Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/9/17
-
Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Highways and Transit Stakeholders’ Perspectives
Oct 11, 2017 | House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Location: 2167 Rayburn / 10:00 AM. -
Opportunities to Expand U.S. Trade Relationships in the Asia-Pacific Region
Oct 11, 2017 | House Committee on Ways and Means: Subcommittee on Trade
Location: 1100 Longworth House / 2:00 PM. -
Department of Energy Missions and Management Priorities
Oct 12, 2017 | Committee on Energy and Commerce | Subcommittee on Energy
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump's Choice to Head EPA Chemical Safety Office Faces Tough Questioning Over Ties To Industry
Oct 6, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The Trump administration’s nominee to head chemicals regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency came under sharp criticism Oct. 4 at a Senate hearing. Democrats suggested that his close work with industry, including in fluoropolymers and flame retardants, disqualified him from the job. -
(ACC Mentioned) Week 37: Rick Perry Wants to Drag Dirty, Old Power Plants Out of Retirement
Oct 6, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Brian Palmer
... Here’s where it gets weird. In that book, Dourson includes a passage arguing that chemical flame retardants aren’t dangerous to children’s health. -
Chemical Makers Step Up Dumping Claims
Oct 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
U.S.-based chemical makers are pressing claims that overseas competitors are underpricing exports in an effort to steal market share, a practice known as dumping. The trade complaints come as Congress and the Trump Administration say they will take aggressive action to protect domestic manufacturers from unfair trade practices. -
EPA Chief's Travel Gets Additional Scrutiny From Watchdog
Oct 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
EPA's watchdog is taking a broader look at Administrator Scott Pruitt's travel, looking at all of his trips through September and not just his frequent flights home. -
Chemical-Maker Sued Over Drinking Water Pollutant Fears
Oct 6, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A North Carolina man’s federal lawsuit contends chemical-makers for years released little-understood compounds into the drinking water for hundreds of thousands, hurting property values while the companies profited. -
The Emerging Crisis of PFAS Exposure
Oct 6, 2017 | New York Law Journal
By Paul J. Napoli and Tate J. Kunkle,
Are PFAS the next MTBE? Or, perhaps the next asbestos? Or, in the words of William Shakespeare, is it much ado about nothing? -
EU-Netval Calls For Member States To Support Thyroid Study
Oct 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
EU member states are being encouraged to provide adequate funding to support a major new validation study for in vitro tests to detect thyroid disrupting chemicals. -
MEPs Reject Commission’s Endocrine Disruptor Definition
Oct 6, 2017 | Euractiv
By Paola Tamma
The European Commission will have to rewrite its definition of endocrine disruptors, after MEPs shot down the executive’s proposal in a vote in Strasbourg on Wednesday (4 October). EURACTIV’s partner Journal de l’Environment reports. -
Regulators Take 'Unusual' Step Of Opposing NRG Gas Plant
Oct 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Debra Kahn
California regulators are preparing to reject a gas-fired power plant proposed for the Southern California coast, in an unprecedented move that environmentalists are hailing as a victory for alternative energy. -
Dakota Access Review Delayed as Court Weighs Pipeline Challenge
Oct 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar and Andrew Harris
A court-mandated government review of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline will take months longer than expected, potentially pushing a decision on whether the conduit can continue to operate into 2018. -
Pruitt Will Take First Step To Repeal Clean Power Plan But Could Slow-Walk Replacement
Oct 6, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA chief Scott Pruitt is finally making his first move to rescind Barack Obama's marquee climate change rule — but he may not be done by the time President Donald Trump leaves office. -
Trump Seen Replacing Obama Power Plant Overhaul With a Tuneup
Oct 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Barack Obama's signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation. -
(ACC Mentioned) CSX Reporting “Positive Trends”
Oct 6, 2017 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Approximately one week before the Oct. 11 Surface Transportation Board hearing (curiously called a “public listening session” by the STB) on CSX service issues, the railroad is pointing to extended “positive trends” as President and CEO Hunter Harrison’s Precision Scheduled Railroading is implemented. -
Critics Accuse EPA Of 'Cooking The Books'
Oct 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA's forthcoming proposal to ax the Obama-era Clean Power Plan claims that the rule would be pricier and have fewer climate and health benefits than the previous administration asserted. -
D.C. Circuit Puts Ozone Designations Delay Suit On Hold
Oct 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has placed in abeyance environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA's withdrawn delay of area designations for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), but is rejecting the agency's request to dismiss the lawsuit.
Congressional Hearings
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
-
Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Highways and Transit Stakeholders’ Perspectives
Oct 11, 2017 | House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
-
Opportunities to Expand U.S. Trade Relationships in the Asia-Pacific Region
Oct 11, 2017 | House Committee on Ways and Means: Subcommittee on Trade
-
Department of Energy Missions and Management Priorities
Oct 12, 2017 | Committee on Energy and Commerce | Subcommittee on Energy
-
Oct 6, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Washington — The Trump administration’s nominee to head chemicals regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency came under sharp criticism Oct. 4 at a Senate hearing. Democrats suggested that his close work with industry, including in fluoropolymers and flame retardants, disqualified him from the job.
Democrats on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee said Michael Dourson, a former EPA employee who became a prominent chemical health consultant, had much deeper ties to industry than other nominees and too often pushed for weak chemical health standards.
But Republicans on the panel disputed that, saying that Dourson would help restore balance to an EPA that they said had become too politicized under President Obama and made decisions without properly weighing science.
Dourson’s work on perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a byproduct of fluoropolymers, was one issue at the Washington hearing to examine whether the Senate would approve his nomination.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) noted people in the hearing room who came from two New York towns that have had their drinking water made unsafe because of PFOA contamination from fluoropolymer processing plants.
“Mr. Dourson, today in the audience are New Yorkers whose lives have been personally impacted by the chemical PFOA,” she said. “They live in the village of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., and the town of Petersburgh N.Y., two neighboring communities that together are going through a gut-wrenching experience of discovering that their drinking water... is contaminated by PFOA.”
She said people in those communities have died from cancer and been affected by illnesses “that are known to be linked to PFOA.”
Gillibrand questioned Dourson’s work on a scientific panel that set a safe level of PFOA in 2004 at 150 parts per billion, when she noted that current EPA levels are less than one part per billion.
Dourson said that 10-member panel he sat on, which included three EPA staff and two other government employees, set the 150-ppb level based on the best science at the time.
“The science has progressed and significantly advanced since the time of 2004 and the new science indicates a lower level,” he said.
PFOA groundwater contamination remains an issue for communities around the country, and one that impacts fluoropolymer processing companies.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics agreed in July, for example, to pay $20 million to fund a water line extension in Bennington, Vt., to address PFOA concerns.
Flame retardants were another issue at the hearing.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said Dourson should recuse himself from any EPA decisions on flame retardants, because from 2012 until earlier this year, Dourson sat on a scientific advisory panel for the North American Flame Retardant Alliance, and did research work for companies in that industry.
NAFRA is part of the American Chemistry Council.
“Having taken this employment and this advocacy, it’s simply hard to conclude how you can be an objective and impartial regulator to these flame retardants,” Merkley said.
But Dourson countered that the consulting firm he founded, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, also did work on flame retardants for government agencies, including the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada.
Dourson said he would follow EPA’s ethics rules for determining if he should recuse himself from specific regulatory proceedings.
Flame retardant regulation is currently before other agencies, with CPSC voting in September to limit their use in plastics and other materials. That decision was sharply criticized by NAFRA.
Democrats on the committee were concerned that Dourson would not properly implement landmark chemical safety legislation, the reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act, that passed the Congress by broad bipartisan margins in 2016.
“Regrettably I’m concerned that Dr. Dourson is not the leader we need for that job,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.). “Never in the history of the EPA has a nominee to lead the chemical safety office had such deep ties to industry.”
In the frequently contentious hearing, some Republicans in their questioning of Dourson said that the EPA under President Obama did not follow good science in its rulemaking, and asked about his planned approach.
“For the past eight years the EPA has acted as a political arm of the Obama administration,” said Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.). “Time and time again we have seen rules developed not based on sound science but based on political ideology.”
Other Republicans on the panel, including Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, said the Obama administration’s EPA sometimes acted not on a scientific assessment of risk, but on “a precautionary approach, where a regulatory action was taken to prevent theoretical risks, unproven risks.”
Without getting specific, Dourson suggested there have been some instances in pesticide regulation where the approach was overly precautionary.
“There have been tendencies in certain cases to be additionally precautionary, more protective than needed,” he said.
While Democrats repeatedly held up posters with lists of chemicals where they said Dourson was paid by industry and recommended looser safety standards, he said the teams he worked with at times recommended tougher chemical safety standards.
“I could give you as many or more examples of situations where the science we bought forward as a team actually lowered the safe dose or risk position for various sponsors,” Dourson said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20171006/NEWS/171009926/trumps-choice-to-head-epa-chemical-safety-office-faces-tough-questioning-over-ties-to-industry
-
(ACC Mentioned) Week 37: Rick Perry Wants to Drag Dirty, Old Power Plants Out of Retirement
Oct 6, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Brian Palmer
Reading Pruitt’s Outlook calendar; Trump’s unholy pick for the EPA’s toxics office.Rick’s Picks: Coal and Nuclear
U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry is trying to stave off the planned retirement of dozens of out-of-date coal-fired and nuclear power plants. So he asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last Friday to artificially fix electricity prices in favor of those plants. This would, in effect, force the solar, wind, and natural gas industries to subsidize coal and nuclear, which are no longer able to compete in an open marketplace.
Perry claims the move is necessary to maintain what he calls “generation diversity” (using many different fuel sources) and “grid resilience” (the ability of the electric grid to respond to peak demand or supply disruptions). Both these arguments are total and complete bunk.
On fuel diversity, Perry has it backward. Our diminishing reliance on coal has improveddiversity, not decreased it. Over the past decade, coal has gone from providing nearly half of all U.S. electricity generation to just 30 percent. Natural gas has replaced much of that production, but so has a growing mix of renewable sources. Wind production has more than doubled, and solar has also grown substantially. The grid is diverse, and getting more so, without Perry’s help.
The grid resilience claim is only slightly less laughable, but the Trump administration has been pushing it for months. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt argued in March that coal (or uranium, for that matter) is especially reliable because it’s a solid object that can be kept on-site at power plants.
There’s an intuitive appeal to this idea—that something you can hold in your hands is more reliable than gas, wind, sunlight, human engineering, and mathematical models. The same sentiment probably motivates the gold standard movement. But, however tempting it is to follow this instinct, we ought to resist our lizard brains on this one.
Our electricity supply is not limited by how much “stuff” we have to burn. Many generators sit around doing nothing most of the time because they can’t compete in the marketplace. When energy demand peaks and electric prices rise, these extra generators become profitable again and are switched on. The system works beautifully. So beautifully, in fact, that only 0.0007 percent of electricity disruptions in the past five years have had anything to do with fuel supply issues. Allowing FERC to tinker excessively with prices would only muddy that marketplace.
On Tuesday, an unusual coalition of industry groups including oil, gas, wind, and solar came out against Perry’s proposal, arguing that Perry “provides no justification for this action whatsoever.” That’s not quite right. He had a justification—it was just a dishonest one.
Perry repeatedly says environmental regulations are killing coal and that if the government would simply get out of the way and stop “picking winners and losers,” coal would thrive again. But with his proposal for FERC, Perry is himself attempting to pick winners and losers by trying to artificially fix prices.
I’m not personally opposed to the government picking winners, mind you. I just think we should pick the ones that don’t give us cancer and heart disease.Suggestion Box
The EPA’s “plan” to replace the Clean Power Plan leaked on Wednesday. Plan is in quotation marks, because the only firm idea the agency has is to repeal the Obama-era rule, which would cut carbon pollution from our aging fleet of power plants. The administration appears to have no inkling where to go from there in order to carry out its legal obligation to address carbon emissions. So the EPA will ask the public for ideas.
Oh, pick me! Pick me! I have one. We can cut carbon emissions by limiting pollution from our aging fleet of power plants. I call this idea “the Clean Power Plan.”The Company He Keeps
The New York Times has published Administrator Pruitt’s full meeting calendar, telling us even more about whom he’s been consorting with. The man in charge of protecting public health and the environment hasn’t even attempted to maintain a façade of caring about those duties. Between February and May, Pruitt appears to have met with only a handful of health and environmental advocates, opting instead to flit among Washington’s stuffiest restaurants to wine and dine with lobbyists and executives of the industries his agency is supposed to regulate.
In response, the EPA says Pruitt is “now meeting with those ignored by the Obama administration.” This is simply a lie. The New York Times did us the favor of comparing Pruitt’s schedule with that of his predecessor, Gina McCarthy, who oversaw the EPA during President Obama’s second term. McCarthy met with far more environmental groups, but unlike Pruitt, she made herself available to a broad range of people—not just environmentalists but also industry groups like the American Gas Association and the National Pork Producers Council. The two calendars clearly show it is Pruitt, not McCarthy, who has shut out a wide swath of the population from his agency.
Another key difference is that McCarthy spent a lot of time meeting with her own employees, the career EPA staffers who understood how to review scientific research and write balanced regulations. Pruitt, in contrast, has hired security to protect himself from his staff and is now building a soundproof box so he doesn’t have to interact with them.Heaven Help Us
The Senate held hearings on Wednesday for Michael Dourson, Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA’s chemical safety office. Dourson is, shall we say, a problematic choice for the job.
A flame retardant industry group paid Dourson $10,000 in consulting fees last year. (Though being on the payroll of the industry you’re supposed to be regulating is pretty standard for a Trump nominee.) Then, in January 2017, Dourson published a book titled The Linen Cloths . . . Jesus Left Behind, in which he attempts to prove that the Shroud of Turin, which carbon-14 tests have dated to between 1260 and 1390 C.E., is Christ’s authentic burial cloth. (OK, but rejecting scientific evidence is also par for the Trump course.)
Here’s where it gets weird. In that book, Dourson includes a passage arguing that chemical flame retardants aren’t dangerous to children’s health. I have to say that gratuitously including a plug for a chemical produced by an industry that is paying you in a book about Jesus is a new low in Trump-world shadiness.
Dourson’s flame retardant shenanigans are just the beginning. His consulting company has also accepted money from Dow Chemical, the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute, and, wait for it . . . Koch Industries. Of course.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/week-37-rick-perry-wants-drag-dirty-old-power-plants-out-retirement
-
Chemical Makers Step Up Dumping Claims
Oct 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
U.S.-based chemical makers are pressing claims that overseas competitors are underpricing exports in an effort to steal market share, a practice known as dumping. The trade complaints come as Congress and the Trump Administration say they will take aggressive action to protect domestic manufacturers from unfair trade practices.
Four major polymer companies with operations in the U.S.—DAK Americas, Indorama Ventures USA, M&G Polymers USA, and Nan Ya Plastics —have filed petitions alleging that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin makers in Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Korea, and Taiwan are pricing exports to the U.S. at less than fair value.
PET is used to make basic goods including soda bottles and polyester fibers. The U.S. producers claim that dumping is causing them financial injury and are asking the U.S. government to impose antidumping duties on the imports. They point out that U.S. imports of PET from the countries rose by 305% to over 270 million kg from 2014 to 2016.
Separately, the U.S.-based chemical company Chemours claims that Chinese and Indian producers of polytetrafluoroethylene, a resin that Chemours sells under the trade name Teflon, are dumping products in the U.S. Chemours says the Indian companies unfairly benefit from export subsidies awarded by the government of India.
The petitions will kick off investigations by the U.S. Commerce Department to determine if imported products are unfairly priced and by how much. If dumping allegations hold up, the U.S. International Trade Commission then determines if domestic producers are truly harmed by the practice. The government can impose antidumping duties to level the playing field.
Domestic manufacturers are likely emboldened by the Trump Administration’s tough talk on enforcing trade rules, according to trade attorneys contacted by C&EN. In addition, Congress has also tightened trade provisions to make it harder to evade antidumping duties.
“I think there is definitely a trend in more filings,” says George Tuttle III, a San Francisco-based trade attorney. “We really see a tightening down, with the U.S. government trying to quell all of this industry complaint and a congressional fervor for action to protect domestic industry.”
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i40/Chemical-makers-step-dumping-claims.html
-
EPA Chief's Travel Gets Additional Scrutiny From Watchdog
Oct 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
EPA's watchdog is taking a broader look at Administrator Scott Pruitt's travel, looking at all of his trips through September and not just his frequent flights home.
The investigation into Pruitt's travel expenses has expanded in scope, according to the agency's Inspector General, which is looking into whether all of the proper procedures for traveling outside of Washington were followed.
The costs of personal travel for Trump administration cabinet secretaries has recently been scrutinized. The head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, resigned late last week after revelations of his use of private chartered planes at taxpayer expense.
Questions have also emerged about the travel habits of Pruitt, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin. The Democratic and Republican leaders of the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to the White House and 24 federal agencies asking for more information.
John Trefry, head of forensic audits with the Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General, said in an Oct. 5 letter that his office would work with the agency's chief financial officers to find out whether Pruitt, as well as staffers accompanying him, followed proper procedures when traveling.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121830387&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121830387&jd=121830387
-
Chemical-Maker Sued Over Drinking Water Pollutant Fears
Oct 6, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
WILMINGTON, N.C. — A North Carolina man’s federal lawsuit contends chemical-makers for years released little-understood compounds into the drinking water for hundreds of thousands, hurting property values while the companies profited.
Wilmington resident Brent Nix this week filed a federal lawsuit against The Chemours Co. and DuPont. He’s seeking compensation for lost property values and possible health problems. Nix wants the lawsuit to include more than 200,000 people served by a Wilmington water utility as well as others in the region who consumed household water.
A Chemours spokesman did not respond Friday to an opportunity to comment.
The Wilmington, Delaware-based company has released the chemical GenX and other products into the Cape Fear River from its factory about 100 miles (161 kilometers) north of Wilmington. DuPont spun off Chemours two years ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/chemical-maker-sued-over-drinking-water-pollutant-fears/2017/10/06/2e848b4e-aac1-11e7-9a98-07140d2eed02_story.html?utm_term=.41a4e92b2b85
-
The Emerging Crisis of PFAS Exposure
Oct 6, 2017 | New York Law Journal
By Paul J. Napoli and Tate J. Kunkle,
Are PFAS the next MTBE? Or, perhaps the next asbestos? Or, in the words of William Shakespeare, is it much ado about nothing? That is the question from both sides of the bar, as well as industry and the regulatory bodies. Initially, it seemed as a one-off instance of an industrial chemical release of something called PFOA, in the small, upstate, picturesque Village of Hoosick Falls. However, on the heels of the lead water contamination disaster in Flint, Mich., and an ever-aware and educated public, groundwater contaminated with per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (referred to as PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), was suddenly everywhere anytime someone sampled for it.
It now appears that PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, may make the gasoline additive MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) look like a blip on the radar of toxic tort litigation. PFAS chemicals are being found in the groundwater at airports, fire training installations and military bases across the country because it was used in firefighting foam for suppressing petroleum fires (aqueous film-forming foam or AFFF). PFAS have also been found in high concentrations in soil and groundwater at plants that manufacture stain-resistant textiles and non-stick cookware. And as if that were not enough, Sen. Charles Schumer just requested the Food and Drug Administration to launch a formal investigation into the health consequences of PFAS chemicals used in fast food packaging.
In addition to the ubiquitous nature of PFAS in today’s society, PFOA and PFOS have strong links to certain diseases and cancers, stay in people’s blood in detectable quantities for 10 to 15 years, are being regulated in the parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water, and are expensive to treat and remediate due to their chemical stability and persistence in the environment, making them a prime target for toxic tort lawsuits.Background of PFAS
PFAS are man-made, manufactured chemicals. They are never found in nature. These chemicals were, and are still being, used to make household and commercial products that resist heat and chemical reactions, repel oil, stains and grease. They are also used in the waterproofing on shoes, clothes and mattresses. PFOA was once widely used in nonstick cookware and surface coatings for stain-resistant carpets and fabric. PFOA is also added to the paper and cardboard in food packaging, such as microwave popcorn bags and fast food containers, because it keeps the food packing from sticking to the food. On the industrial front, PFOA and PFOS were used in AFFF and in many other products for the aerospace, automotive, building/construction, and electronics industries.
As useful as they are, they are, in the end, toxic. Eight major PFOA manufacturers agreed to participate in the PFOA Stewardship Program with the EPA in 2006 due to its toxic and bio-persistence. The participating companies made voluntary commitments to reduce product content and facility emissions of PFOA and related chemicals by 95 percent, no later than 2010. All participating companies said that they met the goals of the program and the last time PFOS was manufactured was in 2002. But even still, every person in the United States has some level of PFAS in their blood because of its persistence in the environment and the human body.
In additional to discharge of AFFF for training and fires, PFAS gets into the environment from industrial facilities that make PFAS or use PFAS to make other products. It also enters the environment when released from PFAS-containing consumer products during their use and disposal. PFAS can remain in the environment, particularly in water, for many years. PFAS can move through soil and into groundwater, or be carried in the air. PFAS have even been detected in the brain tissue of polar bears in the arctic.
PFAS are readily absorbed after consumption or inhalation, and accumulate primarily in the blood stream, kidney and liver. Human studies have shown a strong correlation between increased PFOA and PFOS levels in blood and an increased risk of several health effects, including effects on the liver, the immune system, high cholesterol levels, increased risk of high blood pressure, changes in thyroid hormone, ulcerative colitis, pre-eclampsia, and kidney and testicular cancer. C8 Science Panel Probable Link Reports, C8 Science Panel (updated Jan. 4, 2017) (accessed Aug. 4, 2017). Other studies have shown that PFOA can be transferred from pregnant women to their unborn children and has been found in breast milk. Office of Water, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agcy., Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid 54 (2016). There are currently no publically available published studies on the safety of dozens of related PFAS that are being found in people’s blood such as perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBuS), and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).Why Now?
For a brief recount on how and why this is just coming to light now, we have to go back to 1974. In that year, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which provided a statutory basis for federal and state regulations governing the operation of public water systems, including the permissible concentrations of contaminants in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires cooperation between the federal and state regulatory agencies in setting contaminant limits and enforcement.
In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act requiring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to publish a list of unregulated contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations every five years. The USEPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) to collect data for contaminants that are suspected to be present in drinking water and do not yet have health-based standards set under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
PFOA was included on the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) in 2009. EPA, Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (2016). Under the SDWA, the USEPA was required to implement a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants so the USEPA included PFOA in its third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) in 2012. This required all large systems servicing more than 10,000 people, plus a statistically selected group of 800 small systems, to monitor for a one-year period between 2013 and 2015. The data indicated that PFOA was measured at or above the minimum reporting level in approximately 2 percent of public water systems nationwide.
The UCMR program also has an additional benefit to the USEPA: the health assessment of humans on exposure to unregulated chemicals and the levels of the exposure. The data is one of the primary sources of occurrence and exposure information the Agency uses to develop regulatory decisions for emerging contaminants. The USEPA then reviews contaminants that have been evaluated through existing prioritization processes, and then further prioritizes contaminants based on other health effect studies and evaluations.Uncertain Future of PFAS Regulation
With the eventual release of the PFOA and PFOS testing data under the UCMR 3, numerous violations of the health advisory level (400 ppt at the time) were found. Soon, it was revealed that tens of thousands of New York residents have suffered bioaccumulation of PFAS in their blood at levels much higher than the national average from contaminated groundwater in places that include the Village of Hoosick Falls, the City of Newburgh, Westhampton, Petersburgh, and Yaphank. More places certainly exist. But New York is not alone. Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Colorado have all sustained impacts of residents being exposed to drinking water with high levels of PFOA and PFOS.
The USEPA currently has a Health Advisory level of 70 ppt (formerly 400 ppt, and then later 200 ppt). This level, as the name suggests, is not a legally enforceable limit. Given the USEPA’s inability to set an enforceable MCL, the states have been forced to determine their own regulatory levels. For example, New Jersey’s drinking advisory panel approved a 14 ppt MCL for PFOA following a decade of research on the contaminant. That enforceable limit is currently awaiting approval by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. In late 2016, Vermont passed a 20 ppt standard for PFOA and PFOS. This standard was challenged by Saint-Gobain with three different lawsuits, which were all dismissed. Minnesota, determining that the federal health advisory level was insufficient to protect infants and small children, has imposed a 35 ppt regulatory limit.
At right is a table showing the variations in enacted and proposed regulatory levels.
As can be seen, barring an MCL set by by the USEPA, industry, public water suppliers, plaintiffs and defendants are all left in a state of uncertainly. The effect of no standard MCL for the public safety is far reaching. For instance, water providers are left to guess on what treatment to install, and how much is it going to cost, if they do not know what levels to treat down to. Industry is in a similar situation. How can industry set their discharge levels when what is permissible one day, may not be permissible the next. Perhaps most importantly, how is a mother supposed to know what levels of PFAS in her water is safe for her infant or unborn child. Without guidance from the agencies designed to protect the environment and public health, everyone is left to wonder: Is the water safe?
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/expert-analysis/id=1202799884652/The-Emerging-Crisis-of-PFAS-Exposure?mcode=1380566174563&curindex=4&slreturn=20170909054557
-
EU-Netval Calls For Member States To Support Thyroid Study
Oct 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
EU member states are being encouraged to provide adequate funding to support a major new validation study for in vitro tests to detect thyroid disrupting chemicals.
"Member states have an obligation to contribute to the development and validation of alternative methods. What better way to do this than to support the study?" says Sandra Coecke, coordinator of the EU Network of Laboratories for the Validation of Alternative Methods (EU-Netval).
There are currently no validated thyroid in vitro methods, with the OECD conceptual framework for testing and assessing endocrine disruptors (EDCs) focusing on oestrogenic and androgenic effects.
In May 2017, a Joint Research Centre (JRC) expert survey identified thyroid tests as a top priority for new or enhanced test methods for EDCs.
The JRC's EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL Ecvam) set up EU-Netval in 2012.
The JRC is now in the process of selecting test facilities to work on a large-scale validation study of complementary in vitro tests for thyroid-disrupting chemicals.
"It is very important that the participating facilities have access to adequate funding otherwise we will be limited in what we can ultimately achieve," Dr Coecke told Chemical Watch, ahead of a meeting of EU-Netval member test facilities on 10-11 October 2017.
Reflecting the OECD's conceptual framework, the validation project splits the in vitro tests into eight 'blocks', depending on which thyroid-disrupting mode of action they cover.
In its first year, the project will mainly focus on defining the methods and transferring them to test facilities, in close collaboration with test developers. With some of the methods developed years ago, the project coordinators are discussing how to update them to use the "best available cells and test systems".
"The project is very exciting. It will be challenging but the secret to success is collaboration," says Dr Coecke.
EU-Netval comprises 37 test facilities from 15 countries, selected according to eligibility criteria.
A longer version of this story is available on Chemical Risk Manager.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59848/eu-netval-calls-for-member-states-to-support-thyroid-study
-
MEPs Reject Commission’s Endocrine Disruptor Definition
Oct 6, 2017 | Euractiv
By Paola Tamma
The European Commission will have to rewrite its definition of endocrine disruptors, after MEPs shot down the executive’s proposal in a vote in Strasbourg on Wednesday (4 October). EURACTIV’s partner Journal de l’Environment reports.
With 389 against, 235 in favour and 70 abstentions, MEPs rejected the Commission’s proposal for defining endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC).
The vote came after a qualified majority of member states adopted the proposal in July. France broke away from Sweden and Denmark, who thought the Commission’s definition was not protective enough, and in exchange for its vote obtained additional measures on EDCs.
But the European Parliament thought differently.
Overstepping its mandate
On 28 September the European Parliament’s environment, health and food safety committee (ENVI) roundly rejected the definition. The plenary session followed suit, making the same arguments.
“The main reason for the MEPs’ rejection is that the Commission has overstepped its mandate in proposing to exempt from the definition certain pesticides and biocides specifically designed for having an endocrine effect,” said the NGO Women in Europe for a Common Future.
Worry among the scientific community
MEPs chose a technical argument. But there are scientific reasons too, underpinning the harsh criticism that the scientific community directed at the Commission’s definition (Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology and European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology): “These criteria would not be sufficient to protect public health […] and numerous EDCs would not fall within this definition,” the three scientific bodies said last June.
New proposal
“MEPs understood what the French government did not,” claimed François Veillerette, spokesperson for the ecological association Générations Futures.
“Now the Commission must produce a new proposal guaranteeing a high level of protection for the health and environment of Europeans.”
“Irresponsible vote”
Calling the vote “irresponsible”, MEPs from the centre-right EPP group Françoise Grossetête et Angélique Delahaye – members of the ENVI and SANCO committes – declared that the Commission’s proposal, while flawed, still “allowed the EU to be on the forefront of health and environmental protection “.
The two French MEPs lamented that “purely legalistic arguments have trumped health protection […] It’s a leap in the dark”.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/endocrine-disruptors/news/meps-reject-commissions-endocrine-disruptor-definition/
-
Regulators Take 'Unusual' Step Of Opposing NRG Gas Plant
Oct 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Debra Kahn
California regulators are preparing to reject a gas-fired power plant proposed for the Southern California coast, in an unprecedented move that environmentalists are hailing as a victory for alternative energy.
California Energy Commissioners Janea Scott and Karen Douglas, in a statement filed last night, came out against NRG Energy Inc.'s 262-megawatt Puente Power Project, saying it would cause too many environmental issues.
"[I]t is clear to us that the Project will be inconsistent with several Laws, Ordinances, Regulations or Standards (LORS) and will create significant unmitigable environmental effects," Scott and Douglas wrote. "On the record currently before us, we are unwilling to override the significant impacts."
NRG already has a contract for the plant with Southern California Edison, approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in June 2016 as a replacement for a larger plant on the same site.
The state's deliberations over the plant are seen as a harbinger of natural gas's future in California as the state pursues ever higher concentrations of renewables (Energywire, July 12).
Democratic donor and environmental philanthropist Tom Steyer said in a statement, "Today marks the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era in California and our nation."
Matt Vespa, an attorney for Earthjustice who has been lobbying against the plant, said, "I did not expect this. It's wonderful news. As far as I know, they've never rejected a gas plant that had a contract, which Puente does. I think we are in a new era in terms of California not building new gas plants."
NRG expressed disappointment. "We believe the record fully supports the approval of Puente," spokesman David Knox said in a statement. "NRG favors California's move to a carbon free electrical grid, but remains concerned about local reliability during the transition."
The state's grid operator, the California Independent System Operator, had already taken the unprecedented step of studying alternatives to the plant after SCE signed the contract with NRG.
The study, issued in August, found that Puente would be cheaper than alternatives. But CAISO then issued a Sept. 29 letter to the California Energy Commission arguing that a new bidding process is needed to truly assess the costs of other options.
The CEC commissioners agreed. Last night's statement was intended to speed the process along in order to quickly get new resources online to meet a 2020 deadline for retiring coastal gas-fired plants that use ocean water for cooling.
"We acknowledge that this statement is unusual, but observe that it in no way impairs the rights of the applicant or any other party," they wrote. "All procedural requirements will continue to be honored."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/10/06/stories/1060062963
-
Dakota Access Review Delayed as Court Weighs Pipeline Challenge
Oct 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar and Andrew Harris
A court-mandated government review of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline will take months longer than expected, potentially pushing a decision on whether the conduit can continue to operate into 2018.
The review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers won't be completed until April, according to a court filing Oct. 6. Corps previously estimated it would be completed by the end of this year (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, D.D.C., No. 1:16-cv-1534, notice filed 10/6/17).
The new schedule comes after a federal judge ruled in June that the Corps failed to adequately consider the impacts of a potential spill from the line, and required review of those parts of its decision to allow the project to proceed.
The court hasn't yet decided whether the pipeline must cease operations while the review is ongoing. The pipeline has been in litigation since July 2016 when the Standing Rock Sioux tribe sued, seeking to prevent the project's route beneath Lake Oahe.
Energy Transfer Partners LP's $3.8 billion project went into service in June, following months of heated opposition from Native American tribes and environmental activists. The line, running from North Dakota to Illinois, received federal approval from the Trump administration after President Barack Obama had previously stalled it.
The time frame was adjusted after the pipeline company said it couldn't finish certain spill modeling until early December, according to the filing.
“The Corps is actively working on ways to shorten this time line,” it said. “The Corps may modify this expected schedule, if necessary, based upon the information it receives.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121830391&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121830391&jd=121830391
-
Pruitt Will Take First Step To Repeal Clean Power Plan But Could Slow-Walk Replacement
Oct 6, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA chief Scott Pruitt is finally making his first move to rescind Barack Obama's marquee climate change rule — but he may not be done by the time President Donald Trump leaves office.
The agency is preparing to publish a proposal to eliminate the Clean Power Plan and may consider replacing it but will not outline options immediately, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO on Friday. Given the amount of time and effort it will take just to get the current rule off the books — and then to defend that move in court — environmentalists and Obama-era EPA leaders say Pruitt appears to be setting himself up to never have to issue a replacement rule limiting carbon emissions from power plants.
“They’re not committing to doing anything at all,” said Sean Donahue, an attorney representing environmental groups that support the Clean Power Plan. “This is not a kind of, ‘We have a better way to do it.’ This is a, ‘We really don’t want to do it.’”
Pruitt’s moves leave federal climate action facing years in limbo as the world experiences warming that is already threatening the environment and public health, with heat waves, drought, sea-level rise and flooding. The Clean Power Plan was the linchpin of U.S. efforts to reduce emissions that cause those problems under an international deal to slow climate change, which Trump has said the country will exit. Even if Pruitt does eventually issue a new rule, he is expected to tailor it so narrowly that it would not lead to any significant carbon reductions.
Joe Goffman, the lead attorney at EPA when it filed the rule in 2015, said it is clear Pruitt’s strategy is to slow-walk any action to replace the rule, delaying any of the regulations to curb carbon emissions that the Supreme Court called for a decade ago.
“Scott Pruitt’s politics really does militate against him signing a regulation on greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general who sued the federal government more than a dozen times, including over the Clean Power Plan, has said he wants to lead public debates on the merits of science linking human activity to the Earth's rapid warming. Critics speculate he is prepping for a future campaign for Congress or a state-wide office.
EPA has a legal obligation to regulate carbon from power plants, following a 2007 Supreme Court decision and the agency’s own declaration that heat-trapping gases endanger public health by causing climate change. But environmental groups can’t sue until Pruitt officially withdraws the rule and again if he publishes a replacement. It will be years before the courts settle the issue.
Fossil-fuel trade groups on Friday lauded the proposal. Paul Bailey, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the regulation would have increased energy prices while reducing global temperatures a fraction of a degree.
“We are pleased to see EPA repeal this very bad rule,” he said.
National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn said the Clean Power Plan was “an unlawful attempt to transform the nation’s power grid.” Nixing it would save coal jobs, he argued.
Green groups still must weigh their options, but Donahue indicated they may try one final push to get the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to issue its ruling on the Clean Power Plan, which would cement an answer to the legal issues EPA is raising in its repeal effort.
The new draft discounts most of the value that the Obama administration had estimated would come from reducing carbon emissions and air pollutants that cause health problems. It uses the term “climate change” only once.
“That’s the problem with this and other things that these guys are doing, is that they do not acknowledge the fundamental health and environmental threats they’re charged with protecting people from,” Donahue said. “Their whole thing is about rewarding a subset of industry who are their bankrollers.”
The Clean Power Plan would have shifted the U.S. away from coal power and toward lower-carbon natural gas and emissions-free renewable power. It still would have secured only a fraction of the emissions cuts the U.S. would need to achieve to comply with its pledge under the Paris climate agreement.
Power-sector emissions are about a third of the country’s carbon pollution, and the Clean Power plan aimed to cut them about 15 percent below 2015 levels. Even without the rule, many companies and states are moving away from coal, opting for cheaper natural gas or renewable power.
Goffman said he’s optimistic that Trump’s moves won’t torpedo a global movement away from fossil fuels because countries have already invested political capital in choosing their commitments.
Jeff Holmstead, an EPA deputy under the George W. Bush administration who now represents groups suing against the Clean Power Plan, believes Pruitt will write a replacement rule focused only on coal plants. Holmstead thinks that move will make it hard for a future administration to write different power-sector climate rules.
“The big picture is that if EPA actually does what it’s supposed to do under the Clean Air Act, it will push the issue back to Congress," Holmstead said.
EPA’s proposal sets the tone for how Pruitt will express his opinions about climate change in regulatory actions.
Joanne Spalding, a climate attorney at the Sierra Club, said the draft shows that “it’s completely irrelevant to this administration the harm that these power plants are doing by spewing out all this carbon pollution, and they don’t even talk about it.”
A replacement rule would be more of a defensive legal maneuver, meant to protect against judges who might require EPA to move forward after federal climate action has languished for more than a decade. A new regulation would probably call on coal plants to run slightly more efficiently, according to arguments EPA laid out in its draft.
“It’s basically saying that these dinosaur coal plants that were built in the '60s and '70s decades ago get to operate forever — even though there are all sorts of clean power sources out there that we could be using that are not destroying our health and the planet,” Spalding said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/10/pruitt-will-take-first-step-to-repeal-clean-power-plan-but-could-slow-walk-replacement-163115
-
Trump Seen Replacing Obama Power Plant Overhaul With a Tuneup
Oct 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Barack Obama's signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.
The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.
That's a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what's needed.
The Trump administration is making “a wholesale retreat from EPA's legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change,” said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama's Clean Power Plan.
President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.
Possible Replacements
Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on a possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants.
Such changes—such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals—would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agencyand other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama's Clean Power Plan.
“In these existing plants, there's only so many places to look for savings,” said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. “There's only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an “inside-the-fence-line” approach in 2014, when he served as Oklahoma's attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given “the engineering limits of each facility.”
The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask “what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate,” according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.
Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.
Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.
Obama's EPA didn't ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach “would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions,” Obama's EPA said.
That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs—they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, “so they might run more and pollute more,” said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.
In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output.
“A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions,” Schneider said. “It might be worse than nothing.”
Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.
“If EPA's replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions,” Holmstead said.
Modest Impact
A plant-specific approach doesn't have to mean modest impact.
“If you're thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don't stop at efficiency tune-ups,” said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean air program. “You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage.”
Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama's Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.
The benefit of the Clean Power Plan “is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content,” said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. “And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies.”
Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.
“The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal,” said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E's Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy.
—With assistance from Mark Chediak.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121830390&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121830390&jd=121830390
-
(ACC Mentioned) CSX Reporting “Positive Trends”
Oct 6, 2017 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Approximately one week before the Oct. 11 Surface Transportation Board hearing (curiously called a “public listening session” by the STB) on CSX service issues, the railroad is pointing to extended “positive trends” as President and CEO Hunter Harrison’s Precision Scheduled Railroading is implemented.
CSX on Oct. 5 reported “another week of improving performance as it adopts the tenets of Precision Scheduled Railroading.” “CSX’s performance shows improved transit time, train speed, car-handling efficiency and terminal fluidity as we continue implementing the principles of scheduled railroading and the previous transitional issues are resolved,” Harrison said.
“Since mid-July, system-wide train velocity on CSX’s 21,000-mile network has increased by approximately 16%t, and is now higher than the 2016 full-year average,” Harrison noted. “Transit times for scheduled merchandise trains have returned to a normal range, and are lower than transit levels at the outset of CSX’s Precision Scheduled Railroad implementation in first-quarter 2017. Average terminal dwell (the number of hours cars spend in terminals between their origins and destinations) has steadily improved over the past two months and is currently 11.2 hours, declining more than 15% since the summer. Dwell is now lower than 2016 full-year average. CSX’s hump terminals continue to operate fluidly, within planned parameters and with capacity available to handle additional freight requirements.”
“We continue to drive forward in our effort to become the best railroad in North America, and the benefits of Precision Scheduled Railroading are becoming more apparent to our customers and our partners every day,” Harrison concluded.
STB on Oct. 6 published the list of those who will testify at the Oct. 11 hearing. They include:
• The Chemours Company / Kevin Acker, Strategic Relationship and Category Manager for Rail and F. Eddie Johnston, Federal Government Affairs Manager.
• Collum’s Lumber Products, LLC / William Scott, Vice President.
• Cristal / Lisa A. Powers, N.A. Distribution Manager.
• Dow Chemical Company / Jacqueline Faseler, Global Director Supply Chain Sustainability and Compliance.
• Kellogg Company / Sharron Moss-Higham, Senior Vice President of Operations and Distribution-Snacks.
• Murray Energy Corporation, et al. / Robert Edward Murray, Executive Vice President, Marketing and Sales.
• Occidental Chemical Corporation / Robin Burns, Vice President-Supply Chain.
• Packaging Corporation of America / Bruce Ridley, Vice President, EH&S and Operational Services.
• Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers / Jennifer Thomas, Vice President, Federal Government Affairs.
• American Chemistry Council / Cal Dooley, President and CEO.
• American Forest & Paper Association / Julie Landry, Director of Government Affairs.
• Corn Refiners Association / John Bode, President and CEO.
• The Fertilizer Institute / Justin Louchheim, Director, Government Affairs.
National Grain and Feed Association / Randall C. Gordon, President
• The National Industrial Transportation League / Mary Pileggi, Chairman, Board of Directors for NITL and Sourcing & Logistics Manager, Fluoroproducts for The Chemours Company.
• National Milk Producers Federation / Clay Detlefsen.
• Private Railcar Food and Beverage Association / Barbara A. Cataneo, Secretary of the Board of Directors.
• Rail Customer Coalition / Herman J. Haksteen, Member through the Private Railcar Food and Beverage Association.
• American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association / Linda Bauer Darr, President.
• National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) / Scot L. Naparstek, Chief Operating Officer.
• SMART Transportation Division / John Risch, National Legislative Director.
• Virginians for High Speed Rail / Danny Plaugher, Executive Director.
• CSX Transportation, Inc. / To be determined.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/csx-reporting-positive-trends%E2%80%9D.html
-
Critics Accuse EPA Of 'Cooking The Books'
Oct 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA's forthcoming proposal to ax the Obama-era Clean Power Plan claims that the rule would be pricier and have fewer climate and health benefits than the previous administration asserted.
A document detailing EPA's draft rule circulating today offers a drastically revised look at the rule's costs and benefits. It suggests the climate benefits could ultimately be about $20 billion each year less than the Obama administration contended, and the costs to comply could be about $20 billion more annually than previous estimates.
Observers are still waiting for a more complete cost and benefits analysis from EPA, but the initial numbers from the agency proposal suggest the Trump administration intends to take a dramatically different approach to calculating climate benefits in rulemaking and counting so-called co-benefits, the impacts of cracking down on pollutants that aren't directly targeted by a regulation.
"EPA is cooking the books and cherry-picking data to avoid showing the true health costs of air pollution," said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association.
One of critics' primary complaints about the proposal is that it signals reduced emphasis on the benefits of limiting soot- and smog-forming pollutants also emitted by the power sector. Those can cause health problems like premature deaths and asthma attacks.
"The changes EPA has made to its original cost-benefit analysis are economically irrational and inconsistent with the best available science," said Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity. "They're quite transparently designed to exaggerate the Clean Power Plan's costs and obscure its substantial benefits."
In one section projecting the costs and benefits of the repeal, co-benefits aren't accounted for at all, which Billings and others found troubling.
By the Obama EPA's estimate, the health and climate benefits of the Clean Power Plan would be $34 billion to $54 billion annually in 2030. The costs would be about $8.4 billion per year.
The EPA summary released today suggests the compliance costs of the Clean Power Plan could range from about $24.5 billion to $33 billion annually by 2030. While the Obama EPA said climate benefits accounted for $20 billion of the estimated total, the Trump team suggests climate benefits of the rule could be about $2.7 billion annually by 2030.
That calculation was changed because the Trump administration looked only at domestic climate benefits, as opposed to global climate benefits that the Obama team looked at.
The perceived costs and benefits are certain to be central to the fight over the proposal, although observers are waiting to see EPA's full proposal.
"They're basically presenting a lot of different versions of this analysis," Lienke said. "They're probably going to choose the version of this that makes the rule look the worst, and that's the one that they're going to use in press releases and speeches."
Some are speculating that EPA will organize a formal unveiling of its plans as early as Tuesday. The agency is required to update a federal appeals court on its plans tomorrow, but that filing could come Tuesday since the deadline falls on a weekend followed by a federal holiday on Monday.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman today declined to comment on the agency's plans.
Former EPA boss Gina McCarthy criticized her successor's plans today. "A proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan without any timeline or even a commitment to propose a rule to reduce carbon pollution isn't a step forward, it's a wholesale retreat from EPA's legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change."
Speaking at a Society of Environmental Journalists panel today, former White House energy and climate adviser Megan Ceronsky said today she was particularly interested in a number of aspects of the forthcoming regulatory impact analysis. She expects EPA to face serious pushback on its approach to weighing energy efficiency costs.
Meanwhile, Bracewell LLP partner Jeff Holmstead praised the EPA staff for crafting a "comprehensive" proposal. "I have great respect for the EPA staff because they have done just as good a job with this as they did with the original Clean Power Plan," he said. Holmstead also spoke at the journalists conference.
Reporter Ellen M. Gilmer contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/10/06/stories/1060062977
-
D.C. Circuit Puts Ozone Designations Delay Suit On Hold
Oct 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has placed in abeyance environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA's withdrawn delay of area designations for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), but is rejecting the agency's request to dismiss the lawsuit.
In American Lung Association (ALA), et al. v. EPA, environmentalists and states are suing EPA over the agency's since-withdrawn decision in June to extend by one year all designations of areas as meeting or violating the 2015 NAAQS, set at 70 parts per billion (ppb). EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the decision in June, only to withdraw it in August after groups sued to challenge it.
EPA has since argued that the case is moot and should be dismissed, while environmentalists in the suit claimed that to avoid the possibility of the delay being reinstated by EPA, the court should issue a vacatur of EPA's initial decision. In an Oct. 6 order, the D.C. Circuit rejected the motion to dismiss the case and instead placed it in abeyance, asking parties to file motions to govern future proceedings by Nov. 8.
EPA's withdrawal of the delay decision reinstated an Oct. 1 deadline for EPA to issue the area designations, which are necessary for states to implement the new NAAQS. The agency has now missed this deadline, prompting notices of intent to sue from environmentalists and states seeking to force issuance of the designations.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-puts-ozone-designations-delay-suit-hold
Congressional Hearings
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