Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/8/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) NRDC Sues EPA over Nancy Beck FOIA Documents
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the agency's alleged failure to turn over documents showing whether and how Nancy Beck, the former chemical industry official who is now the deputy toxics chief. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Brands are Looking to Utilise Sustainability to Connect With Consumers - Sustainability Spotlight
Aug 8, 2017 | Just Drinks
By Ben Cooper
In late-July, Coca-Cola European Partners unveiled an increased 2020 target for recycled content in its plastic bottles in the UK. just-drinks' sustainability commentator, Ben Cooper, believes this news also underlines the role that brands can play in encouraging consumers to recycle. -
(ACC Mentioned) Life Lessons: Keep Food Fresh Longer
Aug 8, 2017 | WFMZ Allentown
By Nancy Werteen
According to a survey by the American Chemistry Council, the average American household throws away about $640 worth of food each year. -
EPA Resignation Facts
Aug 7, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
The media and federal unions are making a cause celebre out of federal scientists who have resigned and then denounced Trump Administration policies on the way out. We’re all for shrinking the government workforce, but the political melodrama could use a few leavening facts. -
North Texas Polyethylene Packaging Projects Delayed Until 2018
Aug 8, 2017 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
Two North Texas joint ventures between resin packaging companies and railroads that aim to move some of the looming swell in US Gulf Coast polyethylene output to California for export have been delayed to 2018, the companies said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Clearing EPA's New Chemicals ‘Backlog’ Cheered by Industry
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA says it eliminated the backlog of new chemicals it's reviewing, drawing praise from an industry that would still like to see the agency do more to ensure chemical innovations reach the marketplace. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Plans Narrower Chemical Reviews, Critics See TSCA Reversal
Aug 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
EPA announced a new approach to evaluate the safety of chemicals that it said would remove roadblocks to bringing new substances to market and increase transparency, but that environmentalists contend will undermine critical safety measures... -
EPA Completes Review Backlog
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
U.S. EPA this afternoon said it has completed reviewing the safety of more than 600 new chemicals under the agency's new chemical safety system. -
EPA Completes Review of Chemical Approval Backlog
Aug 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed its review of the 600 new chemicals that were awaiting government approval when Administrator Scott Pruitt took office in February. -
EPA Diverts Staff to Implement Revised TSCA Reviews for 'New' Chemicals
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is diverting full-time equivalent (FTE) staff to help implement an updated process to streamline risk reviews for “new” chemicals as required by the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), outlining a set of “operating principles” for the effort... -
EPA’s Announced Changes to New Chemicals Review Process Put Industry Demands for Ready Market Access Above Public Health Protection
Aug 7, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last year’s Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the badly broken Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), made fundamental changes intended to improve EPA’s review of new chemicals prior to their commercialization, by requiring more scrutiny of those chemicals... -
Monsanto Wins Stay in San Francisco Bay Area PCB Claims
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Public nuisance claims that three California cities filed against Monsanto Co. over PCB contamination in San Francisco Bay are on hold—for now. -
SQM North America Must Defend Again in Pomona Water Suit
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
SQM North America Corp. must again defend water contamination claims by the city of Pomona, Calif., the Ninth Circuit ruled (City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 9th Cir., No. 15-cv-56062, 8/7/17). -
(ACC Mentioned) Potomac River Pipeline: 3 Miles of Controversy For West Virginia
Aug 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Now
By KJ Rogers
TransCanada is seeking to build a 3-mile pipeline under the Potomac River to supply needed gas to West Virginia, but are facing the usual opposition. -
California's Most Protective Oil Refinery Rules Will Cost Millions
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
California oil refinery operators including Chevron Corp., Andeavor Inc., and Valero, could spend about $58 million during the next year to comply with the state's new refinery safety rules, the state says. -
Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.
Aug 7, 2017 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. -
Climate Deal Swing Votes Among Top Oil Money Recipients
Aug 8, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Sophia Bollag
California Assembly members considered swing votes on legislation to reduce carbon emissions by charging polluters were among the top recipients of donations from oil companies, an analysis of campaign finance filings shows. -
New California Law Gives Air Quality Officials the Power to Quickly Shut Down Polluters
Aug 7, 2017 | Los Angeles Times
By Tony Barboza
Local air quality officials are gaining new powers to quickly stop polluters when they endanger people’s health under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) NRDC Sues EPA over Nancy Beck FOIA Documents
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the agency's alleged failure to turn over documents showing whether and how Nancy Beck, the former chemical industry official who is now the deputy toxics chief, is influencing rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The suit, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, filed Aug. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asks the court to declare EPA has violated FOIA by failing to provide a final determination as to whether it will comply with the group's request and by failing to produce non-exempt documents by the statutory deadline.
NRDC also asks the court to order EPA to disclose the documents without further delay, retain jurisdiction over the case to rule on any assertions by the agency that certain records are exempt from disclosure and to order EPA to produce an index identifying any records it withholds and the reason for withholding them.
Beck is one of a number of officials the administration has appointed as deputies to EPA offices, allowing them to effectively lead the offices without requiring lengthy Senate confirmation hearings and before the office's leaders are nominated and confirmed.
Beck was also able to avoid some recusal and ethics requirements after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt used special authority in the Safe Drinking Water Act to hire Beck and other officials.
Earlier this year, NRDC and other environmental groups wrote to Pruitt asking him to ensure a broad recusal for Beck to prevent any conflict of interest given her past role as an official at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), where she represented the chemical industry on issues she will now oversee.
The groups said in the May 10 letter to Pruitt that, at a minimum, test orders, significant new use rules, premanufacture notices, risk evaluations and risk management actions targeted at particular chemicals manufactured by ACC members should be off-limits for participation by Beck.
And on May 17, NRDC submitted a FOIA request to EPA “for records that document, among other topics, Dr. Beck’s participation in, or recusal from, any ongoing rulemakings and other policy-making activities under TSCA,” the suit says.
FOIA generally requires agencies to respond to FOIA requests within 20 working days, and allows for an additional 10 working days in “unusual circumstances.” NRDC says the deadline for EPA to respond to their request was June 29, but the agency has not done so.
EPA emailed NRDC on June 15 seeking approval to extend the response date to July 14, “citing 'the scope of the request' and the agency’s 'need to consult with another office having interest in the determination of the request,'” the suit says. “NRDC did not consent to this extension of time.”
The agency disclosed two records July 26 in partial response to NRDC's request but “has made no further disclosures and has not made a final determination about whether it will comply with NRDC’s request,” the suit says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nrdc-sues-epa-over-nancy-beck-foia-documents
-
Aug 8, 2017 | Just Drinks
By Ben Cooper
In late-July, Coca-Cola European Partners unveiled an increased 2020 target for recycled content in its plastic bottles in the UK. just-drinks' sustainability commentator, Ben Cooper, believes this news also underlines the role that brands can play in encouraging consumers to recycle.
Recent announcements by three giants of the soft drinks and bottled water sectors reflect critical interacting factors present in so many key sustainability debates, namely responding to campaigner pressure, partnering with third parties and engaging with consumers.
Last month, Coca-Cola European Partners (CCEP) announced plans to double the amount of recycled plastic used in its PET bottles in the UK from the current average of 25% to 50% by 2020. CCEP's announcement followed the publication in March of an excoriating report by Greenpeace. The 'Bottling It' report criticised the lack of engagement by the world's six largest soft drinks companies on the use of recycled plastic, singling out the Coca-Cola system for failing to disclose how much plastic it uses each year."Coke is still part of the problem, not part of the solution"
Greenpeace reacted to CCEP's announcement by saying it did not go far enough. While the company has upped its 2020 target for the UK from 40% to 50%, Greenpeace says other companies are already at 50%, and the target is not sufficiently ambitious for such a huge company. "Coke is still part of the problem, not part of the solution," the campaign group said.
Such is the cut and thrust of so many sustainability debates. CCEP may have made this move partly in response to the Greenpeace report, but the pressure group was never likely to be among those handing out plaudits.
However, while sometimes a source of uncompromising criticism, the third sector also offers plenty of scope for constructive partnership, not least in the area of recycling and waste. In fact, two weeks after CCEP published its new target for the UK, PepsiCo announced it had become the latest corporate funder of non-profit The Recycling Partnership, which works to boost recycling rates across the US.
The Recycling Partnership seeks to increase consumer engagement in recycling, helping recycling coordinators become "capable educators" of the public. The Coca-Cola Co also supports this initiative, having been one of the founding partners when it was launched in 2014.
According to the most recent data compiled by the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR), the national recycling rate for plastic bottles in the US is only just over 30%. Rates are higher in the UK, with the Recoup UK Household Plastics Collection Survey 2016 suggesting some 57% of plastic bottles are recycled, but still well below some other European countries such as Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands.
While Greenpeace has tended to criticise the drinks industry for shifting the blame onto consumers when low recycling rates are given as a reason for slow progress, it is undeniable that low recovery rates reduce the availability of recycled material, which, in turn, hampers companies in setting more ambitious targets.
As part of its announcement last month, CCEP said it would champion reform of the UK recycling system. "Our desire to double the amount of recycled material we use in our plastic bottles sends a clear signal that we want to play a positive role in supporting the circular economy here in Great Britain," said CCEP's GM, Leendert den Hollander. "Our ambition – and our ability to go further in the future – will require reform of the packaging collection system in Great Britain. We will work with others to champion the changes that are required to ensure all our valuable materials are recovered."
Funding initiatives like The Recycling Partnership represent one way for the likes of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo to help in the consumer education challenge around recycling. But, household brands can help educate consumers more directly and are increasingly doing so.
A third plank in Coca-Cola's revamped approach in the UK centres around using the power of the brand to increase recycling, with a multi-million pound consumer communications campaign designed to inspire more people to recycle. In addition to PR and social media elements, the campaign features the company's first sustainability-themed advert focused on encouraging recycling.
Underlining the potential for brand communication to boost public awareness of important sustainability issues, CCEP says its campaign will reach 35m people in the UK by the end of 2017. CCEP said it would also be putting a new recycling message on bottles this year and promoting recycling to 6m people at festivals and events.
Interestingly, a new global ad campaign just launched by Nestle Waters North America (NWNA) for its Pure Life bottled water brand also highlights the brand's commitment to recycling. NWNA says the campaign aims to highlight the brand's purpose "to inspire a healthier and brighter future", including helping to increase the collection of recyclable plastic.
The increasing prevalence of sustainability messaging within brand advertising speaks to the growing importance consumers are attaching to sustainability issues. Market research, such as the Earned Brand study published recently by Edelman, underlines that brands have much to gain by highlighting their sustainability credentials.
The Coke ad carries a public information message about recycling, but also clearly aims to show the brand in the most positive light, for example making the point that all its bottles are made from 100% recyclable material. It could also be said that devoting the ad to a recycling theme in itself says something about the values of the brand.
Campaigns, such as Greenpeace's current push on the world's top soft drinks companies, seek behaviour change on the part of companies by raising consumer awareness about where they believe brands are falling short.
Sustainability-themed advertising gives brands an additional means of countering or mitigating such campaigning. However, there is - justifiably - concern that using sustainability criteria in advertising is open to misuse. While bringing sustainability into brand messaging can only be seen as positive, any claims brands may make will be closely scrutinised.That said, in an area like recycling, where progress is hugely dependent on behaviour change on the part of the public, the capacity for sustainability-focused brand advertising to raise awareness and inform consumers is clearly of particular value.
https://www.just-drinks.com/analysis/how-brands-are-looking-to-utilise-sustainability-to-connect-with-consumers-sustainability-spotlight_id123773.aspx
-
(ACC Mentioned) Life Lessons: Keep Food Fresh Longer
Aug 8, 2017 | WFMZ Allentown
By Nancy Werteen
According to a survey by the American Chemistry Council, the average American household throws away about $640 worth of food each year. The problem for many is the food they buy goes bad before they can eat it. But there are ways to keep your food fresh longer.
You buy it, you wash it, you store it, but then you toss it? Do you frequently have to throw out food because it’s gone bad?
There are ways to make food last longer. To keep strawberries at their best, douse them with water, add a splash of vinegar, and then rinse the mixture off. Let them dry and then store in the fridge. To keep eggs fresh, dab some mineral oil on a paper towel and coat the shell.
Bananas will stay at their best longer if you cover the stems in plastic wrap. This prevents some of the ethylene gas, which causes ripening, from reaching the rest of the banana. Squeeze some lemon juice on avocados to prevent them from turning brown too soon. Then, store them in saran wrap with the cut side down.
Always stow tomatoes stem-side down on a flat surface at room temperature. Putting them in the fridge will cause dryness and a loss of flavor. Try storing potatoes with an apple to prevent sprouting. But this is an exception. As a rule of thumb, don’t store fruits and veggies together. Some gas-releasing fruits can make veggies spoil faster.
If you’re not convinced, the CDC estimates that each year, roughly one in six Americans gets sick, 128,000 of them are hospitalized, and 3,000 die as a result of foodborne illness.
http://www.wfmz.com/news/69news-at-sunrise/life-lessons-keep-food-fresh-longer-1/601302532
-
Aug 7, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
The media and federal unions are making a cause celebre out of federal scientists who have resigned and then denounced Trump Administration policies on the way out. We’re all for shrinking the government workforce, but the political melodrama could use a few leavening facts.
The latest splash is from Elizabeth Southerland, until recently the director of science and technology in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water. Ms. Southerland ended a 30-year EPA career last week with an internal memo decrying Donald Trump’s “draconian” budget cuts, and his “industry deregulation.” She said her “civic duty” required that she warn that “our children and grandchildren” face “increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.”
This follows the much-publicized April departure of Michael Cox, who quit the EPA in Washington state after 25 years, complaining in a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt about “indefensible budget cuts” and efforts to “dismantle EPA and its staff as quickly as possible.”
Both EPA employees are of retirement age, and they are right to bow out if they can’t in good faith work for Mr. Pruitt. Their letters nonetheless reveal an entrenched and liberal federal bureaucracy. Though career civil servants who are supposed to serve political appointees of any party, they have clearly become progressive ideological partisans.
Their exits also explain why so much of the EPA workforce is misrepresenting or missing the point of Mr. Pruitt’s policy changes. Ms. Southerland raps the Administrator’s call to rebalance power between the feds and states, as she claims the EPA “has always followed a cooperative federalism approach.”
Really? During the combined presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal air-quality implementation plans on states. Barack Obama’s EPA imposed 56.
The Obama EPA also stripped states of their statutory development authority, whether with its pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s Pebble Mine, or its Waters of the United States rule that gave the feds de facto sway over tens of millions of acres of private land. EPA employees embraced these new powers, but they violate the Constitution and hurt the environment.
Ms. Southerland seems to have forgotten that the largest clean-water disaster in recent years resulted from the EPA’s 2015 decision to punch a hole in the Gold King Mine in Colorado, turning the Animas River yellow with waste water and heavy metals. The agency shares blame for the Flint, Michigan, lead crisis, having failed to alert the public.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has a dismal record recovering endangered species, while the Forest Service’s logging restrictions have left millions of acres of dead, bug-infested trees as tinder for catastrophic wildfires.
Mr. Trump has proposed a 30% cut in EPA funding, but Congress won’t cut anything close. Mr. Pruitt’s decision to refocus on core jobs like Superfund cleanups means a shift in EPA spending in any event. The goal should be an EPA that is more efficient and effective—rather than one measured by employee numbers.
Ms. Southerland’s exit may also free up some dollars. Federal records show she earned $249,000 last year in combined salary and bonus—$1,000 less than a Supreme Court Justice and about $200,000 more than the average taxpayer. She’ll receive an annual lifetime pension worth about 75% of the average of the last three years of her career. With that sinecure, she should forgive taxpayers for thinking a little fiscal discipline at EPA might be in order.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-resignation-facts-1502146629
-
North Texas Polyethylene Packaging Projects Delayed Until 2018
Aug 8, 2017 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
Two North Texas joint ventures between resin packaging companies and railroads that aim to move some of the looming swell in US Gulf Coast polyethylene output to California for export have been delayed to 2018, the companies said.
Last year Katoen Natie, a global logistics and distribution company, and Packwell, a plastics bagging and logistics company with operations in Texas and Shanghai, announced plans to open resin packaging centers in North Texas in the second half of 2017, in conjunction with startups of 14 new polyethylene plants along the US Gulf Coast this year through 2019.
Those new centers at Union Pacific and BNSF Railway terminals are part of sharp growth in packaging capacity at Port Houston and others expecting a surge in polyethylene exports in conjunction with those startups.
However, neither will start up this year as originally planned.
Brandon Huynh, vice president of sales for Katoen Natie, said finalization of land and city agreements has taken longer than expected, so its center at Union Pacific’s Dallas terminal is now targeted to start up in the third quarter next year rather than the same period this year.
Ross Selvaggi, executive vice president for Packwell, said his company delayed its plan to open a packaging center at BNSF’s Alliance terminal near Fort Worth by a year to the fourth quarter of 2018 because of delays in some polyethylene startups.
Still, 57% of the nearly 6.7 million mt/year of new polyethylene capacity to start up through 2019 is slated to be operational by the end of 2017. Second and potential third waves are expected in 2020 and beyond.
Most if not all of that output destined to be everything from plastic bags and milk cartons to storage bins and toys will be exported. North America is already oversupplied with polyethylene, while demand Asia, Europe and Central and South America are growing, according to Platts Analytics.
The Houston region — mostly Port Houston — is expected to ship the vast majority of the new output, but industry players expect other ports to absorb some of that export growth. Other ports, such as New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah, are marketing themselves as alternatives to keep pellets moving when Port Houston — the second-largest petrochemical port in the world — faces hiccups like fog closures or inconsistent availability of empty containers to fill with export-bound resin.
That’s where Katoen Natie, Packwell and their railroad partners see a niche.
Union Pacific’s Dallas terminal and BNSF’s Alliance terminal near Fort Worth are major receiving points for containerized Asian imports. Resin railed from the US Gulf Coast and then packaged at the terminals by Katoen Natie and Packwell can fill those empty containers, which the railroads move back to West Coast ports for export.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/08/08/north-texas-polyethylene-packaging-projects-2018/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clearing EPA's New Chemicals ‘Backlog’ Cheered by Industry
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA says it eliminated the backlog of new chemicals it's reviewing, drawing praise from an industry that would still like to see the agency do more to ensure chemical innovations reach the marketplace.
The Environmental Protection Agency said 382 new chemical notices were under review as of Aug. 1. That contrasts with about 1,000 earlier this year. The agency says its typical new chemical case load is about 300 notices.
Clearing the backlog is a crucial first step, but the agency and new chemical manufacturers must finish their negotiations before many of the chemicals the EPA reviews can be made, an industry consultant and former agency chemicals official has said. The chemicals industry, nonetheless, cheered the progress the EPA has made since the Toxic Substance Control Act was amended in 2016, prompting changes that resulted in the backlog.
“EPA deserves our congratulations and thanks,” Martha Marrapese, an attorney with the Washington office of Wiley Rein LLP, told Bloomberg BNA. “Reaching this milestone reflects a lot of hard work on the part of EPA staff and industry as we all learn how to navigate the new TSCA landscape.”
The EPA's goal is to “ensure a new chemicals program that is both protective of human health and the environment, while also being supportive of bringing new chemicals to market,” Scott Pruitt, the agency's administrator, said in a statement.
However, environmental groups accused the EPA of bowing to pressure from chemicals manufacturers with Richard Denison, the Environmental Defense Fund's lead senior scientist, in a blog post accusing the “industry-friendly” administration of circumventing the toxics law's intent.
Industry Seeks Further Effort
Jon Corley, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, called the EPA's announcement “a critical step.”
However, “there is still work to be done to completely clear the backlog and prevent it from reoccurring. We strongly support the administrator's commitment to a more predictable and transparent process for decision-making,” Corley said in an email. “U.S. businesses, jobs, innovation and competitiveness depend on the success of a fully functioning new chemicals program as envisioned by Congress when it passed the law.”
The Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, was substantially amended in June 2016, but changes to the law's new chemicals provisions prompted a temporary backlog of hundreds of new chemical notices.
Chemical manufacturers must submit such notices before they can make for sale a new chemical or certain new microbes that can be used to make new chemicals. The types of new chemical notices that EPA reviews include: premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), significant new use notices (SNUNs), and notices requesting an exemption from the need to file a PMN because, for example, only very small volumes of a new chemical will be manufactured.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. in Washington, also praised the EPA's progress. That law firm will review EPA's latest statistics to assess the agency's progress completing negotiations it undertakes with chemical manufacturers after it decides whether or not a new chemical might pose an unreasonable risk.
Decisions Not Final Action
During an Aug. 2 webinar, Charles Auer, a senior regulatory and policy adviser with Bergeson & Campbell, voiced a concern Bloomberg BNA has heard from attorneys and other consultants.
When the EPA reaches its decision about a new chemical it counts that as a completed action, Auer said during a webinar organized by Bergeson & Campbell and Bloomberg BNA. The agency's decision is critical to determining whether a new chemical may enter commerce, but it's not the final action, he said.
Typically the agency and the manufacturer that would like to make the new chemical then undertake negotiations, according to Auer, who worked at EPA for more than 30 years including directing the agency's chemicals office. If the EPA finds a new chemical might pose an unreasonable risk to people or the environment it typically negotiates one or more of several options with the manufacturer. These options have typically included having the company provide more toxicity or exposure data before or after a new chemical would be sold, or allowing the chemical to be sold but restricting its uses.
Counting only EPA's decision doesn't reflect the full process, Auer and colleagues wrote in a recent Insights article in Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118244670&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118244670&jd=118244670
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Plans Narrower Chemical Reviews, Critics See TSCA Reversal
Aug 7, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
EPA announced a new approach to evaluate the safety of chemicals that it said would remove roadblocks to bringing new substances to market and increase transparency, but that environmentalists contend will undermine critical safety measures established under last year's landmark bipartisan chemicals law overhaul.
Under the "operating principles" the agency announced Monday, EPA will evaluate new chemicals based solely on the "intended uses" that the manufacturer identifies in its initial notice to the agency. If the agency decides that intended use is safe, the chemical could go on the market, even if EPA has concerns about other potential uses. Those concerns would, "as a general matter," be addressed through a later rulemaking, the agency said.
“EPA can either be a roadblock to new products, or it can be supporter of innovation and ever-improving chemical safety," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement.
This method is a major shift from the approach embraced by lawmakers under last year's bipartisan update to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the country's primary chemical safety law, which pushed for chemicals to be evaluated as a whole for their safety, rather than breaking evaluations down into individual uses. Under the law, If EPA has concerns about any of the ways that a chemical might reasonably be used, it should issue an order setting conditions on the substance before it comes onto the market.
"What your body cares about is not, 'How much was I exposed to by that use versus another use.' It’s how much was I exposed to in totality," said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. He argued that the approach laid out by EPA on Monday would return EPA's chemicals program to the way it was before last year's TSCA overhaul.
Environmentalists say that once a chemical is on the market, it is difficult for EPA to know how it is being used and to limit uses that may present hazards.
But chemical manufacturers prefer to have substances evaluated for the individual use that they are designing their product for, rather than for additional uses that may be outside of their control. The chemical industry's trade group lauded the newly announced changes.
"We strongly support the Administrator’s commitment to a more predictable and transparent process for decision-making and look forward to continued collaboration in achieving these improvements," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement.
Monday's announcement follows a pair of rules finalized in July that laid out how EPA will evaluate the safety of existing chemicals. The Trump administration made significant changes to the rules originally proposed by the Obama administration's EPA.
Internal documents obtained by POLITICO showed that career staffers disagreed with those changes to focus on the intended uses, which were made after the Trump administration put a former top expert for the chemical industry's top lobbying group in charge of TSCA implementation.
Environmental groups — and congressional Democrats — opposed the final version of those rules pertaining to existing chemicals and still could challenge them in court.
The approach laid out by EPA for evaluating new chemicals, however, is not a formal agency action, so it is unclear whether it can be legally challenged. Denison said his group and others are still evaluating their options.
The agency also announced Monday that it has eliminated the backlog of new chemicals awaiting review. More than 600 new chemicals had piled up, awaiting review, as the agency got up to speed on implementing the new processes required under the new law passed by Congress last year. As of Aug. 1, the agency had decreased that backlog to 382, according to EPA's website, which says the caseload typically hovers around 300.
EPA also said it would post weekly updates of program statistics on its website in a bid to improve transparency.
Pruitt has prioritized TSCA in his first months at the agency, with programs directly supporting the new law's implementation protected under the Trump administration's budget — although other related programs were targeted for cuts. The agency has also staffed up the offices reviewing chemicals and said Monday it will continue to redeploy employees from other parts of the agency to work on new chemical reviews.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/08/epa-plans-narrower-chemical-reviews-critics-see-tsca-reversal-160511
-
Aug 7, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
U.S. EPA this afternoon said it has completed reviewing the safety of more than 600 new chemicals under the agency's new chemical safety system.
"EPA can either be a roadblock to new products, or it can be [a] supporter of innovation and ever-improving chemical safety," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a press release. "I am happy to report that the backlog of new chemical reviews is eliminated."
The passage last year of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act — which updated the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time since it was enacted in 1976 — held up the reviews of hundreds of new chemicals.
With many of the regulations required by the Lautenberg law in place, the agency has finished evaluating the chemicals that were awaiting reviews. It now has 382 chemical cases to review, which is a typical workload for EPA.
Going forward, the agency will establish a pre-submission process so that chemical companies know what information EPA needs to quickly review their compounds. Regulations establishing that process are due to be released this fall.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/07/stories/1060058482
-
EPA Completes Review of Chemical Approval Backlog
Aug 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed its review of the 600 new chemicals that were awaiting government approval when Administrator Scott Pruitt took office in February.
Pushing the chemicals through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) approval process had been a key goal for Pruitt. In a statement on Monday, he said the agency’s “backlog of new chemical review is eliminated.”
“With the ongoing commitment of the staff working on TSCA reviews, and input from stakeholders, our goal is to ensure a new chemicals program that is both protective of human health and the environment, while also being supportive of bringing new chemicals to market,” he said.
An update to the TSCA law, signed by President Obama last year, was designed to speed up the approval process for commercial chemicals.
The EPA reviews about 1,000 new chemicals per year, and the updated law sets a specific approval timeline for those chemicals. The law envisions that at any given time, the EPA is reviewing about 300 chemicals, and the agency said Monday it’s currently processing 308.
The agency said it's working to tweak the chemical approval process even more. The EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics will release a plan this fall to “provide the public with more certainty and clarity regarding how EPA makes new chemical determinations and what external information will help facilitate these determinations.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/345650-epa-completes-review-of-chemical-approval-backlog
-
EPA Diverts Staff to Implement Revised TSCA Reviews for 'New' Chemicals
Aug 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is diverting full-time equivalent (FTE) staff to help implement an updated process to streamline risk reviews for “new” chemicals as required by the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), outlining a set of “operating principles” for the effort and vowing to release draft documents this fall offering further details.
In an Aug. 8 announcement, EPA said that it has already taken steps to reduce a backlog of hundreds of pending new chemicals reviews that occurred after enactment of the revised TSCA last June.
And it outlined the principles that will guide the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics as it writes draft documents on how the agency makes new chemical determinations and the external data it will use in those findings. Among the principles is addressing potential concerns about chemical uses through significant new use rules (SNURs), and focusing on reasonably foreseen uses of chemicals and associated risks.
EPA says the efforts are part of Administrator Scott Pruitt's “commitment to eliminating the backlog of new chemical cases that were stuck in EPA's review processes upon his confirmation” earlier this year.
A top agency toxics official in June said EPA had taken new steps to reduce the backlog of new chemical reviews and that it planned to have it back to typical review levels by the end of July.
In the announcement, the agency now says that it has targeted the backlog of almost 600 chemicals for review and reduced that to 382 cases -- including 74 cases where companies that submitted the substances for review are developing necessary information or conducting required testing. Subtracting those 74 pending cases from the 382 total brings it down to the “normal active workload” of roughly 300 new chemicals under review at any one time, EPA says.
“EPA can either be a roadblock to new products, or it can be supporter of innovation and ever-improving chemical safety. I am happy to report that the backlog of new chemical reviews is eliminated,” said Pruitt.
“With the ongoing commitment of the staff working on TSCA reviews, and input from stakeholders, our goal is to ensure a new chemicals program that is both protective of human health and the environment, while also being supportive of bringing new chemicals to market,” the administrator said.
The TSCA law enacted in June 2016, updated the previous 1976 statute with a host of new regulatory requirements. One of the changes was to require that before a “new” chemical -- a substance that was not in use when the law was first enacted in 1976 -- can come to market, EPA must make an affirmative determination that the chemical is safe for use. The law gives the agency the power to seek additional data from chemical producers if necessary to make the determination.
Chemicals Backlog
As the agency pushes ahead with the required chemicals reviews under TSCA, it says it will redeploy an unspecified number of staff to work on the program, and streamline the process for the reviews.
It will also create a voluntary pre-submissions consultation process through which companies will get a “clear understanding” of the data that will be most useful fro EPA's review and what to expect from the review process. “While such engagement prior to submission is an additional up-front time and resource commitment by submitters and EPA, it should more than pay for itself with faster, better-informed EPA reviews,” the agency says.
And in an effort to “be more transparent” in how it conducts the reviews, EPA says that by the fall its toxics office will release for public comment draft documents detailing how it reviews chemicals.
EPA in the announcement said it will follow several operating principles in how it conducts the reviews, such as making decisions based on amended submissions if the agency asks companies for more data about possible risks from a chemical; using SNURs to address concerns about reasonably forseen uses of chemicals; reducing and replacing animal testing; and making fact-specific decisions on what counts as a reasonably foreseen use.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, acting assistant administrator of EPA's toxics office in keynote remarks at the Safer Products Summit in Washington, D.C. June 1 confirmed an industry lawyer's question that EPA is already using a two-step process to approve some new chemicals, including combining a consent order and a SNUR that limits approval to certain uses and requires approval for any future additional uses.
She predicted at the time that the backlog in EPA's new chemicals program, which reviews companies' pre-manufacture notices of new industrial chemicals or new uses of industrial chemicals before they enter the market, would be eliminated by the end of July. Congress did not include a phase-in period for new review requirements of PMNs, resulting in the backlog of several hundred chemicals.
EPA's announcement suggests the agency met the end of July goal, with statistics from June 22, 2016, to Aug. 1 showing 1,487 total chemical review cases of which 1,022 have been completed, with 382 under review and 83 cases determined to be invalid or incomplete.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-diverts-staff-implement-revised-tsca-reviews-new-chemicals
-
Aug 7, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last year’s Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the badly broken Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), made fundamental changes intended to improve EPA’s review of new chemicals prior to their commercialization, by requiring more scrutiny of those chemicals to better ensure they are safe. Until recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was on track in implementing the new requirements in a health-protective manner. With the addition of more staff, EPA was also steadily reducing the temporary backlog in new chemical reviews that had developed – a result of the fact that the law’s new requirements took effect immediately upon passage.
In recent months, however, agency staff have faced relentless pressure from the chemical industry – and internally from new industry-friendly senior management – not only to speed up reviews, but to return the program to its pre-Lautenberg practices. There were growing signs that EPA was considering changes that would circumvent the law’s requirements in the name of increasing program “throughput.” The agency’s press release today makes clear that this is now happening.
While many details of the shifts EPA is making remain murky, EDF is concerned that EPA is moving away from the law’s clear requirements that:
· EPA rigorously review both intended and reasonably foreseen uses of new chemicals and,
· where EPA identifies potential risks or lacks sufficient information, it issue an order imposing conditions on the manufacturer of the new chemical sufficient to mitigate the potential risk.
Among other concerns, EPA’s intent not to issue such orders and merely to promulgate so-called significant new use rules to require notification of reasonably foreseen uses – even assuming it can timely issue such rules – is squarely at odds with what the law requires.
EPA also appears to be seeking to re-create the infamous Catch-22 of old TSCA under which EPA could only require testing where it already had evidence of risk. In today’s release, EPA signals that testing will only be required “to address risk concerns.”
Finally, apart from today’s release, EPA’s recent approach of sharing information on these anticipated changes only with new chemical submitters is highly disturbing, and further undercuts public confidence in EPA’s implementation of the reformed law.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/08/07/epas-announced-changes-to-new-chemicals-review-process-put-industry-demands-for-ready-market-access-above-public-health-protection/
-
Monsanto Wins Stay in San Francisco Bay Area PCB Claims
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Public nuisance claims that three California cities filed against Monsanto Co. over PCB contamination in San Francisco Bay are on hold—for now.
The cities failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the civil actions, a federal court said in staying the consolidated lawsuits until Feb. 8, 2018.
San Jose, Oakland, and Berkeley have administrative claims pending in the California Commission on State Mandates to recover compliance costs for stricter stormwater and runoff permit standards for PCBs they argue are unfunded mandates. Those claims are similar to the damages sought from Monsanto in the federal lawsuits, the court said (San Jose v. Monsanto Co., N.D. Cal., No. 5:15-cv-03178, 8/4/17).
The Aug. 4 order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the cities’ arguments that the administrative claims are unrelated to the tort damages the cities are seeking for PCB pollution from Monsanto.
PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, are a mixture of chemicals once used as coolants and lubricants in transformers and other electrical equipment and other products. No longer produced in the U.S., the chemicals are still found in the environment. The EPA has identified PCBs as probable cause of cancer.
Nearby Cities Make Similar Claims
The federal public nuisance claims seek damages from Monsanto, a one-time manufacturer of PCBs, liable for polluting the San Francisco Bay. Similar claims are pending in Seattle and Spokane, Wash., Portland, Ore. and San Diego, Calif.
A San Diego law firm, Gomez Trial Attorneys, perssuaded the cities to file the lawsuits, Scott Partridge, vice president of Global Strategies at Monsanto, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 7.
John P. Fiske, the cities’ lead attorney at Gomez Trial Attorneys in San Diego, didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment on the court order.
“We didn't discharge PCBs into the environment,” Partridge said. He added that Monsanto provided PCBs that were used in original equipment.
“The connection to imposed liability simply because we manufactured a product that was state of the art, at the time, and approved for manufacturing and sale by relevant government authorities throughout the U.S. is a stretch,” Partridge said. “It would go against existing law to impose liability on Monsanto.”
The court stayed the consolidated cases until after the commission's Jan. 26 hearing on the administrative claim but stopped short of granting Monsanto's motion to dismiss the case.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118244671&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118244671&jd=118244671
-
SQM North America Must Defend Again in Pomona Water Suit
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
SQM North America Corp. must again defend water contamination claims by the city of Pomona, Calif., the Ninth Circuit ruled (City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 9th Cir., No. 15-cv-56062, 8/7/17).
A trial court erred when it excluded a city expert, requiring that a verdict for the fertilizer company be tossed, the appeals court said.
The expert sought to testify that he could tie the contamination to the particular perchlorate-containing fertilizer used by SQM.
Dr. Neil Sturchio's proferred testimony was based on a methodology he developed for collecting and analyzing perchlorate isotopes from groundwater.
Sturchio, then the Head of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, concluded that most of the perchlorate in the city's water had come from the Atacama Desert in Chile—a key finding because the city alleged that SQM imported a “substantial portion” of its nitrate from Chile.
After initially excluding the expert's testimony as not generally accepted by the scientific community, the trial court on remand ruled that he could not update his report to include dozens of additional samples affirming his findings.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the ruling and ordered the trial court to allow Sturchio to update his report and testify to the current state of the research.
Judge Clifford Wallace wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Morgan Christen and Paul J. Watford.
Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin, Donahue & Goldberg, LLP and SL Environmental Law Group, PC represent the city.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP represents SQM.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118244686&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118244686&jd=118244686
-
(ACC Mentioned) Potomac River Pipeline: 3 Miles of Controversy For West Virginia
Aug 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Now
By KJ Rogers
TransCanada is seeking to build a 3-mile pipeline under the Potomac River to supply needed gas to West Virginia, but are facing the usual opposition.
Last April, Maryland was the first state with natural gas reserves to pass a law that outright bans fracking. Governor Hogan, a once ally of natural gas development, made a complete 180-degree and signed the law into place based on political pressure claiming, “environmental risks of fracking outweigh any benefits”.
With fracking now banned, the same groups who fought tooth and nail to get the ban passed are now looking to prevent any infrastructure that supports gas. Currently, they are going full-court press to stop a whopping 3.5 mile pipeline. Groups such as the Potomac Riverkeepers are protesting a TransCanada pipeline that will cross the under Potomac River and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (C&O Canal). These groups are seeking to capitalize on Governor Hogan’s temporary short sightedness and prevent the project from crossing through the narrowest part of Maryland and deliver much-needed natural gas to West Virginia.
West Virginia has been hit hard by the slumping coal industry and eagerly approved the plans for the new pipeline. On top of being able to provide heat and energy to their citizens, WV is also looking for economic improvements since the state’s coal production has dramatically fallen. This pipeline project is a stepping-stone to help them move forward with a much larger project, The Appalachian Storage Hub.
The Appalachian Storage Hub is a $10 billion dollar project aimed at creating a storage hub for natural gas reserves and liquid byproducts. Similar hubs such as the Mont Belvieu are based in Texas and West Virginia is betting on a smaller hub closer to the Marcellus region on the east coast. The American Chemical Council released a report that stated:
“The economic benefits could be substantial. By 2025, the quad-state region could see 100,000 permanent new jobs, including 25,700 new chemical and plastic products manufacturing jobs, 43,000 jobs in supplier industries and 32,000 ‘payroll-induced’ jobs in communities where workers spend their wages, according the report. The new investment could also lead to $2.9 billion in new federal, state and local tax revenue annually.”
This can be a significant game changer for West Virginians and is recognized as a bipartisan project that will help revitalize the state while supporting manufacturing for many other states east of the Mississippi. However, the one thing the project lacks is this little pipeline; a pipeline opposed by special interest groups opposed to all natural gas development, of course.
A recent Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun written by two of our State’s politicians sums up the motive of preventing any and all natural gas infrastructure in the state. Democratic Delegate Jheanelle Wilkins of Maryland’s District 20 and Democratic Senator Ronald Young, who I criticized for supporting the fracking ban, co-wrote the opinion piece. It is titled, “Md.’s governor rejected fracking, now he should reject fracking infrastructure.” It couldn’t be much clearer, could it? It’s all about the ideology, the hyperbole and the political correctness. Balance, common sense and reason are thrown to the wind as Western Maryland’s fate twists in it.
The scare piece calls on Gov. Hogan to reject TransCanada’s permit and asks everyone to follow the Lancaster nuns and other to prevent the companies from succeeding.
Placing a pipeline under a river is hardly a modern marvel in engineering. It is tried, tested, and proven to be safe – even though opponents of this, and other pipelines such as the Dakota Access and Keystone, pretend it is an experimental science. The risks of environmental impacts are very low, but this does not prevent ideologues from showing up in their plastic canoes and protesting an 8-inch pipe from going a little over 3 miles. There are already a dozen others in the area crossing the same river but this one is the problem? No, it’s just another example of a few on the fringe creating noise while ignoring reality.
http://naturalgasnow.org/potomac-river-pipeline-3-miles-controversy-west-virginia/
-
California's Most Protective Oil Refinery Rules Will Cost Millions
Aug 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
California oil refinery operators including Chevron Corp., Andeavor Inc., and Valero, could spend about $58 million during the next year to comply with the state's new refinery safety rules, the state says.
The new safety rules, which were published by the state's Office of Administrative Law Aug. 4 and take effect Oct. 1, require refinery operators to make changes to better anticipate and prevent major accidents such as the 2012 Chevron refinery fire in Richmond, Calif., that prompted the overhaul. The fire injured six workers and caused an estimated 15,000 residents to seek medical care as a result of heavy smoke in the air.
Chevron, which operates two of the state's three largest refineries by volume, also is required to make safety changes under the terms of a settlement with California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health, announced July 24.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), said in a statement to Bloomberg BNA Aug. 7 the changes ignore the state's refineries’ existing safety records, which she called “the safest and cleanest in the world.”
The standards, which Cal/OSHA approved in May, “were developed with little consideration of the impacts on our state's economy or workforce,” Reheis-Boyd said.
Regulatory Impact Assessment
The state found in a regulatory impact assessment completed in 2016 that the regulation would create 158 jobs and cost companies $58 million during its first year. The regulations would pay for themselves if they reduced the risk of a “costly major incident” at a refinery by 7.3 percent, according to the assessment. The state defined a major incident as one causing at least $800 million in damage to California's economy.
A dozen companies operate California's oil refineries, according to the California Energy Commission. The companies are Chevron, Tesoro (now known as Andeavor), Shell, PBF Energy, Valero Energy, Phillips 66, Paramount Petroleum Corp., Delek US, Kern Oil & Refining Co., San Joaquin Refining Co. Inc., Greka Energy, and Lunday Thagard.
David Lanier, secretary of California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency, said in a statement Aug. 4 the changes mean California “leads the nation in protecting the safety and health of refinery workers and people in nearby communities.”
The rules, which are stricter than federal requirements, require companies to review equipment and material degradation, and to evaluate staffing and training. Some refineries already perform these tasks, state officials have said, though others do not, posing safety risks for workers and disrupting the state's economy if fuel prices spike during a refinery outage.
Kara Siepmann, a spokeswoman for WSPA, told Bloomberg BNA companies will seek to implement the changes but may be hesitant to advertise how they do it.
The companies “don't want their competition to know how much they have to spend on something,” Siepmann said of updates to refineries to comply with the regulation.
Representatives for Andeavor and Chevron declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118244674&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118244674&jd=118244674
-
Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.
Aug 7, 2017 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.
The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.
The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.
The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.
One government scientist who worked on the report, Katharine Hayhoe, a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, called the conclusions among “the most comprehensive climate science reports” to be published. Another scientist involved in the process, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, said he and others were concerned that it would be suppressed.
The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency did not immediately return calls or respond to emails requesting comment on Monday night.
The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the world would still feel at least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees Celsius) of warming over this century compared with today. The projected actual rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees Celsius.
A small difference in global temperatures can make a big difference in the climate: The difference between a rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius and one of 2 degrees Celsius, for example, could mean longer heat waves, more intense rainstorms and the faster disintegration of coral reefs.
Among the more significant of the study’s findings is that it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change. The field known as “attribution science” has advanced rapidly in response to increasing risks from climate change.
The E.P.A. is one of 13 agencies that must approve the report by Aug. 18. The agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
“It’s a fraught situation,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geoscience and international affairs at Princeton University who was not involved in the study. “This is the first case in which an analysis of climate change of this scope has come up in the Trump administration, and scientists will be watching very carefully to see how they handle it.”
Scientists say they fear that the Trump administration could change or suppress the report. But those who challenge scientific data on human-caused climate change say they are equally worried that the draft report, as well as the larger National Climate Assessment, will be publicly released.
The National Climate Assessment “seems to be on autopilot” because of a lack of political direction, said Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The report says significant advances have been made linking human influence to individual extreme weather events since the last National Climate Assessment was produced in 2014. Still, it notes, crucial uncertainties remain.
It cites the European heat wave of 2003 and the record heat in Australia in 2013 as specific episodes where “relatively strong evidence” showed that a man-made factor contributed to the extreme weather.
In the United States, the authors write, the heat wave that broiled Texas in 2011 was more complicated. That year was Texas’ driest on record, and one study cited in the report said local weather variability and La Niña were the primary causes, with a “relatively small” warming contribution. Another study had concluded that climate change made extreme events 20 times more likely in Texas.
Based on those and other conflicting studies, the federal draft concludes that there was a medium likelihood that climate change played a role in the Texas heat wave. But it avoids assessing other individual weather events for their link to climate change. Generally, the report described linking recent major droughts in the United States to human activity as “complicated,” saying that while many droughts have been long and severe, they have not been unprecedented in the earth’s hydrologic natural variation.
Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence.
In the United States, the report concludes with “very high” confidence that the number and severity of cool nights have decreased since the 1960s, while the frequency and severity of warm days have increased. Extreme cold waves, it says, are less common since the 1980s, while extreme heat waves are more common.
The study examines every corner of the United States and finds that all of it was touched by climate change. The average annual temperature in the United States will continue to rise, the authors write, making recent record-setting years “relatively common” in the near future. It projects increases of 5.0 to 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.8 degrees Celsius) by the late century, depending on the level of future emissions.
It says the average annual rainfall across the country has increased by about 4 percent since the beginning of the 20th century. Parts of the West, Southwest and Southeast are drying up, while the Southern Plains and the Midwest are getting wetter.
With a medium degree of confidence, the authors linked the contribution of human-caused warming to rising temperatures over the Western and Northern United States. It found no direct link in the Southeast.
Additionally, the government scientists wrote that surface, air and ground temperatures in Alaska and the Arctic are rising at a frighteningly fast rate — twice as fast as the global average.
“It is very likely that the accelerated rate of Arctic warming will have a significant consequence for the United States due to accelerating land and sea ice melting that is driving changes in the ocean including sea level rise threatening our coastal communities,” the report says.
Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit.
The study does not make policy recommendations, but it notes that stabilizing the global mean temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius — what scientists have referred to as the guardrail beyond which changes become catastrophic — will require significant reductions in global levels of carbon dioxide.
Nearly 200 nations agreed as part of the Paris accords to limit or cut fossil fuel emissions. If countries make good on those promises, the federal report says, that will be a key step toward keeping global warming at manageable levels.
Mr. Trump announced this year that the United States would withdrawfrom the Paris agreement, saying the deal was bad for America.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
-
Climate Deal Swing Votes Among Top Oil Money Recipients
Aug 8, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Sophia Bollag
California Assembly members considered swing votes on legislation to reduce carbon emissions by charging polluters were among the top recipients of donations from oil companies, an analysis of campaign finance filings shows.
Records show oil companies in the Western States Petroleum Association and other industry groups donated more than $240,000 to Assembly members in the first half of 2017, as lawmakers hotly debated extending California’s cap and trade program.
The oil industry was involved in weeks of closed-door negotiations with Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers, winning concessions and eventually backing the deal as a favorable market-based approach to reducing pollution. Some environmental advocates, meanwhile, argued oil companies won too much.
Of the nine Assembly members who received more than $10,000 from oil interests, six are moderate Democrats or Republicans who were considered swing votes on the deal. All six backed the deal, and it squeaked through the lower chamber by a single vote. In total, oil interests gave to nearly half the chamber’s 80 members, with most receiving less than $5,000.
Assemblyman Rudy Salas, a Bakersfield Democrat often aligned with business interests, raked in $19,700 from the oil companies, more than any other lawmaker. Next was Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes, drawing $15,300 from oil interests. Mayes and six of his Republican colleagues backed the deal, a move that’s caused angst in the party. Spokesmen for Salas and Mayes did not immediately comment.
Most Republican lawmakers argue the deal will raise gas prices and hurt consumers. But the oil industry tends to prefer an approach that allows them to obtain and trade pollution permits. The deal hands out some free allowances and bars local air districts from adopting stricter regulations on refineries, two wins for the oil industry.
But Ann Notthoff of the National Resources Defense Council, which supported the bill, said the oil industry didn’t score an outright victory on cap and trade.
“The oil industry sees the writing on the wall,” she said. “Their interest was to make compliance as affordable as they could.”
Republicans Jordan Cunningham of Templeton and Marc Steinorth of Rancho Cucamonga received $14,300 and $11,900 from oil companies, respectively. Both backed the bill. Among Democrats, Raul Bocanegra of Los Angeles and Tim Grayson of Concord brought in $13,400 and $12,400 respectively. Both are considered moderate, business-aligned Democrats.
Grayson said he believes oil interests give him money because there are refineries in his district. He voted for the deal based on research and what he believed was in the best interest of his constituents, he said.
“We were hearing every single side and listening to the arguments and the stories that stemmed from every single perspective,” Grayson said. “Nobody got everything they wanted, but everyone got something.”
Bocanegra’s office declined to comment, while the rest did not immediately offer a response.
Three other Assembly lawmakers who are not typically swing votes also received more than $10,000 from oil interests. They are Democrat Blanca Rubio, who backed the deal, and Republicans Jay Obernolte and Vince Fong, who opposed it.
Chevron Corporation, the California Resources Corporation and Tesoro Corporation — now known as Andeavor — were the biggest oil-company contributors to Assembly campaigns. Spokespeople for all three, as well as Valero Energy, did not immediately comment.
Political campaign contributions from the California Independent Petroleum Association aren’t tied to lawmakers’ stances on individual policies, said Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the group. “In general, CIPA supports candidates who understand that a more vibrant energy sector will result in a stronger California economy,” she said.
Spokesmen for Phillips 66 and BP deferred comment to the Western States Petroleum Association, which did not comment on its members’ donations to political campaigns.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola who is an expert in government ethics, said it’s typical to see money from wealthy interest groups going to potential swing votes on a bill like cap and trade.
“If someone’s a solid yes or no, the money isn’t going to flow there,” Levinson said. “But if someone is on the fence, that’s where you’re going to see the money.”
Donating to lawmakers wasn’t the industry’s only means of influence. Chevron has already spent $7 million this year lobbying on cap and trade and other bills, while the Western States Petroleum Association spent $4 million, Tesoro spent $2.5 million and Valero more than $1 million.
“In order to ensure the ability of California’s oil and gas producers to continue to provide essential fuels, jobs, technology and revenues for the state, it is necessary to engage robustly in the political process,” Western States Petroleum Association President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/climate-deal-swing-votes-among-top-oil-money-recipients/2017/08/07/9307a26e-7bc7-11e7-b2b1-aeba62854dfa_story.html?utm_term=.6956b5682303
-
New California Law Gives Air Quality Officials the Power to Quickly Shut Down Polluters
Aug 7, 2017 | Los Angeles Times
By Tony Barboza
Local air quality officials are gaining new powers to quickly stop polluters when they endanger people’s health under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday.
The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, follows years of frustration in communities such as Paramount, Boyle Heights and Maywood — where regulators have struggled to stop highly polluting operations after discovering hot spots of Chromium-6, lead and other dangerous pollutants.
Currently, air regulators seeking orders to curtail operations that violate rules and threaten public health must go through an administrative hearing board. The process can take months, while the pollution continues unabated.
As a result, residents “were being told: ‘You are in grave danger, but we can’t do anything about it,’ ” said Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), who wrote the legislation.
“What we’re saying today is that when we have imminent health threats, that trumps the right to do business,” Garcia said.
The new law will give pollution control officers the power to issue immediate orders to stop polluting operations when violations pose an “imminent and substantial” danger. The orders are temporary, pending a hearing before an administrative board.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Executive Officer Wayne Nastri welcomed the legislation as “an important new tool to protect public health.”
The district, which sponsored the legislation, has pointed to five recent cases where inadequate enforcement authority prevented it from taking swift action to stop a facility’s harmful emissions.
At Anaplex Corp., a metal-finishing facility in Paramount, it took the South Coast air district months to secure an administrative order to curtail operations after the carcinogen Chromium-6 was detected last fall at levels up to 350 times normal. The district has said it would have used the new authority to stop dangerous levels of lead from the now-shuttered battery recycler Exide Technologies in Vernon and Chromium-6 from Hixson Metal Finishing in Newport Beach, among other cases.
Some industry groups opposed the legislation, while cities backed it as giving air districts the tools they need to protect residents.
Nastri said the law “provides additional protection for the breathing public and also ensures due process for any affected businesses.”
The new powers come as state lawmakers are imposing requirements that local air districts do more to monitor and reduce toxic pollutants. Brown last month signed legislation aimed at improving neighborhood-level air quality as part of a deal to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program to fight climate change.
Stronger enforcement authority also is key to a $47-million air toxics plan that the South Coast district announced earlier this year to find and reduce emissions from the worst-polluting facilities over the next seven years. The initiative targets an estimated 1,100 metal-processing facilities that may be releasing toxic pollutants such as Chromium-6, lead, arsenic, cadmium and nickel.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-air-polluters-authority-20170807-story.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested