Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/10/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) $150M Pledged to Fight SE Asia Ocean Plastics Problem
Oct 10, 2017 | Resource Recycling
By Jared Paben
Major brands, nonprofit organizations and industry groups will raise $150 million to boost the collection and recycling of plastics that may otherwise become marine debris. -
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Is an Important Risk Factor for Breast Cancer
Oct 10, 2017 | Medical Express
Exposure to environmental chemicals, especially early in life, is an important contributing factor in the development of breast cancer, according to the most comprehensive review of human studies to date. -
Walmart Effect: Retailers Lead the Way on Chemical Safety at a Critical Time
Oct 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elizabeth Sturcken
Just as the Trump administration tries to hollow out a new law that protects consumers from toxic chemicals, some unexpected champions of safer products are stepping up to the plate: retailers. -
The US Government Is Finally Acknowledging the Flame Retardants in Your Furniture and Baby Products Are Not Just Ineffective, but Also Dangerous
Oct 10, 2017 | Quartz
By Zoe Schlanger
The US agency in charge of protecting consumer safety just took the first step towards banning a class of flame retardants that were, up until very recently, nearly ubiquitous. -
SF to Ban Sale of Upholstered Furniture Containing Flame Retardants Linked to Cancer
Oct 10, 2017 | The San Francisco Examiner
By Joshua Sabatini
San Francisco is expected to ban the sale of upholstered furniture with flame retardant chemicals. -
Ben & Jerry's to Offer Glyphosate-Free Ice Cream
Oct 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Ben & Jerry's has started to cut all ingredients containing glyphosate from its production chain after a survey found traces of the controversial pesticide in the brand's European ice creams. -
Echa Biocides Committee Approves Five Substance Uses
Oct 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) adopted five opinions that support the approval of active substances, at its October meeting. -
Institute Calls for Comments on Lead, Mercury RoHS Exemptions
Oct 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Oeko-Institut has called for comments on three proposed exemptions from the RoHS Directive, which restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). -
Military Charges California Draft Toxicity Rule Conflicts With EPA Policy
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A proposed rule in California that would mandate use of the state's toxicity criteria over less stringent federal criteria at cleanup sites is drawing opposition from the military, cities and others, with the Defense Department (DOD) charging the proposal conflicts with EPA waste office policy on the toxicity values used in remediation risk assessments. -
NatGas Experts Warn of Delicate NAFTA Negotiations
Oct 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Natural gas industry experts last week warned that efforts to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should be handled delicately, but early fears that the Trump administration had a disruptive, protectionist slant that could roil gas markets appear to be unfounded. -
What Is the Clean Power Plan, and How Can Trump Repeal It?
Oct 10, 2017 | The New York Times
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said Monday that he would issue a formal proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a regulation on power plants that would have reduced domestic demand for coal and curbed the country’s planet-warming emissions. -
The E.P.A.’s Smoke and Mirrors on Climate
Oct 10, 2017 | The New York Times
By Richard L. Revesz and Jack Lienke
The Trump administration has mangled the costs and benefits of one of the most significant climate regulations of the Obama years in an effort to justify its repeal, which Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced on Monday. -
The Next Big Battlegrounds
Oct 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
When U.S. EPA boss Scott Pruitt inks his proposal to ax the Clean Power Plan today, the epic brawl over the Obama-era climate rule will be nowhere near over. -
It's Finally Getting the Ax. But Climate Skeptics Want More
Oct 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zach Colman
The Trump administration today will officially announce the end of the Clean Power Plan, a regulation limiting planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the conservative crowd that's skeptical about climate change says its work is just beginning. -
EWG: Pruitt’s War on Kids’ Health Continues With Repeal of Clean Power Plan
Oct 10, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt’s decision to scrap the Clean Power Plan is not only a complete collapse of U.S. leadership on climate change, but a direct attack on public health that will trigger tens of thousands more asthma attacks among American children, said EWG President Ken Cook.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) $150M Pledged to Fight SE Asia Ocean Plastics Problem
Oct 10, 2017 | Resource Recycling
By Jared Paben
Major brands, nonprofit organizations and industry groups will raise $150 million to boost the collection and recycling of plastics that may otherwise become marine debris.
Announced Oct. 4, the new initiative will raise money to fund waste management and recycling solutions in Southeast Asia, a region that contributes greatly to the global ocean plastics problem. Supporting the effort are the Ocean Conservancy, Trash Free Seas Alliance and Closed Loop Partners.
“This is a major breakthrough in the fight for trash free seas,” Susan Ruffo, managing director of international initiatives at Ocean Conservancy, stated in a press release. “Our research has found that by improving waste management in Southeast Asian countries, we can cut the flow of plastic going in the ocean by half by 2025. A funding mechanism will take this goal from dream to reality, and support efforts by governments and local groups on the ground to improve their livelihoods and well-being while also improving ocean health.”
Closed Loop Partners, which has invested in recycling infrastructure across the U.S. to boost materials recovery, will manage the funding for the ocean plastics prevention effort.
The initiative was announced in conjunction with the Our Ocean 2017 conference, an Oct. 5-6 gathering of world leaders in Malta.Developing the right approach
The initiative will focus on investments to improve collection, sorting and recycling markets for Southeast Asia. Nearly half of the plastic that flows into the ocean every year comes from five countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.
“It’s because they are in the place in their economic development curve that large numbers of citizens have moved into the consuming class recently and the investment in waste management hasn’t yet kept up with that pace of development,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
ACC is a member of the Trash Free Seas Alliance and has committed money to the project.
Russell said he expects the initial investments to be in Indonesia and the Philippines. That’s because those countries’ leaders have identified the issues as national priorities, and they’ve expressed a desire in different ways to partner with NGOs and the private sector, Russell said.
Russell said a work plan has been developed that envisions three phases. The first will involve establishing the funding mechanism and conducting scoping and validation exercises in the target countries. Those will include researching how to deploy capital effectively in areas with banking environments that are different than in the U.S. and understanding how different models for collection, sorting and end markets might work in each country.
“One of the things that’s really attractive to us about the way Closed Loop Partners is approaching this is they are crystal clear that whatever we fund needs to be respective of local conditions and to respond to the local needs, rather than our preconceived idea of what might be needed,” Russell said.Raising and providing money
The plan’s second and third stages are fundraising and deploying capital.
Russell said the partners haven’t determined what the financing limits, expected rates of return or investment portfolio will look like. The first phase is expected to be completed next year, and the plan is to fully capitalize the fund within three years. Russell said it hasn’t been determined whether the fund will disburse money before the full $150 million is secured.
As is the case with the Closed Loop Fund’s operations in the U.S., the money will help catalyze further investment but isn’t intended to pay the whole bill. That’s one of the things ACC liked when it examined the business plan developed by Closed Loop Partners, he said.
“Catalytic investment is money that’s designed to unlock the participation of people who otherwise might not invest,” he said.
Some major names are behind the dollar commitment. The Trash Free Seas Alliance is made up of 28 nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Five members of the group have already pledged enough money to fully fund the design phase of the effort: PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, ACC and the World Plastics Council.
When it comes to raising the $150 million, their goal is to engage as many companies as they can, including material suppliers, consumer goods companies, impact investors, philanthropists and others, Russell said. The $150 million won’t come from only those organizations named in the press release.
“We intend to have a broader representation of participants,” Russell said.
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2017/10/10/150m-pledged-fight-se-asia-ocean-plastics-problem/
-
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Is an Important Risk Factor for Breast Cancer
Oct 10, 2017 | Medical Express
Exposure to environmental chemicals, especially early in life, is an important contributing factor in the development of breast cancer, according to the most comprehensive review of human studies to date. The findings could help inform prevention strategies aimed at reducing the incidence of the disease, as rates continue to increase worldwide.
In 2007, researchers from Silent Spring Institute published in the journal Cancera landmark state-of-the-science review on the link between environmental chemicals and breast cancer. The review identified 216 chemicals that cause mammary tumors in animals and provided a roadmap for studying these chemicals in humans. "That was a real wakeup call," says Dr. Julia Brody, Silent Spring's executive director and senior scientist. "Now, ten years later, we see the evidence is even stronger."
Since the first review, hundreds of studies have been published on environmental chemicals and breast cancer. To capture and synthesize the human evidence, Brody and her team conducted a systematic search of the literature and identified 158 epidemiology studies published between 2006 and 2016. The researchers critically reviewed each study in light of emerging science on the biology underlying breast cancer, such as the influence of genes and hormones on the development of the disease.
The team's review, published online October 6 in the journal Environmental Research, led to several conclusions. Results from key studies suggest that exposure to chemicals early in life—in the womb, during puberty, and through pregnancy—increases the risk of developing breast cancer later on. For instance, early exposure to DDT, dioxins, the highly-fluorinated chemical PFOSA, and air pollution, is associated with a two- to five-fold increased risk of breast cancer. Early exposure in the workplace to high levels of organic solvents and gasoline components is also an important risk factor.
"During these so-called windows of susceptibility, the body is changing, breast cellsare dividing quickly, and the breast tissue becomes vulnerable to damage from chemicals," says lead author Kathryn Rodgers, a research scientist at Silent Spring.
Variations in people's genes can also affect how people's bodies respond to certain environmental chemicals. The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project, which resulted in many publications on environmental exposures and breast cancer, found that among women exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—a chemical in vehicle exhaust—those with certain genetic variants had a higher risk of developing breast cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified outdoor air pollution as a human carcinogen in 2013, and many of the components of air pollution have been shown to cause breast tumors in animals.
Growing concern about chemicals in every day consumer products has also led to a series of new studies. Many consumer product chemicals, such as BPA and phthalates, are endocrine disruptors. They interfere with the body's hormones and can produce effects at low doses. Results from animal studies suggest a link between breast cancer and endocrine disruptors, while the evidence from human studies is more limited, says Rodgers.
"Every day, we come into contact with many different chemicals, and new ones are constantly being introduced to the market," she says. "Unfortunately, it's hard to measure exposures to multiple chemicals at multiple times in a person's life."
The other challenge is that breast cancer can take years to develop. "It's not practical, nor is it ethical, to wait decades for women to develop breast cancer in order to find out whether a chemical caused their disease," says Dr. Marion Kavanaugh-Lynch, Director of the California Breast Cancer Research Program. "This comprehensive review of the science confirms that we must take a precautionary approach."
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and incidence rates in the U.S. are among the highest in the world. "What many don't realize is that breast cancer is largely a preventable disease," says Brody. Only 5 to 10 percent of cases are due to high-risk inherited genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2. "Traditionally, pharmaceutical hormones, exercise, and other lifestyle factors have topped the list of preventable risk factors. Now, chemical exposures are rising to the top of that list," she says.
Consumers can take some steps to reduce their exposures by choosing safer products, says Brody. But, she and her colleagues argue that stronger chemical safety policies and environmental protections are needed to protect the public from these widespread exposures.
Of the 10 chemicals the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has prioritized for review under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), five are mammary carcinogens or chemicals linked with breast cancer. "That's a good start," says Brody. Chemical safety tests can also be strengthened, she says, so that products are deemed safe before they're put on the market.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-10-exposure-environmental-chemicals-important-factor.html
-
Walmart Effect: Retailers Lead the Way on Chemical Safety at a Critical Time
Oct 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elizabeth Sturcken
Just as the Trump administration tries to hollow out a new law that protects consumers from toxic chemicals, some unexpected champions of safer products are stepping up to the plate: retailers.
In late September, Walmart released an ambitious update to its 2013 chemicals policy. Two other retail giants – Target and CVS – are also among a growing number of brands that are scaling up chemical safety.
These corporations are showing, with tangible and measurable actions, that their consumers demand safe and healthy products. Toxic-free consumer products, in other words, are good for business.Walmart: Tackles 55 million pounds of chemicals
The world’s largest retailer rolled out a chemical safety policy three years ago that covers nearly 90,000 formulated products in the beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning categories sold in the United States.
This policy, which health experts within my organization helped Walmart craft, has now been broadened to reduce by 10 percent the footprint of all chemicals of concern the company has identified in these product categories. The new target is equivalent to 55 million pounds.
It’s a massive undertaking considering that Walmart owns more 5,400 stores in the U.S. alone and depends on 700 global suppliers that make the products under evaluation.
The company will continue to publicly report its progress on an annual basis to show that the improvements it promises consumers are, in fact, happening.
We see evidence that Walmart means business: By achieving a 96-percent reduction in its first chemicals policy, the retailer was ranked among the top 10 in Fortune Magazine’s 2017 list of companies that Change the World.Target: Unveils chemicals policy for 600 stores
In January, Target announced a new chemicals policy that applies to all products sold in its 600-some stores and to its operations. The nation’s eighth-largest retailer for sales, Target is focusing its attention on removing PFCs and flame retardants from apparel by 2022.
PFCs have been linked to developmental changes, liver toxicity and lower sperm count. Certain flame retardants have been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer, reduced fertility and more.
Target is also targeting by 2020 five classes of chemicals of concern, such as formaldehyde donors and phthalate, from products in its beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning departments.
To meet these goals, the company is investing $5 million in green chemistry innovation while promising to share progress with us on an annual basis.CVS: Will remove chemicals from 600+ products
In April, CVS updated its list of chemicals restricted from use in its private-label baby, beauty, personal care and food products.
The company, today the nation’s fifth-largest retailer, will remove parabens, phthalates and formaldehyde donors – chemicals that slowly release formaldehyde into products over time – by 2019 from more than 600 products. CVS also said it will focus on additional product categories and chemicals of concern in the future.These companies drive change
The impact of these voluntary policies cannot replace a strong federal toxic safety law, but they demonstrate leadership and prove the business case for action.
Consumers today are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that toxic chemicals in products have a direct impact on their health, with constant new research connecting exposure to serious conditions and diseases.
Will they soon have a fully toxic-free experience? Probably not, but we’re making progress – even in the current political climate. The actions these retailers take give us hope.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/10/10/walmart-effect-retailers-lead-way-chemical-safety-critical-time
-
Oct 10, 2017 | Quartz
By Zoe Schlanger
The US agency in charge of protecting consumer safety just took the first step towards banning a class of flame retardants that were, up until very recently, nearly ubiquitous. So ubiquitous—mostly in children’s clothes, baby toys, and upholstered furniture—that the vast majority of the US population has measurable quantities of it in their blood.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission published a notice in the Federal Register on Sept. 28 warning that, based on “overwhelming scientific evidence” that organohalogenated flame retardants “present a serious public health issue,” using them is “ill advised.” Years of peer-reviewed research have associated exposure to this class of flame retardants with reduced fertility, lower IQ in children, developmental problems, early puberty, thyroid problems, and cancer.
Manufacturers should eliminate them from their products, the commission wrote, and people—especially pregnant women and children—should take precautions to make sure the flame retardants aren’t in anything they buy. The warning was prompted by a 2015 petition signed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health groups urging the ban. The commission also voted 3-2 to begin the process of banning the class of compounds.Flame retardants don’t even work
Flame retardants are a particularly North American problem; in 2009 the US Centers for Disease Control found that, on average, Americans had levels of the chemicals in their blood three to 10 times higher than people from various European countries.
The debacle started in the mid-1970s, with a group of powerful industries more or less colluding to promote the use of fire retardants in furniture production, according to a major investigation by the Chicago Tribune:
The tactics started with Big Tobacco, which wanted to shift focus away from cigarettes as the cause of fire deaths, and continued as chemical companies worked to preserve a lucrative market for their products, according to a Tribune review of thousands of government, scientific and internal industry documents. These powerful industries distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that stoked the public’s fear of fire and helped organize and steer an association of top fire officials that spent more than a decade campaigning for their cause.
In 1975, California enacted “Technical Bulletin 114,” a law that required foam-filled furniture to withstand 12 seconds of exposure to an open flame without catching on fire. That effectively required furniture manufacturers to douse their products in flame retardants.
For manufacturers who wanted to sell their furniture nationally, it didn’t make sense to produce California-specific products. So flame retardants were often injected into polyurethane foam that filled couches, chairs, and mattresses (and gym mats, leading to particularly high exposures in American gymnasts) sold across the country. The chemical industry, wanting to protect a lucrative new market, lobbied against pulling the products long after studies began linking flame retardants to health problems.
The thing is, they don’t even work to prevent fires. Government tests in 2009 concluded that they don’t “provide any significant protection,” according to the Tribune.No longer required—but still being used
If you bought your upholstered furniture before 2011, there’s a good chance they are full of flame retardants. In a 2012 study of 100 couches, the Green Science Policy Institute (an advocacy group that spearheaded the 2015 petition on flame retardants) found flame retardants in all but one couch they purchased in California and in 81% of couches purchased in other states.
California amended its rules in 2013, lifting the de facto requirement, but that doesn’t mean the chemicals have disappeared from products. The new law requires furniture companies to explicitly label whether their products contain flame retardants or not. Most furniture now carry tags referring to “California Technical Bulletin 117-2013” and a check box-style label indicating if they have flame retardants or not.
This reporter turned over her desk chair while writing this article and found that it is indeed full of flame retardants. (Our facilities team has been alerted and is looking into it.)
Many major furniture manufacturers have moved away from using them, and a major trade association for furniture makers has issued statements supporting their elimination.
“The problem now is educating designers and architects,” who think they’re making the right choice by requesting flame-retardant furniture, says Arlene Blum, founder of the Green Science Policy Institute.Ban in the hands of a Trump appointee
In a strongly-worded statement, Elliot Kaye, one of five US Consumer Product Safety commissioners, condemned the “completely irrational” US system of chemical regulation that allowed flame retardants to proliferate for so long.
The US takes an “innocent until proven guilty” approach, allowing most chemicals on the market without safety-testing them. When a problem is found, it is often after years of widespread use, and banning a chemical requires a vast amount of scientific evidence of harm.
“As a policy maker, and more importantly, as a parent, I am horrified and outraged at how chemicals are addressed in this country,” Kaye said. “It is completely irrational that we wait for children to be poisoned before the government is allowed to step in.”
The commission’s vote to begin the potentially years-long process of banning flame retardants is promising, but it may be the last gasps of the regulatory efforts of a previous administration. One of the commissioners who voted to support the ban was Marietta Robinson, an Obama-era appointee. On Oct. 1, her seven-year term expired, and Donald Trump’s administration replaced her with an attorney who has a history of defending companies accused of selling unsafe products.
https://qz.com/1098161/the-us-government-is-finally-acknowledging-the-flame-retardants-in-your-furniture-and-baby-products-are-not-just-ineffective-but-also-dangerous/
-
SF to Ban Sale of Upholstered Furniture Containing Flame Retardants Linked to Cancer
Oct 10, 2017 | The San Francisco Examiner
By Joshua Sabatini
San Francisco is expected to ban the sale of upholstered furniture with flame retardant chemicals.
The ban, introduced by Supervisor Mark Farrell, would extend to online sales and also include children’s products, such as booster seats, changing pads and high chairs.
These flame retardant chemicals, which come in the form of foams, like those found in sofas, are linked to cancer and increase risks of birth defects and learning disabilities, according to studies. Small particles of the foam travel through the fabric and are released into the air. Even cats are thought to succumb to thyroid complications through exposure.
In August, Maine became the first city or state in the U.S. to enact such a ban, effective January 2019, after state representatives overturned the governor’s veto of the proposal. Supporters said they were up against powerful lobbyists from the chemical industry.
San Francisco is now expected to follow suit.
The Board of Supervisors Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee will vote Wednesday on Farrell’s legislation and, if approved, the full board will vote next week to make it law, which would also go into effect January 2019.
The law would impact the approximate 200 furniture retailers in San Francisco, of which 160 are independent shops. Seventeen other stores sell the children’s products that fall under the legislation, though the ban does not apply to second-hand resales.
There is no increase in cost to create products without the flame retardants, city officials say, and retailers would have one year to sell their inventory.
Farrell became involved in the issue when approached about a year ago by Sustainable San Francisco, a group that advocates for environmental policies.
Last week, the proposal was unanimously supported by the Small Business Commission and has support from the Department of the Environment and the San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 labor union. Firefighters experience higher rates of cancer and flame retardant toxins are found in their blood.
Debbie Raphael, director of the Department of the Environment, said more recent research shows eliminating these fire retardant chemicals isn’t a choice of health over public safety.
“When you load up foam full of flame retardants, you don’t actually get any fire safety benefit,” Raphael said. “The benefit comes from when the fabric is fire-resistant, not the foam inside. It’s a false choice.”
California changed its testing standards in recent years and “furniture can meet all the fire safety standards it needs to without any flame retardants inside,” she said.
Tom O’Connor, president of San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 and co-founder of the 10-year-old San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, said, “Supervisor Farrell’s legislation is the first step in the direction to minimize our exposure to these chemicals.”
O’Connor said there remains ongoing research to examine cancer rates among firefighters to inform policies to reduce them, including a study of female firefighters with UC Berkeley’s Center for Occupational and Environmental Health.
“We are finding that in San Francisco female firefighters under the age of 50 have six times the national average of breast cancer as do people outside of the firefighter service,” O’Connor said.
He added, “The scariest building a firefighter goes into isn’t on fire, it’s the building where their oncologist works.”
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-ban-sale-upholstered-furniture-containing-flame-retardants-linked-cancer/
-
Ben & Jerry's to Offer Glyphosate-Free Ice Cream
Oct 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Ben & Jerry's has started to cut all ingredients containing glyphosate from its production chain after a survey found traces of the controversial pesticide in the brand's European ice creams.
A new survey from Health Research Institute laboratories found glyphosate in 13 of 14 Ben & Jerry's tubs from the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the Netherlands.
The Organic Consumers Association found the weedkiller in 10 of 11 U.S. samples of the ice cream during the summer, though at levels well below U.S. EPA limits (Greenwire, July 26).
B&J spokeswoman Laura Peterson said the company was "disappointed, but not totally surprised" by the new survey's results.
"But simply saying trace levels are in everything is not a strategy," Peterson added. "By no later than 2020, we will stop sourcing [ingredients] made with crops chemically dried using glyphosate. In addition, we intend to advocate for policies that would end use of glyphosate as a chemical drying agent."
The company will debut a 100 percent "organic dairy" line next year that Peterson expects to total 6 percent of U.S. sales (Arthur Neslen, London Guardian, Oct. 9). — CS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/10/stories/1060063181
-
Echa Biocides Committee Approves Five Substance Uses
Oct 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) adopted five opinions that support the approval of active substances, at its October meeting.
It approved azoxystrobin for use in film preservatives (product-type seven); fibre, leather, rubber and polymerised materials preservatives (product-type nine); and construction material preservatives (product-type ten).
The new active substance is mostly used to preserve paints, silicon coatings, mineral and silicon sealants, as well as paper in wall linings and gypsum board.
The BPC also approved the disinfectant PHMB (1415; 4.7) for use in disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals (product-type two); and products for the food and feed area (product-type four).
But it decided against approving the substance for use in product-types one, five and six. Here, it is used for hygienic hand washes, for the disinfection of animal drinking water, and as an antimicrobial preservative for aqueous manufactured products in cans, tanks or other closed containers during storage. PHMB's persistence led to unacceptable environmental risks for these uses, explains BPC chair, Erik van de Plassche.
The meeting also adopted two non-approval decisions concerning the existing active substance, chlorophene, for product-types two and three.
In product-type three, it is used in products to control pathogens in poultry barns and similar facilities. The BPC concluded that the risk this poses to farmers, who would use the disinfectant, is too high.
Products containing chlorophene in product-type two are intended to be used as a heavy-duty disinfectant, by professionals in hospitals and by private users on washing and toilet facilities.
In this case, the substance meets the biocidal products Regulation's (BPR's) exclusion criteria. This means it may normally not be approved, unless one of the conditions for derogation set in Article 5(2) of the BPR is met. This will be decided by the European Commission and the member states in an upcoming meeting of the competent authorities (CAs).
https://chemicalwatch.com/59906/echa-biocides-committee-approves-five-substance-uses
-
Institute Calls for Comments on Lead, Mercury RoHS Exemptions
Oct 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Oeko-Institut has called for comments on three proposed exemptions from the RoHS Directive, which restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). They are for:lead in solder to make electrical connections to vacuum boards used in mass spectrometers. Boards designed to be used periodically under low pressure. For five years;use of lead in welds for soldering of certain printed circuit board assemblies in gas detectors; andmercury in single – capped (compact) fluorescent lamps for general lighting purposes <30W with a lifetime equal or above 20,000 hours: 3.5mg. For a maximum of five years.
The consultation will run until 7 November.
The institute, which is running the study with Fraunhofer IZM, will make a recommendation to the European Commission on the basis of information received.
The Commission is currently consulting on eight lead exemptions under RoHS.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59583/institute-calls-for-comments-on-lead-mercury-rohs-exemptions
-
Military Charges California Draft Toxicity Rule Conflicts With EPA Policy
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A proposed rule in California that would mandate use of the state's toxicity criteria over less stringent federal criteria at cleanup sites is drawing opposition from the military, cities and others, with the Defense Department (DOD) charging the proposal conflicts with EPA waste office policy on the toxicity values used in remediation risk assessments.
Various California-based citizen and environmental groups, however, support the state's proposal.
The state's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) proposed the rule, Toxicity Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessments, Screening Levels and Remediation Goals Rule, in response to a long-running fight between state regulators and the Air Force over a military base cleanup.
For specified contaminants at hazardous substance release sites in the state, the proposed regulation would mandate the use of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) toxicity criteria, "which take into account California specific considerations, and are more stringent than federal toxicity criteria," according to DTSC's notice of the rule. Regulators use toxicity criteria for risk assessments and in setting risk-based screening levels and cleanup goals for contaminants at cleanup sites, it says.
The rule would formalize a practice dating back to 1994 and ensure consistency in choosing appropriate toxicity criteria for all California cleanup sites, it says. DTSC says benefits of the proposal would include greater protection for citizens from hazardous substances as compared to using federal toxicity criteria, defining the protective risk-based screening level as one in a million for cancer risk and a hazard quotient of 1 for non-cancer risk for screening level risk assessments, and mandating that cleanup screening levels and goals reach the same level of protection at federal facility sites as at other cleanup sites in the state, according to DTSC.
DTSC accepted comment on the proposal through Sept. 20.
California regulators tie the proposed rule to a long-running dispute between California and the Air Force over what toxicity criteria to use to determine cleanup levels at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California. The regulators told Inside EPA that they believe the regulation should end the dispute with the military over the matter, prompting DOD and EPA to recognize state toxicity criteria as an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) at the site. ARARs are state or federal standards that apply to Superfund cleanups.
At issue in that case has been the interpretation of EPA guidance on how to set cleanup levels when federal and state toxicity values differ.
In the dispute, the Air Force has argued that EPA guidance requires the use of so-called Tier I values -- EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) criteria -- to always be applied when available. But DTSC and EPA Region 9 have maintained that where a chemical has multiple toxicity criteria considered scientifically valid and current, "the most health-protective criteria should be applied for risk screening, risk assessments, and selecting cleanup levels," DTSC says in a formal dispute statement issued in 2014.
Cleanup Dispute
In this case, the more-stringent criteria are California's perchloroethylene toxicity criteria. And EPA Region 9 in a Feb. 4, 2015, document says the agency's guidance documents give the region flexibility to follow a longstanding protocol to apply California's perchloroethylene toxicity criteria in the state.
Now California wants to formalize that protocol. Environmental and citizen groups that back the proposal say the regulation would also "make more enforceable" this longstanding practice of applying the state's toxicity criteria where federal criteria are weaker. These groups, which include the Center for Public Environmental Oversight -- a longtime watchdog of military cleanups -- and Clean Water Action, among others, say the federal risk assessment process "is biased in favor of polluters, so to counteract that bias we support California's efforts to ensure that reasonable, protective standards apply to all hazardous waste and toxic substance cleanups within the state."
But other parties are taking issue with the proposal, with the military citing conflicts with EPA's waste office, the California Health and Safety Code and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the regulatory blueprint for Superfund.
In addition, the League of California Cities fears the changes will interfere with cleanups based on future uses and limit flexibility at brownfields. And a law firm filed comments citing concerns that the rule could upend cleanup goals at hundreds of existing cleanup sites, despite some assurances in the rule that it will not be retroactive.
DOD's comments, submitted by the Navy Sept. 19, argue the rule "arbitrarily elevates [OEHHA] toxicity criteria values above more recent and nationally established 'best science' toxicity data." It also contradicts the EPA waste office's guidance on toxicity values used in risk assessment and management, DOD says. Such guidance ensures the use of the most credible, recent toxicity criteria, it says.
Among other criticisms, DOD also says the draft rule "conflicts with the application of the nine NCP feasibility study evaluation criteria in several ways." The state's proposal "seems to blur the lines between" two NCP threshold criteria: overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with, or waiving, ARARs. If ARARs are unavailable or fail to protect, then risk-based goals can be used, DOD explains.
But DTSC now "is attempting to insert its proposed regulation into both the [Superfund] risk assessment and ARAR process," DOD adds. This appears to be inconsistent with the NCP, and it is unclear if the DTSC rule would even qualify as an ARAR, it says.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association also submitted comments citing concerns, in particular noting it has increased concerns that the rule "would anchor cleanup levels at the low end of the NCP risk range (i.e., excess cancer risk of one in one million or 1 x 10^-4)."
Negative Impacts
And the League of California Cities fears negative impacts from the rule on cleaning up and revitalizing brownfields sites. "We can appreciate the agency's proposal to substitute default toxicity screening values for site-specific considerations and require their use in establishing screening levels, however we remain concerned that the regulations apply broadly to all sites and assume the most sensitive future land use."
Law firm Latham & Watkins also submitted comments, with attorney Benjamin Gibson in part citing concerns that the new rule will apply retroactively. "As written, this very well could have the effect of upsetting established remediation goals at hundreds of existing sites," he writes. "The proposed rule should state that it does not apply to sites for which a Record of Decision or equivalent document selecting a remedy has already been issued."
And the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap argues in Sept. 20 comments that California's proposed rule backs off from an earlier proposal to require the use of the most protective criteria. The group fears the new version no longer does so, and for many contaminants would mandate the weakest criteria.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/military-charges-california-draft-toxicity-rule-conflicts-epa-policy
-
NatGas Experts Warn of Delicate NAFTA Negotiations
Oct 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Natural gas industry experts last week warned that efforts to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should be handled delicately, but early fears that the Trump administration had a disruptive, protectionist slant that could roil gas markets appear to be unfounded.
Guillermo Ignacio Garcia, who chairs Mexico’s energy regulatory commission, Comisión Reguladora de Energía, is optimistic the agreement can be reworked. He shared a panel discussing infrastructure projects and cross-border trade at the North American Gas Forum in Washington, DC. He pointed out that the 18-page document that outlined the NAFTA agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada made mention of energy only once and in only one sentence.
"In terms of the NAFTA negotiation, energy can be the line which we all agree upon," Garcia said. "In terms of the energy sector, we have more [areas of agreement] than differences.
According to Garcia, the regions of Mexico with access to natural gas have a different rate of growth and development than other regions of the country. "You cannot explain the automotive [industry], let alone [other industry in] the center of Mexico, without natural gas," he said. "The companies that weren't coming to Mexico were asking for the supply of gas for them to make their decisions into the investment in the country. Natural gas provides this development ingredient into the mix."
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America CEO Don Santa at the DC forum said liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, especially in the wake of the exploration and production (E&P) sector’s shale revolution, are a growing part of the "demand pie" for gas produced in the United States.
"Exports are very important because if you think about the surplus of gas that we've got in the U.S., it is those export markets that really are keeping the price in balance," Santa said. "If you didn't have the growing LNG exports, you'd see far lower commodity prices and less E&P activity. It is a major part of maintaining a very robust industry in terms of production, and if anything we're in a situation in the U.S. where supply has outstripped demand."
That said, renegotiating NAFTA will be a tricky proposition.
"Whatever happens coming out of NAFTA or other trade agreements that suppresses international demand, or makes this nation less able to export its surplus of natural gas to worldwide markets, is going to have an impact in the U.S., and it's not going to be positive," said former FERC Commissioner Tony Clark. "Whatever potential short-term benefit that you get from a little bit lower natural gas price leads into the endemic problem with the natural gas industry in the past, where very low prices can't support the infrastructure...and then you get into some of that 'boom and bust' cycle.
"One of the very positive things about the shale gas and oil revolution is that it becomes more of a manufacturing process and less of a wildcatting process, where you know the price point at which you can produce this natural gas and you know where the formations are. It becomes a much more reliable source of energy, [especially considering] the degree that our electricity and natural gas markets are now linked at the hips."
Santa added that NAFTA "has been a huge success story from an energy perspective."
"If you think back to when NAFTA was first negotiated and ratified in the late 80s and early 90s, you recognize that led to great integration in U.S. gas markets, both in terms of pipelines and in terms of the commodities markets," Santa said. "For many years during the 80s and 90s, it was in fact Canadian gas imported into the U.S. that made up the difference. Now we're starting to see in eastern markets U.S. shale gas going into eastern Canada, and we've talked about announcing the emergence of the Mexican market for U.S. natural gas.
"I hope that as they enter into negotiations they be mindful of the fact that this has been such a tremendous success story, and not to upset it. If you were to do things that frustrate the energy trade or frustrate the creation of that demand for American energy, it will come back to the detriment of the U.S. energy industry. Ultimately, U.S. energy consumers would start to see gyrations in price and the impact that that has in upsetting that stability has been so great in terms of taking the volatility out of gas as a commodity so we can rely on it."
Garcia used the agriculture sector as an example where the three countries work together well.
"The agriculture sector in the U.S. has been very clear that the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. is unique," Garcia said. "We are buying our corn from the U.S., and the U.S. is buying our fruits. There are a lot of people that would lose among the three countries” if NAFTA were to fail.
Clark said he believes there will be a strong market for LNG in the future, even if every project before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is not approved.
"Does that mean that every project that's been proposed or is in front of FERC is going to get built? No, it won't," Clark said. "The market will shake some of those things out. But I know some of them will probably get built. It's going to depend on some of the location attributes, how [export applicants] are able to sell themselves into the marketplace, their own design and engineering concepts. Some will become profitable and make their way through the process, and some are probably a much bigger reach. But if you look at the overall [LNG picture], it's quite strong."
Santa concurred, adding "in terms of the pipeline capacity associated with LNG, interstate gas pipe does not get built on speculation. It gets built when there's a shipper who [agrees] to a long-term firm contract that supports the ability to finance that infrastructure and also the ability to demonstrate need for it legally. I think that will discipline things in terms of not seeing pipe get built to serve facilities that will not come to be."
Strong Industry Signal
Clark indicated that the Trump administration got off to a strange start with FERC lacking a quorum until mid-September.
"They couldn't act on any new applications that were before it," Clark said. However, “it's fair to say that the administration has sent a lot of the right signals in terms of being pro-infrastructure development. The types of people that they have nominated for agencies, like FERC and other agencies that have something to say about the permitting, have generally fallen into that particular vein."
Clark said the Trump administration made several decisions early on that indicated it would be supportive of energy development, including development related to international trade.
"I had some fear early on in the administration that some of the economic protectionism arguments that you heard might have drifted over into things like LNG [liquefied natural gas] permitting, and might have been susceptible to some of those arguments," Clark said.
But when Trump issued an executive order in March calling for, among other things, expedited approval of permits to export LNG to countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the United States, that sent "a strong signal to the industry that American energy is something that is important not just for the U.S., but in terms of our own economic and global positioning in the rest of the world," Clark said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112030-natgas-experts-warn-of-delicate-nafta-negotiations
-
What Is the Clean Power Plan, and How Can Trump Repeal It?
Oct 10, 2017 | The New York Times
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said Monday that he would issue a formal proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a regulation on power plants that would have reduced domestic demand for coal and curbed the country’s planet-warming emissions.
What is the Clean Power Plan?
The Clean Power Plan was President Barack Obama’s signature policy on climate change, and it represented one of the strongest actions ever taken by the United States to combat global warming. But it has never taken effect, and the Trump administration hopes to repeal it before it does.
Under the rule, which was finalized in 2015, the E.P.A. assigned each state a goal for limiting emissions from existing power plants and gave the states broad latitude in meeting those goals, such as switching from coal to natural gas or building new wind or solar farms. At the time, the agency estimated that the rule would have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions from the power sector 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The Clean Power Plan was finalized alongside a separate proposal by the E.P.A. to regulate emissions from all new power plants, which would have effectively made it impossible to build a new coal plant in the United States unless it could capture and bury emissions underground.
How does the Clean Power Plan relate to the Paris agreement?
The Obama administration touted the Clean Power Plan as evidence that the United States was serious about taking meaningful action on climate change during the Paris climate talks in late 2015.
Under the Paris agreement, the United States promised to lower the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Because power plants account for roughly one-third of America’s emissions, the Clean Power Plan was seen as a crucial part of that strategy.
President Trump has already vowed to withdraw from the Paris deal, although the United States technically cannot quit the pact until 2020. Without the Clean Power Plan in effect, it could prove more difficult for the United States to meet its Paris targets. That might make other countries feel less inclined to follow through on their own climate pledges.
What was happening with the Clean Power Plan until now?
The plan has been tied up in courts for more than a year. More than two dozen states, industry representatives and others sued the E.P.A. when the plan came out, claiming that it went far beyond what existing law allowed. In 2016, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the law from taking effect while a lower federal court heard these arguments.
Mr. Trump criticized the Clean Power Plan during the campaign and promised to bring back coal mining jobs. Mr. Pruitt, as Oklahoma’s attorney general, sued the E.P.A. 14 times over environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan.
In March, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that called on Mr. Pruitt to take steps to dismantle the plan.
Why does the Trump administration want to scrap the plan?
Mr. Trump has frequently expressed support for coal miners. He has also called global warming a hoax and said Mr. Obama’s climate change policies were “stupid.”
Mr. Pruitt has said that the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority in creating the Clean Power Plan. Historically, when the E.P.A. put forth regulations on power plants, it prescribed specific steps for utilities to reduce pollution at those plants. But with the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration had assumed that utilities could take measures outside of the coal plants themselves, like building wind and solar farms elsewhere. Mr. Pruitt has argued that any regulation on greenhouse gases should be limited to modifications at existing plants.
A leaked draft of Mr. Pruitt’s repeal proposal also asserted that the country would save $33 billion by not complying with the regulation and rejected the health benefits the Obama administration had calculated from the original rule.
What happens next?
In order to repeal regulations, federal agencies have to follow the same rule-making system (requiring periods of public notice and comment) used to create regulations, which can take about a year.
Mr. Pruitt has also indicated that he may solicit public comments on a more modest replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan, as many industry groups have said they would prefer, though he has not offered a timeline for doing so.
Several environmental advocacy groups and state attorneys general had previously moved to defend the Clean Power Plan in court, and they have already said they would challenge both the repeal proposal and whatever alternative Mr. Pruitt might devise. Drawn-out court battles could prevent the Trump administration from fully repealing and replacing the plan before the 2020 election.
Will getting rid of the Clean Power Plan bring back coal industry jobs?Some of the arguments against the Clean Power Plan have come from the fossil fuel industries — specifically the coal industry, since coal-fired power plants were the main target of the rules. They have argued that the plan is overly punitive toward them.
However, the proliferation of cheap natural gas and a rise in renewable energy sources has also made coal less economically competitive even in the absence of the rule.
Removing regulations on coal-fired power plants wouldn’t necessarily bring back a lot of coal jobs. Most coal mining, especially mountaintop removal mining, is now done by machines, so it would be hard to bring back the thousands of jobs that have been lost as automation takes hold.
Can the United States cut emissions even without the plan?
Many states are already moving toward cleaner sources of energy even without mandates from the federal government. Market forces and state clean-energy policies are moving energy production away from coal and toward natural gas, wind and solar.
The shift has been so profound that the United States may meet the original emissions goals of the Clean Power Plan even if it is repealed. A new study by the research firm Rhodium Group projects that emissions from the power sector will fall 27 to 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Mr. Obama’s original target was within that range.
Still, power plant emissions would have most likely fallen even further if the Clean Power Plan remained in place, because a dozen or more states that have been slow to shift away from coal would have been forced to take action. Those extra cuts would be significant, because the United States will not be able to meet its Paris goals with the original Clean Power Plan alone. And the world will not be able to avoid the worst effects of global warming unless the climate pledges made under the Paris agreement are eventually strengthened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/climate/epa-clean-power-plan.html
-
The E.P.A.’s Smoke and Mirrors on Climate
Oct 10, 2017 | The New York Times
By Richard L. Revesz and Jack Lienke
The Trump administration has mangled the costs and benefits of one of the most significant climate regulations of the Obama years in an effort to justify its repeal, which Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced on Monday.
In a leaked series of new analyses, the agency claims that jettisoning the Clean Power Plan, which limits planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s power plants, will save electric power producers up to $33 billion annually by 2030. But just two years ago, the agency estimated that the plan’s emissions goals could be achieved at less than a fifth of that price.
Have the economics of decarbonizing the power sector really deteriorated so badly, so quickly? Only by sleight of hand, using numerical smoke and mirrors.
The reality is that since the E.P.A. conducted the analysis that accompanied the 2015 plan, the costs of zero-carbon wind and solar energy have fallen substantially, as have price forecasts for lower-carbon natural gas. Accordingly, any new E.P.A. analysis of the Clean Power Plan’s costs should have found — as at least three outside assessments, including one by the American Petroleum Institute, have — that the rule’s pollution targets can be achieved even more cheaply than the agency initially thought.
But the Trump administration had no interest in conducting a good-faith update of the E.P.A.’s original estimates. Instead, it relied on accounting gimmicks to greatly inflate the Clean Power Plan’s projected costs and slash its expected benefits. The rule’s transformation from boon to boondoggle, as laid out in a draft of Mr. Pruitt’s plan to repeal it, is thus pure illusion.
For its first trick, the E.P.A.’s new leadership more than tripled the plan’s projected price tag merely by changing how the agency accounts for energy savings.
Pre-Pruitt, the E.P.A. had projected that states and utilities would meet the rule’s emission targets in part by investing in energy-efficiency programs that help consumers reduce energy waste. These programs offer highly cost-effective emissions cuts because the upfront expense of, say, better insulating a building is often more than offset by the resulting reductions in electric bills. Because these savings also reduce utilities’ generating expenditures, they were reflected in the E.P.A.’s original estimate of the electric sector’s compliance costs.
In most of its new analyses, the Pruitt-led E.P.A. ignores these savings when calculating the costs of the plan. As a result, the E.P.A.’s cost projections now include almost $20 billion of generating expenses for electricity that the agency’s own analysis shows would not be produced with the plan in place.
The agency plays down its creative arithmetic as the application of a different “accounting framework,” in which energy savings are treated as a benefit of the rule rather than a cost saving. In other words, the new numbers don’t reflect a changed view of the Clean Power Plan’s net economic impacts. But if the change is so meaningless, why make it at all?
Probably because a rule that supposedly costs up to $33 billion a year sounds worse than one that costs up to $8 billion a year. And the Trump administration very much wants the Clean Power Plan to sound like a bad idea so that getting rid of it will sound like a good one.
Having ginned up sufficiently intimidating cost estimates, the E.P.A. next set about making the plan’s environmental benefits look meager. Pre-Pruitt, the agency estimated that the rule would yield up to $20 billion per year in avoided harms from climate change. In the agency’s new analyses, that number drops to a maximum of $3 billion. The E.P.A.’s explanation is that, whereas its original estimate focused on global climate impacts, its new calculation is limited to harms that the plan would avoid within the United States.
But it is impossible to calculate a domestic “share” of climate damages with any accuracy. In our globally interconnected economy, major climatic (and economic) disruption in other countries will inevitably affect American pocketbooks.
And even if it were possible to isolate climate damages in the United States, it would be strategically foolish (not to mention morally indefensible) to ignore foreign harms when evaluating pollution standards. Just as carbon dioxide emitted in the United States harms other countries, emissions from other countries harm America. And under any plausible theory of international relations, it’s clear that other governments are more likely to take America’s interests into account when setting their pollution limits if the United States does the same.
Remarkably, even with most of the Clean Power Plan’s climate benefits excluded, its overall benefits would still outweigh its costs by as much as $28 billion in 2030. This is because, in addition to cutting carbon dioxide emissions, the shift to cleaner sources of electricity encouraged by the plan would also reduce deadly particulate matter and other harmful air pollution. The E.P.A.’s original analysis found that these reductions would result in big public health benefits — most notably, preventing up to 3,600 premature deaths each year.
And so the E.P.A. invented flimsy excuses for ignoring some — and, in the most extreme version of its analysis, all — of the rule’s health benefits, too. With this final disappearing act, the Trump administration at last succeeded in making the Clean Power Plan look like a bad deal for the American people, with projected costs that outweigh projected benefits.
In the end, all of these methodological contortions are meant to obscure a very basic truth: that any “savings” achieved by rescinding the Clean Power Plan will come at an incredibly high cost to public health and welfare. If the Trump administration is willing to make that trade, it should at least have the courage to admit it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/opinion/environmental-protection-obama-pruitt.html?_r=0
-
Oct 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
When U.S. EPA boss Scott Pruitt inks his proposal to ax the Clean Power Plan today, the epic brawl over the Obama-era climate rule will be nowhere near over.
Pruitt's signature kicks off a lengthy regulatory process and sets up another court fight for a rule that's already been at the center of some precedent-setting legal decisions. The move also becomes political fodder for friends and foes of the Trump administration's climate policies, and could potentially surface on the campaign trail in contests for Congress and the White House.
It'll all take a while to play out.
"I think this is the first step; I think the resolution of this whole package of issues is probably not going to come before the end of this presidential term," said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. The outcome will probably be determined by "whoever gets elected in the 2020 election," he added.
Here's a breakdown of the next battles:The courts
Pruitt hasn't even signed his draft repeal yet, but top lawyers in blue states have already promised legal action.
"If and when the Trump Administration finalizes this repeal, I will sue," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said in a statement yesterday after Pruitt announced his plans to sign the proposal.
Others followed suit. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said, "I will do everything in my power to defend the Clean Power Plan." Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) piled on, saying, "[W]e will be suing to protect the Clean Power Plan from the climate change deniers in this administration who are trying to move us backwards."
Lawsuits over the final repeal plan and a possible replacement rule — which would likely be much narrower than the Obama regulation — are a given. Those could take months or even years to play out, though, since legal challenges likely won't be filed until after EPA's moves are finalized. Challengers of the Clean Power Plan — including Pruitt — attempted to thwart the Obama-era rule before it was final, but those efforts were rebuffed in court.
"We are better lawyers than Scott Pruitt; we know we can't challenge a proposed rule in court," said Sierra Club attorney Joanne Spalding, who's one of many lawyers defending the Clean Power Plan in an ongoing lawsuit.
Less certain than future litigation is what happens to the legal battle over the Obama rule. Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have put that rule on ice while the Trump administration decides how to proceed. The Supreme Court intervened last year and blocked the rule after the D.C. Circuit declined to do so.
Some lawyers expect the D.C. Circuit to indefinitely delay the lawsuit, but supporters of the climate rule are holding out hope that the court will issue an opinion.
"We still think that the best thing to have happen would be for the court to decide that case," Spalding said.
A move by the D.C. Circuit upholding the legality of the Clean Power Plan could complicate Pruitt's arguments that the repeal is needed because EPA overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act.
Pat Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School, said he expects that the case "just sits there." It's possible that Trump administration lawyers could ask to dismiss it as moot, given plans to roll back the rule in question, he said. "It seems to me like they could."
Backers of the Clean Power Plan could also ask the Supreme Court to remove the stay, potentially arguing that EPA has an obligation to regulate power plants' emissions and that the Trump administration is slowing down that process.
"Going to the Supreme Court is a possibility," Spalding said. "We would definitely have to see what EPA says in this proposal."
The Supreme Court could also ultimately be asked to weigh in on the Trump administration's repeal and possibly forthcoming replacement rule.The Federal Register
The federal regulatory process is a lengthy one, with a host of bureaucratic steps agencies are required to take before finalizing rules.
Once EPA's repeal plans are published in the Federal Register, the agency will start receiving a deluge of comments expressing a wide range of views. The Obama EPA received more than 4.3 million comments on its draft Clean Power Plan. The agency is required to respond to those comments — although it can do so broadly — when it finalizes its plans.
"I'm sure there are going to be a lot of comments," said Revesz of NYU Law School.
EPA is also expected to hold a public hearing, where supporters and opponents of the rule will likely come out in droves.
Eventually, the agency will issue its final repeal plan. "I'd be shocked if it was in 2017. My guess is it'll be 2018," Revesz said.
The agency will go through that same process with its planned replacement, if it decides to issue one. A leaked copy of the draft rule suggests that EPA is leaving the door open to not replacing the rule. But if an alternative is pursued, it would be much narrower. The agency is expected to take comments on a possible replacement soon and could issue another draft regulation in the coming months.
Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air chief who's now an industry attorney at Bracewell LLP, expects the administration to finish both the repeal and a replacement rule in Trump's first term. He speculated both of those could be finalized within the next 18 months. He also expects that the litigation over the Clean Power Plan repeal and replacement rules "would probably be finished before the end of Trump's first term."Industry vs. industry
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is hearing competing views from industries about how to replace the rule — if at all.
That industry infighting could complicate the push to get a new policy out the door.
Some of Trump's allies in the energy world — including coal magnate Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp. — are pushing the administration to obliterate the rule with no replacement.
Other industry groups — including some utilities, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers — have pushed the administration for a dramatically scaled-back version of the Obama-era rule. A replacement is needed to give their industries certainty, they argue.
I "certainly expect that they will do a replacement rule even though they've left open the possibility that they might not," Holmstead said.Capitol Hill
Congressional Democrats have made it clear they're no fans of Pruitt's climate rollbacks, but their hands are largely tied by their minority status.
"There's very little if anything they can do at this point in time," said Jim Manley, former spokesman for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
He added, "If you look back at the last nine years, I think Democrats have become very aggressive about working with individual states to push back on the regulatory front, and I expect that to be the case here as well with plenty of pro-environment Democrats trying to elevate the issue to the extent possible."
Democrats may be able to play defense against broader attempts to change clean air laws, said David Doniger, a climate attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The single most important thing they can do is prevent changes in the Clean Air Act," he said. "Republicans can't pass legislation to deny climate science or to revoke the obligations to deal with climate. ... The Clean Air Act will outlast this administration."
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have applauded the rollback of the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt opted to appear alongside Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in Kentucky yesterday to announce that the formal repeal was coming.
"For years, the Obama administration waged a war on coal and issued heavy-handed regulations to pick winners and losers among energy industries," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said in a statement. "It's refreshing to see how committed the Trump administration is to pursuing a true all-of-the-above energy policy, and Administrator Pruitt's announcement is another sign that America's energy strategy is headed in the right direction."Public opinion
Supporters of the Clean Power Plan are also hoping to make some gains with messaging campaigns.
"There's a battle in the court of public opinion and also in the legal courts," Doniger said.
He and others are pointing to the huge health benefits that EPA estimated the Clean Power Plan would bring. The Trump administration appears poised to argue that many of those benefits were wrongly counted.
Some early talking points by environmentalists accuse the Trump administration of allowing premature deaths by rescinding the rule.
"With this news, Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt will go down in infamy for launching one of the most egregious attacks ever on public health, our climate, and the safety of every community in the United States," Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement yesterday. "The damage caused by Trump's willful ignorance will now have myriads of human faces, because he's proposing to throw out a plan that would prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of childhood asthma attacks every year."
Conservatives, meanwhile, are arguing that the rule is helping workers and the economy.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) — who's running for Senate in the Mountain State — led states in a lawsuit against the regulation.
"I was humbled to have led the state-based coalition that defeated the Power Plan in court through an unprecedented stay at the Supreme Court and am excited that the Trump Administration is taking the final step to kill this terrible, job-killing regulation," he said in a statement yesterday. "I believe these actions will help lead to a rebound for coal and will make lives better for coal miners and their families."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/10/10/stories/1060063097
-
It's Finally Getting the Ax. But Climate Skeptics Want More
Oct 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zach Colman
The Trump administration today will officially announce the end of the Clean Power Plan, a regulation limiting planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the conservative crowd that's skeptical about climate change says its work is just beginning.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued yesterday that the climate rule is a reflection of President Obama's antagonism toward the fossil fuel industry, describing it as an unlawful interpretation of the Clean Air Act (Greenwire, Oct. 9).
"The past administration was unapologetic," Pruitt told a group of coal miners yesterday in Hazard, Ky. "They were using every bit of power, every bit of authority to use the EPA to pick winners and losers in how we generate electricity in this country. And that's wrong."
For all the applause that Pruitt received, there is also disgruntlement. A backroom battle between industry officials and those anti-climate conservatives over whether to issue a scaled-back replacement rule is burgeoning. The hard-liners don't want an alternative rule because greenhouse gases would still be regulated. And that could mark an acceptance of the endangerment finding, a mound of scientific evidence that affirms human-caused carbon emissions are at the root of rising temperatures.
Climate skeptics question if Pruitt truly wants to attack the endangerment finding. He hasn't said yes or no publicly. He's only offered hints. Doubts extend to President Trump, who has expressed cynicism about climate science but hasn't focused on the all-important finding.
Some conservative skeptics doubt that Trump knows the limitations his anti-regulatory agenda faces if the endangerment finding continues to exist. The finding serves as the legal backbone for climate regulation, with many interpreting it as mandating federal action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"I don't think the president knows that it's not enough to issue executive orders. He might be disappointed to know those things are still there," said Steve Milloy, an attorney, EPA adversary and Trump EPA transition team official. "It's still early. But there's a lot of work left to be done. It's not enough to say get rid of this. You've actually got to do it."
Here's a case in point: When speaking to a rally in Alabama late last month, Trump said of the Clean Power Plan, "Did you see what I did to that? Boom, gone." It wasn't true. The rule was very much still intact, and powerful industry trade organizations, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), were simultaneously pushing White House officials to maintain a downsized version of that very rule (Climatewire, Oct. 5).
"The NAM supports a greenhouse gas policy going forward that is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Clean Air Act," Ross Eisenberg, NAM's vice president of energy and resources policy, said in a statement praising news of the repeal while pushing for a replacement.
That industry groups have the White House's ear reflects a shift in some of the administration's broader political sensibilities.
Climate skeptics lament the loss of their brother in arms, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, and his influence on pressing Trump to go full bore on climate matters. In his place, moderate voices like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, economic adviser Gary Cohn and Chief of Staff John Kelly have gradually tried to steer the White House away from the nationalistic tenor during Trump's earliest days in office.
"The worrisome news for climate skeptics is that Bannon is gone," Marc Morano, a former staffer for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and a prominent climate skeptic, said in an email. "It appears that Gary Cohn is trying to fill the vacuum on climate policy and that is not a good development for skeptics. Hopefully Pruitt and [Energy Secretary Rick] Perry will pick up the slack and keep the administration on the path to dismantling Obama's climate 'legacy.'"
At times, that's meant some confusing messaging on a variety of climate-related aims. The Clean Power Plan is one thing. EPA also hasn't appeared to move on a plan to challenge climate science through a "red team, blue team" debate. And on the Paris climate accord, administration officials now speak of a chance for "re-engagement," even though Trump announced in June that the United States would withdraw from the deal (Greenwire, Sept. 18).
"I wish President Trump would order officials within the administration to stop hinting that this could change," Myron Ebell, who led Trump's EPA transition, said in an email. "I think many people in other countries are taking these hints seriously."
The endangerment finding, though, is conservative climate skeptics' main target. The White House's skittishness in embracing that fight is a source of consternation for many of them. Some of them served on transition teams at EPA and the Energy and Interior departments with explicit goals of setting the groundwork for that challenge.
Industry groups and establishment-leaning Republicans want to avoid a foray to undermine the finding. Success is far-fetched and a distraction, they argue, potentially painting Republicans as evermore extreme on climate. And it's a major gamble.
Climate scientists say it would be difficult, if not impossible, to overturn the finding because its critics would need to amass scientific evidence that says exactly the opposite of what the science indicates: Humans are increasingly responsible for warming the planet. Those findings have grown since EPA issued the endangerment finding in 2009.
"Worth remembering, @EPA is *required* to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants because of the (rock solid) CO2 endangerment finding," tweeted Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The vocal minority of climate skeptics contend that axing the finding is key to ensuring that deregulatory efforts remain in place. Federal courts have already rejected a number of the White House's environmental actions, a theme that could repeat itself on climate matters.
"As long as the Endangerment Finding is in place, I fear that there is going to have to be some limited regulation of greenhouse gas emissions at least," Ebell said. "As long as the Endangerment Finding is in place, a future administration could quickly move to promulgate new regulations along the lines of the" Clean Power Plan.
Climate skeptics are trying to be patient, but they worry that Trump, a political newcomer, doesn't fully appreciate the time and effort it would take to upend the endangerment finding. As an example, they point to the limited staff at EPA, which is a function of the slow pace of tendering and approving political nominees.
So skeptics are trying to advocate from the outside until there's enough political appointees to do the heavy lifting needed for a challenge to the endangerment finding.
"What I hear from folks really in the know is they expect it to be gone," Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp said of whether the Trump administration plans to try to undo the endangerment finding. "At the end of the day, I'm still trying to find a serious scientist that thinks CO2 is a pollutant."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/10/10/stories/1060063101
-
EWG: Pruitt’s War on Kids’ Health Continues With Repeal of Clean Power Plan
Oct 10, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt’s decision to scrap the Clean Power Plan is not only a complete collapse of U.S. leadership on climate change, but a direct attack on public health that will trigger tens of thousands more asthma attacks among American children, said EWG President Ken Cook.
“Scott Pruitt says the so-called war on coal is over, but the Trump administration’s war on children’s health is escalating,” said Cook.
“The repeal of the Clean Power Plan lays bare the truth that protecting the health of children from industrial pollution isn’t even on his radar,” Cook said. “You’d hope the head of the EPA would champion policies that shield kids from the life-threatening risks of asthma, but Pruitt and the Trump administration have clearly shown whose interests they care most about: the failing coal industry, not America’s children.”
By capping carbon pollution from power plants, the Clean Power Plan aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030. The EPA estimates that the rule, if left untouched, would “lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, including avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.”
“There seems to be no program at EPA meant to protect the public, particularly children, from pollution that Pruitt isn’t hell-bent on destroying,” Cook added.
http://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-pruitt-s-war-kids-health-continues-repeal-clean-power-plan#.WdzwUFuCzIU
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested