of withdrawal until Nov. 4, 2019.
Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, said Mr. Guterres welcomed any re-engagement by the Trump administration, adding, “it is crucial that the United States remains a leader on climate and sustainable development. Climate change is impacting now.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/climate/us-to-join-climate-talks-despite-planned-withdrawal-from-paris-accord.html
-
States Should Be Front Line of Enforcement, EPA Official Says
Aug 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
The Environmental Protection Agency will look to the states as the first line of environmental enforcement as part of Washington's cooperative federalism approach, a senior environment official said.
“There will still be EPA oversight and compliance assistance, but where the states are valuable partners in environmental protection and are capable of solving a problem, EPA ought to get out of their way,” Patrick Traylor, the deputy assistant administrator for enforcement, said Aug. 4 at the 29th Texas Environmental Superconference.
The notion of cooperative federalism that Traylor stressed in his talk is a favorite theme of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Traylor said it does not mean that the EPA is abdicating its statutory responsibilities to protect human health and the environment, but that there is a limit to what Congress has charged the federal agency to do.
“Too often before, the EPA has pushed its power beyond the bounds of its statutory authority,” Traylor said. Examples, he said, were the waters of the U.S. rule and the Clean Power Plan.
“The courts had already stayed both of those rules,” said Traylor, who represented several fossil fuel companies while at Hogan Lovells, representing clients on Clean Air Act enforcement and other matters.
“I don't know how much effort was expended promulgating those rules, but I think that effort should have been expended and focused on advancing EPA's clear statutory mission,” he said.
Resource Concerns
John Cruden, who served as assistant attorney general in the Obama administration, told Bloomberg BNA on the sidelines of the conference that while cooperative federalism “is at the heart” of environmental law and enforcement, such an approach should not be to the exclusion of Washington.
“I certainly believe that those entities state and local that are closest to the polluting event ought to be the ones who care the most,” said Cruden, who now serves as president of the American College of Environmental Lawyers.
“Where I would draw the line is that just because a state or local government is involved does not mean that federal government cannot be,” he said.
While expressing concerns about the state-federal dynamic, budget finances are even a more pressing issue, Cruden said.
“I have to say of all things that I'm concerned about right now, I would put resources right at the very top,” he said. State officials he spoke with are also concerned, he added.
“A lot of the EPA budget goes into grants that go to states,” he said. “If the EPA budget was hurt the way [President Donald Trump's budget] proposal was which was a 31 percent reduction—that would have a very significant impact on states.” The “very first thing” that goes when financial resources dry up is discretionary programs, including enforcement, Cruden said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118144602&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118144602&jd=118144602
-
The EPA Won’t Be Able to Protect Anyone Without Money
Aug 6, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By John O'Grady
The president’s pick to lead the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Susan Parker Bodine, certainly has a relevant background for her nomination. However, her philosophical approach to the role of government in protecting human health is not in line with the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In her written statement submitted for her confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, she stated that she appreciated “that most of our environmental laws are built around the framework of cooperative federalism.”
The fact of the matter is that most of the states, with rare exception, have already been authorized to manage the federal environmental programs. To do so, they must have sufficient budget and staffing, as well as laws that are at least as stringent as the federal laws — like the Clean Water Act. In other words, we have been practicing ‘cooperative federalism’ for years, with the EPA working in partnership with the states, tribal authorities and municipalities.
The problem is that at least 33 of the 50 states face budget shortfalls in 2017 and 2018. These are states that need the EPA’s expertise and enforcement support and most importantly, federal dollars to assist them in carrying out programs. Bodine was remarkably silent on the proposed cuts to the EPA’s budget. How will these states carry out the federal environmental statutes while facing their own budget deficits, along with less money from the EPA, and ever diminishing EPA staffing levels.?
Bodine stated that she is “excited [to] create a driving force for economic growth as well as environmental protection; promote a culture of environmental responsibility; and continue to ensure compliance with our nation’s environmental laws.”
I have been with the EPA for 31 years, and in the environmental field for at least 40 years — I cannot remember a time when the agency was not a driving force for the economy. Since the EPA came into existence in 1970, an entirely new market niche was created and the United States became a world leader in environmental protection. The U.S. economy has gone from a Dow Jones of over 4,800 in August 1970, to almost 22,000 in August 2017.
When Bodine was the assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, she argued that Superfund sites needed more time, badly polluted sites that require long-term clean up. I disagree. I believe that we need more money to affect the cleanups, and go after the potentially responsible parties.
Bodine’s earlier view seems to openly conflict with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt who believes he can personally force cleanups at a faster pace. The fact of the matter is that the Superfund program needs more money. Superfund sites are languishing today because there is no ‘Superfund’ to pay for the cleanups. So, the agency finds itself embattled with the potentially responsible parties who string out the entire remediation process, perhaps in the hopes of Pruitt allowing them to do what they want — not what is needed.
How can Bodine accept this nomination knowing that her own budget will be cut? While the most egregious sites are addressed with the money budgeted, what about the children playing on or near one of the 1,300 Superfund sites across the country? What about dangerous carcinogen vapors intruding into homeowners’ basements with the potential for explosions? How does this administration propose to evaluate and classify the existing Superfund sites as ‘egregious’ or not? Superfund sites should not be classified for partisan reasons.
How is Bodine’s concept of ‘cooperative federalism’ going to speed up Superfund cleanups, stop pollution at the state lines and ensure safe drinking water for municipalities downstream from polluters, particularly with the repeal of the Waters of the United States rule?
How is Bodine going to enforce the law of the land with less money and fewer attorneys at the EPA? We have a lot of questions about the current administration’s approach to our air, land and water. We cannot afford a massive miscalculation or an outright surrender to polluters.
John O’Grady is president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National Council of EPA Locals #238 and represents more than 9000 U.S. EPA employees.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/345380-the-epa-wont-be-able-to-protect-anyone-without-money
-
5th Circuit Weighs Authority to Hear Suit over SO2 NAAQS Designations
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is weighing whether it has authority to hear a challenge by Texas and electric utility Luminant to EPA's designation of certain areas of the Lone Star State as violating federal sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards, weeks after the 7th Circuit said such challenges should be heard in the D.C. Circuit.
At oral argument July 26 in State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, et al., Texas and Luminant pressed a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit to hear the case, rather than granting EPA's motion to either dismiss the case or transfer it to the D.C. Circuit, in hopes that the regional court will be more sympathetic to them than the D.C. Circuit.
Should the court hear the case, it will then consider the merits of nonattainment designations in Texas that the state and Luminant say are in error. Texas and the utility say the nonattainment designations needlessly impose emissions control obligations on Luminant's power plants in areas that in fact meet the 2010 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for SO2 of 75 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour.
But EPA says that under the Clean Air Act, all challenges to attainment designations for NAAQS must be heard by the D.C. Circuit, which has jurisdiction over rules that are “nationally applicable” or that have “nationwide cause or effect” -- and the 7th Circuit in July said designations challenges must be heard in the D.C. Circuit.
At least one judge appeared sympathetic to the state's argument that SO2 designations are determined primarily by local, case-specific factors such as air quality modeling conducted for a particular location, and therefore should be contested in regional appeals courts.
Should that view prevail, the 5th Circuit could hear challenges to designations of Texas areas, while other designations challenged in the same EPA rulemaking could be challenged in the D.C. Circuit. It would set up a circuit clash that could even potentially require the Supreme Court to resolve.
EPA's lawyers say that such an outcome raises the prospect of the designations process becoming fractured, with potentially tougher requirements to attain NAAQS in one part of the country than another. This would not serve the purposes of Congress in crafting the NAAQS program, they argue, and would clash with judicial precedent including a recent ruling from the 7th Circuit on the issue.
Department of Justice attorney Dustin Maghamfar, representing EPA, warned of “inequitable outcomes” that would flow from a fragmentation of decision-making on the designations process. Stressing the need for “national uniformity,” he said consistency in the designations was “a very practical concern for EPA.” Maghamfar said EPA's designations process is based on the same analytical approach, regardless of local circumstances.
Maghamfar cited as precedent other cases including the 7th Circuit's July 12 opinion in Southern Illinois Power Cooperative v. EPA, et al., in which that court transferred a similar case contesting SO2 designations in Illinois to the D.C. Circuit. The 7th Circuit decision was motivated in part by concerns over national uniformity in judicial review of challenges to NAAQS designations.
'Interrelated' Issues
Attorney Joshua Smith, representing Sierra Club, also underscored the importance of national uniformity at oral argument. Sierra Club is intervening on EPA's behalf in the 5th Circuit litigation.
“All of these issues are interrelated,” he said, citing the “serious risk” of unequal treatment of different areas. EPA employs the same five-factor test to evaluate designations, he said, taking into account emissions modeling guidelines, emissions measurement and other factors.
However, attorney P. Stephen Gidiere, representing Luminant, said “there is no national methodology,” and designations are therefore a local matter that regional appeals courts can adjudicate.
Attorney Nancy Olinger, representing Texas, expressed her disagreement with the 7th Circuit's decision in Southern Illinois Power, saying that area NAAQS designations are “intensely factual determinations,” and that therefore EPA's designation “is only locally applicable.”
Both Gidiere and Olinger argued that the 5th Circuit has no obligation to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit, citing the 5th Circuit's 2016 ruling in State of Texas v. EPA, where the court refused a similar motion to transfer in a challenge to an EPA air quality plan for Texas.
At the July 26 argument, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, author of the decision in State of Texas, also sounded skeptical of EPA's case in the SO2 litigation, pressing Maghamfar on how EPA can overcome the court's precedent establishing a “default presumption” that regional courts have jurisdiction unless EPA can show an exception applies because a rule is national in scope.
Maghamfar said he did not accept the premise of this “default presumption,” but even so, EPA can demonstrate such an exception applies because EPA applies a “single analytical rubric” to designations. No initial air quality designation has been adjudicated in a regional court, at least under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, he said.
The other judges, Priscilla Owen and Gregg Costa, asked tough questions of both sides on how courts can avoid ruling on the same issue in different judicial circuits.
Litigants agreed that the 5th Circuit has the power to determine its own jurisdiction on the matter. Gidiere also noted that if the 5th Circuit pursues the case, industry petitioners will sever their Texas-specific claims from ongoing D.C. Circuit litigation, Samuel Masias, et al v. EPA, et al, to avoid such conflict between the circuits.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/5th-circuit-weighs-authority-hear-suit-over-so2-naaqs-designations
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested