Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 10/23/17

Congressional Hearings

Hearing On Cyber And Energy Infrastructure
Oct 26, 2017 | Energy and Natural Resources

Location:366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM.
Hearing On Regulatory Reform Task Forces
Oct 24, 2017 | Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittees on Government Operations, and Health Care, Benefits an

Location: 2154 Rayburn / 10:00 AM.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots
Oct 21, 2017 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton

For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.
(ACC Mentioned) Report: A Chemical Industry Lobbyist Is Writing Toxic Chemical Rules at Scott Pruitt's EPA
Oct 22, 2017 | Gizmodo
By Tom McKay

Here’s yet another sign that in the age of President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, the foxes are feasting in the coop. According to a report in the New York Times on Saturday, former George W. Bush administration official Dr. Nancy Beck has returned from a stretch with chemical manufacturer lobbying group the American Chemistry Council to serve as a top deputy in the EPA’s toxic chemical unit.
(ACC Mentioned) Quote of the Day: The EPA Declares War on Elitist Clickbait
Oct 21, 2017 | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum

The EPA under Donald Trump has suddenly reversed course on regulating a raft of chemicals. The New York Times asked them for comment and got this in return:
(ACC Mentioned) We Need To Keep a Close Eye On The EPA Under President Donald Trump
Oct 22, 2017 | The Independent Florida Alligator
By Mia Gettenberg

Here’s a quick hypothetical for you. You’ve been tasked with appointing the new leader of the National Fire Prevention Association (this is not real, so just go with it).
(ACC Mentioned) NASA Nominee's Support Of 'Secret Science' Bill Alarms Environmentalists
Oct 23, 2017 | USA Today
By Ledyard King

President Trump’s decision to nominate Jim Bridenstine as NASA administrator has some environmental and public health groups on edge, and not just because of the Oklahoma congressman’s public skepticism about climate change.
(ACC Mentioned) We Can Devise a Smarter, Multistream Recycling Approach
Oct 23, 2017 | The Register-Guard
By Terry McDonald

Fifteen ago, I could have written an article titled “Comingle at your peril.”
(ACC Mentioned) Park Exhibit Focuses On First Responders
Oct 22, 2017 | MDJOnline.com

They run into burning homes, brave raging floodwaters, battle devastating wildfires and help stop epidemics.
Dourson’s Account Of His Work On PFOA Is Incomplete And Misleading
Oct 20, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on October 4 and in responses to Questions for the Record submitted by Senators after the hearing, Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to run EPA’s chemical safety program, provided information about his work on a DuPont chemical called PFOA (also known as C8) that is incomplete and misleading.

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) The E.P.A.’s Top 10 Toxic Threats, and Industry’s Pushback
Oct 21, 2017 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Emily Cochrane

The Environmental Protection Agency has published a list of 10 toxic threats it will evaluate first under a law passed last year intended to crack down on hazardous chemicals. They are among 90 chemicals identified by the agency that may harm children, damage nerve tissue, cause cancer, contaminate the environment, accumulate in the bloodstream or show up in consumer products. As the review begins, industry and other interest groups are urging the E.P.A. to limit any restrictions.
(ACC Mentioned) Reuters Reporter Again Promotes False Narrative About IARC and Glyphosate Cancer Concerns
Oct 20, 2017 | U.S. Right to Know
By Stacy Malkan

Continuing her record of industry-biased reporting about the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Reuters reporter Kate Kelland attacked the science panel again yesterday with a story that the panel edited a draft scientific document before issuing the final version of its assessment on glyphosate that found glyphosate a probable human carcinogen.
New California Law May Set Standard For Cleaning Product Disclosure
Oct 23, 2017 | Inside EPA

A new California law requiring cleaning product makers to identify most of the chemicals used in their products on labels and company websites may establish a de facto national disclosure standard because manufacturers are likely to produce one set of complying labels for all the products they sell.
A Red Light For The UK’s Plans For Chemical Regulations After Brexit
Oct 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By W Caffey Norman

Likely to increase costs for industry, while not providing equivalent protection for health and the environment
EU Vote on Roundup Could Go Nowhere Next Week
Oct 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker

A pivotal decision is coming to head in Europe next week that could spell the long-term future of an important weedkiller there.
War Against Chemicals Is A Shame On Science
Oct 23, 2017 | The Times
By Matt Ridley

Bad news is always more newsworthy than good. The widely reported finding that insect abundance is down by 75 per cent in Germany over 27 years was big news, while, for example, the finding in May that ocean acidification is a lesser threat to corals than had been thought caused barely a ripple.

Energy News

New NatGas Pipeline Designed for Growing Northeast Ohio Demand
Oct 23, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin

Newly formed RH energytrans LLC has filed at FERC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct a 60-mile pipeline that would deliver natural gas from northwest Pennsylvania to northeast Ohio.
US Shale Outlook Seen At Risk From More Intensive Fracking
Oct 23, 2017 | Platts
By Robert Perkins

US shale oil production is unlikely to peak before the middle of next decade, but current fracking techniques may be risking the prospect of faster decline rates from tight oil than many are forecasting, a top oil industry event was told this week.

Chemical Security News

Lawmakers To Tackle Emerging Cyber, Energy Tech
Oct 23, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing Thursday on technologies to block hackers from breaking into the U.S. power grid and other critical computer systems.
Indiana Popcorn Workers’ Suit Over Lung Condition Tossed
Oct 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash

Givaudan Flavors Corp. has shed the last claim by popcorn-plant workers in Indiana who alleged they developed respiratory problems due to diacetyl in the company's butter flavors (Aregood v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 2017 BL 375577, S.D. Ind., No. 1:14-cv-00274-SEB-TAB, 10/18/17).
Feds Warn About Cyberattacks On Energy, Industrial Firms
Oct 23, 2017 | The Hill
By Josh Delk

The Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a joint statement on Friday warning of an increased danger posed to infrastructure sectors by a malicious "multi-stage intrusion campaign," which the agencies warned had successfully compromised several of their security networks.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Pollution's Annual Price Tag? $4.6 Trillion and 9 Million Dead
Oct 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Tozzi

Pollution in all its forms killed 9 million people in 2015 and, by one measure, led to economic damage of $4.6 trillion, according to a new estimate by researchers who hope to put the health costs of toxic air, water and soil higher on the global agenda.
Trump EPA Removes 'Climate' References From Its State Energy Website
Oct 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan

The Trump EPA has removed references to “climate change” from an agency webpage that previously offered resources to state and local governments regarding climate adaptation, renewable energy and energy efficiency, with the new site geared only to “energy resources.”
Pruitt Rejects Conservatives' Call To Review GHG Finding In CPP Notice
Oct 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the agency does not plan to take comment on the Obama administration's greenhouse gas endangerment finding as part of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for how to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a move likely to disappoint conservatives who have sought an assault on the finding to forestall any future GHG rules.
Pruitt Says He Doesn't Meet With 'Polluters'
Oct 23, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus

U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in new remarks defended meeting with energy companies and business groups that have interests before his agency.
Pollution Is Responsible For 9 Million Deaths Globally: Two-Thirds Are Due To Air Pollution
Oct 20, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Dr. Ananya Roy

Over the last few weeks as forest fires engulfed large areas of California, air quality in the Bay area plummeted. Doctors and pediatricians were on high alert to deal with the health impacts felt most acutely by children and the elderly.
The Fatal Flaw in California’s Cap-and-Trade Program
Oct 20, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Richard Sexton and Steven Sexton

When California’s Gov. Jerry Brown signed a 10-year extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program this summer, it was heralded as a rebuke of President Trump, who had just announced he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord.

Congressional Hearings

Hearing On Cyber And Energy Infrastructure

Oct 26, 2017 | Energy and Natural Resources

Return to headline | Return to top
Hearing On Regulatory Reform Task Forces

Oct 24, 2017 | Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittees on Government Operations, and Health Care, Benefits an

Return to headline | Return to top

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots

Oct 21, 2017 | The New York Times

By Eric Lipton

A scientist who worked for the chemical industry now shapes policy on hazardous chemicals. Within the E.P.A., there is fear that public health is at risk. (At right, a signing ceremony for new rules on toxic chemicals.)
WASHINGTON — For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.
The chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders and other serious health problems.
So scientists and administrators in the E.P.A.’s Office of Water were alarmed in late May when a top Trump administration appointee insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore regulate it.
The revision was among more than a dozen demanded by the appointee, Nancy B. Beck, after she joined the E.P.A.’s toxic chemical unit in May as a top deputy. For the previous five years, she had been an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEThe E.P.A.’s Top 10 Toxic Threats, and Industry’s Pushback OCT. 21, 2017Chemical Industry Ally Faces Critics in Bid for Top E.P.A. Post SEPT. 19, 2017E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide MARCH 29, 2017E.P.A. Promised ‘a New Day’ for the Agriculture Industry, Documents RevealAUG. 18, 2017
The changes directed by Dr. Beck may result in an “underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment” caused by PFOA and other so-called legacy chemicals no longer sold on the market, the Office of Water’s top official warned in a confidential internal memo obtained by The New York Times.
The E.P.A.’s abrupt new direction on legacy chemicals is part of a broad initiative by the Trump administration to change the way the federal government evaluates health and environmental risks associated with hazardous chemicals, making it more aligned with the industry’s wishes.
It is a cause with far-reaching consequences for consumers and chemical companies, as the E.P.A. regulates some 80,000 different chemicals, many of them highly toxic and used in workplaces, homes and everyday products. If chemicals are deemed less risky, they are less likely to be subjected to heavy oversight and restrictions.
The effort is not new, nor is the decades-long debate over how best to identify and assess risks, but the industry has not benefited from such highly placed champions in government since the Reagan administration. The cause was taken up by Dr. Beck and others in the administration of President George W. Bush, with some success, and met with resistance during the Obama administration. Now it has been aggressively revived under President Trump by an array of industry-backed political appointees and others.
Dr. Beck, who has a doctorate in environmental health, comes from a camp — firmly backed by the chemical industry — that says the government too often directs burdensome rules at what she has called “phantom risks.”
Other scientists and administrators at the E.P.A., including Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, until last month the agency’s top official overseeing pesticidesand toxic chemicals, say the dangers are real and the pushback is often a tactic for deflecting accountability — and shoring up industry profits at the expense of public safety.
Since Mr. Trump’s election, Dr. Beck’s approach has been unabashedly ascendant, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former E.P.A. and White House officials, confidential E.P.A. documents, and materials obtained through open-record requests.
In March, Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. chief, overrode the recommendation of Ms. Hamnett and agency scientists to ban the commercial use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, blamed for developmental disabilities in children.
The E.P.A.’s new leadership also pressed agency scientists to re-evaluate a plan to ban certain uses of two dangerous chemicals that have caused dozens of deaths or severe health problems: methylene chloride, which is found in paint strippers, and trichloroethylene, which removes grease from metals and is used in dry cleaning.
“It was extremely disturbing to me,” Ms. Hamnett said of the order she received to reverse the proposed pesticide ban. “The industry met with E.P.A. political appointees. And then I was asked to change the agency’s stand.”
The E.P.A. and Dr. Beck declined repeated requests to comment that included detailed lists of questions.
“No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in an email. “The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country.”
Before joining the E.P.A., Ms. Bowman was a spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council.
The conflict over how to define risk in federal regulations comes just as the E.P.A. was supposed to be fixing its backlogged and beleaguered chemical regulation program. Last year, after a decade of delays, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that would push the E.P.A. to determine whether dozens of chemicals were so dangerous that they should be banned or restricted.
The chemical safety law was passed after Congress and the chemical industry reached a consensus that toxic chemical threats — or at least the fear of them — were so severe that they undermined consumer confidence in products on the market.
But now the chemical industry and many of the companies that use their compounds are praising the Trump administration’s changed direction, saying new chemicals are getting faster regulatory reviews and existing chemicals will benefit from a less dogmatic approach to determining risk.
“U.S. businesses, jobs and competitiveness depend on a functioning new chemicals program,” Calvin M. Dooley, a former congressman who is president of the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement. It was issued in June after Dr. Beck, his recent employee, pushed through many industry-friendly changes in her new role at the E.P.A., including the change in tracking legacy chemicals such as PFOA.
Anne Womack Kolton, a vice president at the council, said on Wednesday that Dr. Beck’s appointment was a positive development.
“We, along with many others, are glad that individuals who support credible science and thorough analysis as the basis for policymaking have agreed to serve,” she said in an email. “Consistency, transparency and high quality science in the regulatory process are in everyone’s interests.”
The Trump administration’s shift, the industry has acknowledged, could have financial benefits. Otherwise, the industry may lose “millions of dollars and years of research invested in a chemical,” the American Chemistry Council and other groups wrote in a legal brief defending the changes Dr. Beck had engineered.
But consumer advocates and many longtime scientists, managers and administrators at the E.P.A. are alarmed by the administration’s priorities and worry that the new law’s anticipated crackdown on hazardous chemicals could be compromised.
“You are never going to have 100 percent certainty on anything,” Ms. Hamnett said. “But when you have a chemical that evidence points to is causing fatalities, you err more on the side of taking some action, as opposed to ‘Let’s wait and spend some more time and try to get the science entirely certain,’ which it hardly ever gets to be.”
The divergent approaches and yearslong face-off between Ms. Hamnett and Dr. Beck parallel the story of the chemical industry’s quest to keep the E.P.A.’s enforcement arm at bay.
The two women, one a lawyer from New Jersey, the other a scientist from Long Island, have dedicated their lives to the issue of hazardous chemicals. Each’s expertise is respected by her peers, but their perspectives couldn’t be more dissimilar.
Ms. Hamnett, 63, spent her entire 38-year career at the E.P.A., joining the agency directly from law school as a believer in consumer and environmental protections. Dr. Beck, 51, did a fellowship at the E.P.A., but has spent most of her 29-year career elsewhere: in a testing lab at Estée Lauder, as a toxicologist in the Washington State Health Department, as a regulatory analyst in the White House and most recently with the chemical industry’s trade group.
Before Mr. Trump’s election, Ms. Hamnett would have been regarded as the hands-down victor in their professional tug of war. Her decision to retire in September amounted to a surrender of sorts, a powerful acknowledgment of the two women’s reversed fortunes under the Trump administration.
“I had become irrelevant,” Ms. Hamnett said.
Her farewell party in late August was held in the wood-paneled Map Room on the first floor of the E.P.A. headquarters, the same room where Mr. Trump had signed an executive order backed by big business that called for the agency to dismantle environmental protections.
Dr. Beck was among those who spoke. She thanked Ms. Hamnett for her decades of service. “I don’t know what I am going to do without her,” she said, according to multiple people who attended the event.
Ms. Hamnett, in an interview, said she had little trouble envisioning the future under the new leadership. “It’s time for me to go,” she said. “I have done what I could do.”‘Unreasonable Risk of Injury’
Chemical regulation was not part of the E.P.A.’s original mission. But several environmental disasters in the early 1970s prompted Congress to extend the agency’s authority.
Industrial waste, including highly toxic PCBs, led to fish kills in the Hudson River. Chemicals from flame retardants were detected in livestock in Michigan, contaminating food across the state. And residents in Niagara Falls, N.Y., first started to notice a black, oily liquid in their basements, early hints of one of the worst environmental disasters in United States history: Love Canal.
President Gerald R. Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act in October 1976, giving the E.P.A. the authority to ban or restrict chemicals it deemed dangerous. It was hailed as a public health breakthrough.
“For the first time, the law empowers the federal government to control and even to stop production or use of chemical substances that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or environment,” a federal report said.
A few years later, after graduating from George Washington University Law School in 1979, Ms. Hamnett landed at the E.P.A. She arrived fully embracing its enhanced mission.
She had grown up in Trenton, where the words “Trenton Makes, the World Takes” are affixed in neon to the side of a railroad bridge spanning the Delaware River.
Her childhood memories included passing by the 200-acre Roebling Steel Company plant — named after the designer of the Brooklyn Bridge. At its peak, the plant was Trenton’s largest employer, and it helped spread prosperity to the region.
But the company was also a chronic polluter. For decades, it dumped arsenic, chromium, lead and other hazardous chemicals, contaminating soil and groundwater. Ultimately, the pollution was so pervasive that the E.P.A. declared the property a Superfund cleanup site.
It was this legacy, as well as the congressional directive to the E.P.A. to protect the public from harm, that Ms. Hamnett said guided her.
During the Bush administration, she was drawn into a contentious debate involving lead paint that highlighted her resolve — and that of her opponents.
Few environmental hazards are as well understood as the dangers of lead in paint. Since it was first used in homes in the United States, more than a century ago, it has poisoned children. Even after it was banned in the late 1970s, it remained a threat, particularly when renovations took place in the tens of millions of homes with lead-based paint.
The E.P.A. set out to establish standards governing home renovations, and Ms. Hamnett came to the discussions with a strong perspective.
“What is the effect of exposure likely to be?” she recalled asking. “If it is likely to be a severe effect and result in a significant number of people exposed, if so, I am going to err on the side of safety.”
While the evidence was solid that lead caused learning disabilities and other problems for children, it was less definitive on whether it was also a factor in adult diseases.
To Ms. Hamnett and her colleagues, the results of multiple studies were compelling enough to establish an apparent link to cardiovascular disease in adults. They concluded in a report in 2006 that there was “stronger evidence for a relationship between lead exposure and blood pressure for adults,” citing it as a factor for aggressive safety requirements.
The home renovation industry filed protests over the “inappropriate and costly” rule with the Bush administration and Congress. Taking up its cause was a White House official with a reputation for assessing risk much differently: Dr. Beck.Throwing ‘Sand in the Gears’
As the Bush administration took office, John D. Graham, who ran the White House office overseeing regulations, unveiled a plan to ease the government’s burden on business by reining in “the regulatory state.”
To that end, Mr. Graham hired scientists to review major federal regulations and make recommendations about their worthiness, something the E.P.A. itself had done over the years.
Dr. Beck, Mr. Graham said, was an excellent addition to his staff.
She had grown up in Oyster Bay, N.Y., an affluent suburb on Long Island, earned an undergraduate microbiology degree in 1988 from Cornell and a doctorate from the University of Washington a decade later. Her dissertation, which examined how the sedative phenobarbital impacts the metabolism of the liver, started with words still relevant to her today: “Each day the human body is confronted with many potentially toxic substances in the form of food items, medicinal products and environmental agents.”
She started her career at Estée Lauder, where she helped develop preservatives used to extend the shelf life of cosmetics, and also designed laboratory tests to determine if products caused adverse reactions when applied to skin.
When Mr. Graham hired her, she had been working as a science fellow at the E.P.A.’s center for environmental reviews. He described her as having “street smarts and thick skin,” someone who did not need the limelight to be effective.
“Dr. Beck is easy to underestimate,” Mr. Graham said in an email.
When the proposed lead paint rule came along in 2006, Dr. Beck, in her White House role, pressed Ms. Hamnett and others in the E.P.A. to revise the language to diminish the link to cardiovascular disease in adults, Ms. Hamnett recalled, before letting the rule go into effect.
That was one marker in Dr. Beck’s journey to redefine the way the government evaluates risk. Though they repeatedly found themselves on opposite sides, Ms. Hamnett said that, in a way, she admired Dr. Beck’s effort during those years.
She described Dr. Beck as a voracious reader of scientific studies and agency reports, diving deep into footnotes and scientific data with a rigor matched by few colleagues. She combed through thousands of comments submitted on proposed rules. And she had a habit of reading the Federal Register, the daily diary of new federal rules.
All of it made Dr. Beck an intimidating and confident adversary, Ms. Hamnett recalled. “She’s very smart and very well informed,” she said.
But there was a destructive side to that confidence, others said. In particular, Dr. Beck was seen as an enemy of scientists and risk assessors at the E.P.A., willing to challenge the validity of their studies and impose her own judgment, said Robert M. Sussman, a lawyer who represented chemical industry clients during the Bush administration and later became an E.P.A. lawyer and policy adviser under the Obama administration.
“Her goal was to throw sand in the gears to stop things from going forward,” said Mr. Sussman, who now is counsel to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of consumer and environmental groups.
Jack Housenger, a biologist who served as the director of the E.P.A.’s pesticide program, had a more positive recollection. He said Dr. Beck asked reasonable questions about his findings related to a wood preservative used in playgrounds and outdoor decks that was being pulled from the market.
“She wanted us to present the uncertainties and ranges of risk,” said Mr. Housenger, who retired this year. “She was trying to understand the methodology.”
Paul Noe, a lawyer who worked with Dr. Beck during the Bush administration, also said her critics got her wrong.
“What you really want to do as a government is to set priorities,” he said. “If you don’t have a realistic way of distinguishing significant risks from insignificant ones, you are just going to get bogged down and waste significant resources, and that can impede public health and safety.”
One of the harshest criticisms of Dr. Beck’s tenure in the Bush White House came in 2007 from the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences, which examined a draft policy she helped write proposing much stricter controls over the way the government evaluates risks.
“The committee agrees that there is room for improvement in risk assessment practices in the federal government,” the review said, but it described Dr. Beck’s suggestions as “oversimplified” and “fundamentally flawed.” It recommended her proposal be withdrawn.
Dr. Beck was so aggressive in second-guessing E.P.A. scientists that she became central to a special investigation by the House Committee on Science and Technology.
The committee obtained copies of her detailed emails to agency officials and accused her of slowing progress in confirming drinking-water health threats presented by chemicals like perchlorate, used in rocket fuel. “Suppression of Environmental Science by the Bush Administration’s Office of Management and Budget,” the committee wrote in 2009, before describing Dr. Beck’s actions.
The opposition became so intense that Dr. Beck’s efforts started to get shut down.
First, the new risk assessment policy she had proposed was formally withdrawn. Then, after Mr. Obama took office in 2009, Mr. Sussman recalled going to the White House along with Lisa P. Jackson, the new E.P.A. administrator, to ask for a commitment to curb Dr. Beck’s power.
“We told them that we need the White House out of the E.P.A. science program,” Mr. Sussman said. “We demanded that. And we got it.”Continuing the Fight
During Mr. Obama’s first term, Dr. Beck left the White House for the American Chemistry Council, whose members include Dow, DuPont and dozens of other major manufacturers and chemical companies.
As the trade association’s senior regulatory scientist, she was perfectly positioned to continue her second-guessing of the E.P.A.’s science.
Now her detailed criticisms of the agency came on trade association letterhead and in presentations at agency meetings and events.
“If the same person says the same thing three times, does this create a weight of evidence?” Dr. Beck said in a presentation in 2013, essentially mocking the scientific standards at the agency.
E.P.A. records show her challenging the agency’s scientific conclusions related to arsenic (used to manufacture semiconductors), tert-Butanol(used in perfumes and as an octane booster in gasoline), and 1-bromopropane (used in dry cleaning).
Her point was often the same: Did the scientists producing work that federal regulators relied on adequately justify all of the conclusions about any risks?
“Scientists today are more prolific than ever,” she said in a November 2014 presentation, later adding that “unfortunately, many of the scientific studies we read about in the news were not quite ready for prime time.”
But at the same time, the industry was confronting a much larger existential problem.
E.P.A. and government-funded academic researchers were raising serious health questions about the safety of a range of chemicals, including flame retardants in furniture and plastics in water bottles and children’s toys. Consumer confidence in the industry was eroding.
Some state legislatures, frustrated by the E.P.A.’s slow response and facing a consumer backlash, moved to increase their own authority to investigate and act on the problems — threatening the chemical industry with an unwieldy patchwork of state rules and regulations.
Dr. Beck and other chemical industry representatives were dispatched to the E.P.A. and Congress to press for changes to the federal regulatory system that would standardize testing of the most worrisome existing chemicals and improve and accelerate the evaluation of new ones.
The resulting law, passed last year with Democratic and Republican support, gave both sides something they wanted. The chemical industry got pre-emption from most new state regulations, and environmentalists got assurances that new chemicals would be evaluated on health and safety risks alone, not financial considerations.
It was the most significant overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Actsince its enactment in the 1970s, and once again Ms. Hamnett was prepared to help shepherd it into place. The task was shaping up to be what she considered her final, crowning act at the E.P.A.
Ms. Hamnett was invited to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a part of the White House complex, to be present as Mr. Obama signed the bill into law. She was so excited that she arrived early and sneaked up to the stage to look at the papers Mr. Obama would be signing.
“Protecting people and the environment for decades to come,” she said, recalling her thoughts, as she excitedly stood on the stage. “At least, that is what we planned.”Turning the Tables
They gathered in early June around a long conference table at the E.P.A. headquarters, the sunlight shining in from Constitution Avenue. In the crowd were Dr. Beck, Ms. Hamnett and other top agency officials charged with regulating toxic chemicals, as well as environmentalists worried about last-minute changes to rules being pushed by the chemical industry.
Olga Naidenko, an immunologist specializing in children’s health, said she was struck by the head-spinning scene. Dr. Beck, who had spent years trying to influence Ms. Hamnett and others to issue rules friendly to the chemical industry, was now sitting at the conference table as a government decision maker.
“I am running the show. I am now in the chair. And it is mine,” Dr. Naidenko, said, describing her impressions of Dr. Beck at the gathering.
The Obama-era leadership at the E.P.A., in its last weeks, had published drafts of two critical rules needed to start the new chemical program. The rules detailed how the agency would choose the most risky chemicals to be tested or evaluated and how the hazards should be judged.
It would be up to Mr. Pruitt, the new E.P.A. chief, and his team to complete the process in time for a June deadline, set in the legislation.
Dr. Naidenko, a staff scientist at the Environmental Working Group, was there to plead with the agency to ignore a request from the American Chemistry Council to make more than a dozen last-minute changes, some pushed by Dr. Beck while she was at the council.
Dr. Beck did not seem convinced, recalled Dr. Naidenko and one of her colleagues, Melanie Benesh, a lawyer with the same organization.
“Tell me why you are concerned. What is it about?” Ms. Benesh and Ms. Hamnett each said they recalled Dr. Beck saying.
In fact, behind the scenes, the deed was already done.
Before Dr. Beck’s arrival, representatives from the E.P.A.’s major divisions had agreed on final wording for the rules that would be sent to the White House for approval. But they were told to wait until May 1, when Dr. Beck began her job as the acting assistant administrator for chemical safety.
Dr. Beck then spent her first weeks on the job pressing agency staff to rewrite the standards to reflect, in some cases, word for word, the chemical industry’s proposed changes, three staff members involved in the effort said. They asked not to be named for fear of losing their jobs.
Dr. Beck had unusual authority to make it happen.
When she was hired by the Trump administration, she was granted the status of “administratively determined” position. It is an unusual classification that means she was not hired based on a competitive process — as civil servants are — and she was also not identified as a political appointee. There are only about a dozen such posts at the E.P.A., among the 15,800 agency employees, and the jobs are typically reserved for technical experts, not managers with the authority to give orders.
Crucially, the special status meant that Dr. Beck did not have to abide by the ethics agreement Mr. Trump adopted in January, which bars political appointees in his administration from participating for two years “in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.”
Her written offer of employment, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, also made it clear that Dr. Beck’s appointment was junior enough not to require Senate confirmation, which would have almost certainly delayed her arrival at the agency and prevented her from making changes to the rules ahead of the June deadline.
None of these arrangements raised concerns with the E.P.A.’s acting general counsel, Kevin S. Minoli, who issued a ruling on her unusual employment status. Mr. Minoli saw Dr. Beck’s background as a benefit, according to a memo he wrote that was reviewed by The Times.
“You have extensive prior experience with the regulated industry’s perspective and are already familiar with (and may well have authored) A.C.C. comments now under consideration,” he wrote, referring to the American Chemistry Council.
He added that Dr. Beck’s “unique expertise, knowledge and prior experience will ensure that the agency is able to consider all perspectives, including that of the regulated industry’s major trade association.”
Others at the E.P.A., however, were stunned at the free pass given to Dr. Beck.
“It was a clear demonstration this administration has been captured by the industry,” said Elizabeth Southerland, who served as the director of science and technology in the Office of Water until her retirement in July.Getting Her Way
In the weeks leading up to the June deadline, Dr. Beck made clear what changes she wanted.
The conversations were polite, and Dr. Beck listened to counterarguments that Ms. Hamnett and her team made, Ms. Hamnett said. But in most cases, Dr. Beck did not back down, demanding a variety of revisions, particularly related to how the agency defined risks.
It all had a familiar ring. Ms. Hamnett and the others had fielded many of the same demands from the American Chemistry Council and from Dr. Beck herself when she worked there. Ms. Hamnett took detailed notes in spiral notepads, excerpts from which she showed The Times.
One area of contention was Dr. Beck’s insistence that the E.P.A. adopt precise definitions of terms and phrases used in imposing rules and regulations, such as “best available science” and “weight of the evidence.”
The agency had repeatedly rejected the idea, most recently in January, in part because the definitions were seen as a guise for opponents to raise legal challenges.
“These terms have and will continue to evolve with changing scientific methods and innovation,” the agency said in a Jan. 17 statement in the Federal Register, three days before Mr. Trump was sworn in. “Codifying specific definitions for these phrases in this rule may inhibit the flexibility and responsiveness of the agency to quickly adapt to and implement changing science.”
Another area of dispute involved the “all uses” standard for evaluating health threats posed by chemicals. Under that standard, the E.P.A. would consider any possible use of a chemical when determining how to regulate it; Dr. Beck, like the chemical industry, wanted the E.P.A. to limit the evaluations to specific intended uses.
“There is no way we can look at thousands of uses,” Dr. Beck told Ms. Hamnett in one meeting in mid-May, according to Ms. Hamnett and her notes. “We can’t chase the last molecule.”
As the June deadline under the new law approached, Dr. Beck took control of the rewriting herself, a highly unusual step at the E.P.A., where expert Civil Service employees traditionally hold the rule-writing pen.
Ms. Hamnett said she did not try to stop Dr. Beck given she had the support of the agency’s new leadership.
Mr. Noe, the lawyer who worked with Dr. Beck during the Bush administration, was not involved in the rewriting of the new rules. But he said it was wrong to interpret Dr. Beck’s actions as pro-industry; instead, he said, she was a defender of rigorous science.
“Anyone who would question Nancy’s ability or integrity does not know her at all and just has a political ax to grind,” he said.
Ms. Hamnett’s handwritten notes, however, record increasingly urgent objections from across the agency, including from the Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division, the Office of Water and the Office of General Counsel.
“Everyone was furious,” said Ms. Southerland, the official from the Office of Water. “Nancy was just rewriting the rule herself. And it was a huge change. Everybody was stunned such a substantial change would be made literally in the last week.”
The general counsel’s objections to the substance of the changes were among the most alarming.
Laurel Celeste, an agency lawyer, questioned whether the last-minute changes would leave the agency’s rule-making open to legal challenges. Her objections were outlined in a memo reviewed by The Times that was marked “confidential attorney client communication. Do not release under FOIA,” referring to the Freedom of Information Act.
Federal law requires rules to be a “logical outgrowth” of the administrative record. But Dr. Beck had demanded changes that the staff had rejected, meaning that the rule contained items that “differ so greatly from the proposal that they cannot be considered to be the ‘logical outgrowth’ of the proposal and the comments,” Ms. Celeste said.
Her memo, sent by email on May 30 to Dr. Beck and more than two dozen agency scientists and staff members, also raised concerns about the preamble, an important piece of any regulation that must accurately reflect its contents.
“We are also concerned that, as currently drafted, the preamble lacks an adequate rationale for a number of final rule provisions that have changed significantly from the proposal,” Ms. Celeste wrote.
The objections were strongly worded, but they fell short of an important legal threshold — the formal filing of a “nonconcurrence” memo — that would have triggered further review of Dr. Beck’s actions. Several E.P.A. staff members said in interviews that they had been told by Mr. Pruitt’s top deputies to air their concerns in so-called concur-with-comment memos, which put objections on the record but allowed the process to move forward.
The rules, with Dr. Beck’s changes, were sent to the White House and approved by the June deadline. Mr. Pruitt assembled the team in late June for a brief ceremony to celebrate the completion of the work.
“Everybody here worked very, very hard,” Ms. Hamnett said, as Mr. Pruitt signed his name, according to a video of the ceremony posted by the E.P.A.‘Not One of My Best Days’
Environmentalists were dismayed, but Ms. Hamnett emerged from the whirlwind process with some confidence that all was not lost.
While she disagreed with a number of Dr. Beck’s changes, she trusted that the E.P.A. staff would maintain its commitment to honor Congress’s intent in the 2016 legislation. That would translate into a rigorous crackdown on the most dangerous chemicals, regardless of the changes.
But her confidence in the E.P.A.’s resolve was fragile, and it had been shaken by other actions, including the order Ms. Hamnett received to reverse course on banning the pesticide chlorpyrifos.
The order came before Dr. Beck’s arrival at the agency, but Ms. Hamnett saw the industry’s fingerprints all over it. Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, instructed Ms. Hamnett to ignore the recommendation of agency scientists, she said.
The scientists had called for a ban based on research suggesting the pesticide might cause developmental disabilities in children.
To keep the pesticide on the market, under E.P.A. guidelines, the agency needed to have a “reasonable certainty” that no harm was being caused.
“The science and the law tell us this is the way to go,” Ms. Hamnett said of a ban.
But the reaction from her superiors was not about the science or the law, she said. Instead, they queried her about Dow Chemical, the pesticide’s largest manufacturer, which had been lobbying against a ban.
The clash is recorded in Ms. Hamnett notebook as well as in emails among Mr. Pruitt’s top political aides, which were obtained by The Times.
“They are trying to strong arm us,” Mr. Jackson wrote after meeting with Ms. Hamnett, who presented him with a draft petition to ban the pesticide.
Mr. Jackson, Ms. Hamnett’s notebook shows, then asked her to come up with alternatives to a ban. He asserted, her notes show, that he did not want to be “forced into a box” by the petition.
“I scared them,” Mr. Jackson wrote in an email to a colleague about his demands on Ms. Hamnett and her team.
As a possible compromise, Ms. Hamnett’s team had been talking to Dow about perhaps phasing out the pesticide instead of imposing an immediate ban. But Dow, after Mr. Trump’s election, was suddenly in no mood to compromise, Ms. Hamnett recalled. Dow did not respond to requests for comment.
She now knew, she said, that the effort to ban the pesticide had been lost, something Mr. Jackson’s emails celebrated.
“They know where this is headed,” Mr. Jackson wrote.
Just over a week later, Ms. Hamnett submitted a draft order that would deny the request for a ban.
“It was hard, very hard,” she said, worrying that the pesticide would continue to harm children of farmworkers. “That was not one of my best days.”
The episode is one reason she worries the E.P.A. will defer to the chemical industry as it begins to evaluate toxic chemicals under the standards created by the new law. She became particularly concerned because of a more recent exchange with Dr. Beck over methylene chloride, which is used in paint removers.
After more than a decade of research, the agency had concluded in January that methylene chloride was so hazardous that its use in paint removers should be banned.
Methylene chloride has been blamed in dozens of deaths, including that of a 21-year-old Tennessee man in April, who was overwhelmed by fumes as he was refinishing a bathtub.
“How is it possible that you can go to a home improvement store and buy a paint remover that can kill you?” Ms. Hamnett asked. “How can we let this happen?”
Furniture-refinishing companies and chemical manufacturers have urged the E.P.A. to focus on steps like strengthening warning labels, complaining that there are few reasonably priced alternatives.
Ms. Hamnett said Dr. Beck raised the possibility that people were not following the directions on the labels. She also suggested that only a small number of users had been injured. “Is it 1 percent?” Ms. Hamnett recalled Dr. Beck asking.
Ms. Hamnett said she was devastated by the line of questioning.
After years of successfully fending off Dr. Beck and her industry allies, the balance of power at the agency had shifted toward the industry.
She had long planned to wrap up her work at the agency soon, as her husband, David, had retired three years ago. On Sept. 1, Ms. Hamnett turned in her badge and joined him.
Mr. Pruitt has selected a replacement for Ms. Hamnett: Michael L. Dourson, a toxicologist who has spent the last two decades as a consultant helping businesses fight E.P.A. restrictions on the use of potentially toxic compounds. He is already at work at the agency in a temporary post while he awaits Senate confirmation.
The American Chemistry Council, and its members, are among the top private-sector sponsors of Mr. Dourson’s research. Last year, he collaborated on a paper that was funded by the trade group. His fellow author was Dr. Beck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Report: A Chemical Industry Lobbyist Is Writing Toxic Chemical Rules at Scott Pruitt's EPA

Oct 22, 2017 | Gizmodo

By Tom McKay

Here’s yet another sign that in the age of President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, the foxes are feasting in the coop. According to a report in the New York Times on Saturday, former George W. Bush administration official Dr. Nancy Beck has returned from a stretch with chemical manufacturer lobbying group the American Chemistry Council to serve as a top deputy in the EPA’s toxic chemical unit.
In a confidential memo obtained by the paper, acting Office of Water assistant administrator Michael Shapiro warned Beck’s changes to how the agency tracks the health impacts of toxic perfluorooctanoic acid, which has been linked to a number of serious health conditions like cancer and birth defects, could result in “underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment.” It’s part of a pattern at the agency under Pruitt’s tenure; in the past few months, the EPA has backed away from bans of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, paint stripper ingredient methylene chloride, and degreasing and dry cleaning chemical trichloroethylene, all of which have been linked to serious health problems.
During the Bush years, the Times noted, Beck drew criticism from some coworkers who believed she was more interested in rolling back regulatory requirements for industry than maintaining a cautious approach to public safety. She became “so aggressive in second-guessing EPA scientists” that she was called to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology, which concluded she had slowed efforts to protect drinking water supplies from rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate. Beck eventually was forced out during the first term of the Barack Obama administration.
Beck returned to the EPA in May 2017 after receiving a waiver allowing her to work for the agency despite her recent lobbying career. When the time came for the agency to implement a bipartisan overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act passed in the last year of the Obama administration, the Times wrote, she pressed for industry-friendly changes that undermined the whole program:
Dr. Beck then spent her first weeks on the job pressing agency staff to rewrite the standards to reflect, in some cases, word for word, the chemical industry’s proposed changes, three staff members involved in the effort said.
Specific changes Beck pushed for included strictly defining terms like “best available science” or “weight of the evidence,” which could lead to legal challenges of EPA regulations, or limiting EPA evaluation of chemicals to “intended” rather than “all” uses. Beck appears to have been remarkably successful with these efforts, and has even brought on other ACC veterans like toxicologist Michael L. Dourson.
When the Times asked for more information about the decisions, EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman—yet another American Chemistry Council alumni—shot back, “No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair article. The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country.”
In the age of Trump, top scientific posts all across the federal government have been going to dubiously qualified people or industry-friendly lobbyists, while career federal science personnel have been choosing to pursue other opportunities. Over at the Department of Agriculture, for example, the White House picked a former right-wing talk show host and climate change denier to serve as the agency’s chief scientist; around the same time, USDA scientists were told to avoid discussing climate change. Trump’s NOAA has disbanded climate change advisory committees, his proposed NASA administrator struggles to understand basic planetary sciences, and science staff from the State Department to White House bureaus have been making rapid exits.
All of this is happening very visibly. But the average person can’t really see toxic chemical-laced drinking water. All they can do is get very sick from it, sometimes a decade or more down the road, probably long after Pruitt and crew have made their exit to a cushy retirement.
https://gizmodo.com/report-a-chemical-industry-lobbyist-is-writing-toxic-c-1819750667

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Quote of the Day: The EPA Declares War on Elitist Clickbait

Oct 21, 2017 | Mother Jones

By Kevin Drum

The EPA under Donald Trump has suddenly reversed course on regulating a raft of chemicals. The New York Times asked them for comment and got this in return:
“No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in an email. “The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country.”
Before joining the E.P.A., Ms. Bowman was a spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council.
Do they make these folks attend a “How To Talk Like Donald” class before they join the administration? Is the entire government going to become Duck Dynasty? Do I even need to ask these questions?
At this point, I think James Mattis is the only person in the Trump administration who has still managed to avoid embarrassing himself. How long before Trump targets him and forces the issue?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/10/quote-of-the-day-the-epa-declares-war-on-elitist-clickbait/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) We Need To Keep a Close Eye On The EPA Under President Donald Trump

Oct 22, 2017 | The Independent Florida Alligator

By Mia Gettenberg

Here’s a quick hypothetical for you. You’ve been tasked with appointing the new leader of the National Fire Prevention Association (this is not real, so just go with it). Your options range from veteran firefighters to expert industrial engineers to dedicated safety officials and everyone in between. With all of these choices in mind, would you pick an arsonist?
This seems a bit farfetched and foolish, but this is, in effect, what President Donald Trump is doing to our Environmental Protection Agency, bit by bit. Back in May, news broke that the Trump administration had appointed Nancy B. Beck, a high-level official and representative of the American Chemistry Council, to an administrator position within the EPA unit in charge of overseeing toxic chemicals.
Yes, you read that right. The Trump administration picked a person representing the chemical industry to help supervise a toxic chemicals unit. If you’re like me and missed this terribly ironic appointment in the flurry of news this summer, you can now fully digest what this means for pollution, public safety and environmental health. Let’s take a look.
This past Saturday, The New York Times published an in-depth story on Beck. Soon after being appointed, Beck “insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of (perfluorooctanoic acid), and therefore regulate it,” reporter Eric Lipton writes.
According to the EPA, these types of chemicals pose dangerous health hazards to humans and wildlife, lingering in the environment long after exposure and capable of causing reproductive and developmental problems. The Times got ahold of an internal memo from the Office of Water, a division within the EPA, that “ensures drinking water is safe,” according to its own website. Yet the memo states Beck’s changes could make it more difficult to fully understand the risks to humans and wildlife posed by these chemicals. This quite clearly and directly conflicts with at least one aspect of the office’s stated mission.
Can we really pretend to be surprised at this point? Just look at who Trump has running the entire EPA. The agency’s current administrator, Scott Pruitt, has repeatedly worked toward rolling back regulations put in place to ensure a safe and healthy environment for humans and wildlife alike.
The Huffington Post analyzed Pruitt’s official calendars using a Freedom of Information Act request in June. During his first months as administrator, Pruitt “spent more time meeting with fossil fuel executives than environmental and public health advocates ... Since then, he’s spent less than 1 percent of his time with environmentalists,” Alexander C. Kaufman writes. It’s only natural the EPA administrator would have matters to discuss with folks in the fossil fuel industry, but should those matters really be the focal point of his entire leadership?
We must stay vigilant as the Trump administration and company name unqualified and biased nominees for positions in highly important national agencies. The EPA serves to do just that: to protect us and our natural resources. Yet what we have is the equivalent of pyromaniacs leading a council on fire prevention. Is this really what we want for our country?
As we contemplate and reflect on this, we must channel our disgust and anger into productive outlets, whether that’s through our own environmental initiatives and programs or by reaching out to our representatives in Congress. We must sign and share petitions. We must vote, vote, vote. And above all, we must pay attention.
Mia Gettenberg is a UF criminology and philosophy senior. Her column appears on Mondays.
http://www.alligator.org/opinion/article_fc96d6d2-b768-11e7-9950-174d1e1b2f1a.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) NASA Nominee's Support Of 'Secret Science' Bill Alarms Environmentalists

Oct 23, 2017 | USA Today

By Ledyard King

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s decision to nominate Jim Bridenstine as NASA administrator has some environmental and public health groups on edge, and not just because of the Oklahoma congressman’s public skepticism about climate change.
The Tulsa lawmaker serving his third term has co-sponsored legislation that would force the Environmental Protection Agency to divulge all scientific and technical data the agency is using to craft regulations.
Advocates say that legislation would block efforts to reduce pollution because some of the raw data required to justify new regulations would reveal private health information about individuals and therefore could not be released to the general public.
Without the proper data, implementing new regulations – such as to reduce smog -- would be stymied.
Further, they think his sponsorship of the legislation demonstrates an anti-scientific orientation, which is especially problematic because Bridenstine may soon be in charge of an agency whose mission includes collecting and analyzing scientific data important to developing future environmental regulations and health standards.
Those advocates are likely to press allies in the Senate to bring up Bridenstine’s backing of the legislation when he appears before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for his confirmation hearing. No date for that hearing has been set.
“It’s clear that he’s not fit to serve as NASA administrator,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters, citing his past comments on climate change and his backing of the secret science legislation. “It’s critical that the EPA use the best available science in setting critically important public health standards.”
The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (or HONEST) Act , patterned after the Secret Science Reform Act he co-sponsored two years ago, is billed by supporters as a good-government effort to make the research behind federal environmental regulations transparent and defensible. Under the Obama administration, over-reaching and burdensome rules were passed with little scientific justification that could not be properly scrutinized, they said.
“My children are in elementary school. They are required to show their work. If they don’t show their work, their integrity could be questioned, which would be appropriate, by the way,” Bridenstine said on the House floor in 2015 during debate on the Secret Science measure. “Is it too much to ask for the EPA to follow the same guidelines I give my children in elementary school? Show your work.”
The HONEST Act, like its predecessor in 2015, passed the House along largely party lines but is languishing in the Senate.
Bridenstine’s spokeswoman said he won’t be providing any interviews or comments to the media during the confirmation process, standard practice for nominees to executive branch positions waiting to be confirmed.
A member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Bridenstine has no formal science background. A former Navy flier, his last job before being elected to represent Oklahoma’s 1st District in 2012 was as executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum & Planetarium.
He has received more than $170,000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry which is dominant in his home state, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
That combination has fueled criticism of the three-term congressman as someone who might not hew to standard scientific protocol.
Kelvin K. Droegemeier, vice president for research at Oklahoma University’s School of Meteorology, said he believes the Oklahoma lawmaker has the temperament and intelligence to be an effective NASA administrator.
He got to know Bridenstine over his legislation to improve weather forecasting. At first the Oklahoma lawmaker seemed resistant to new approaches, but his thinking evolved as he learned more from experts and researchers, said Droegemeier who spent 12 years on the National Science Board and is now Oklahoma’s secretary of Science and Technology.
“In a very fundamental way, I think he really does truly want to see science rule the day in terms of being used to formulate policy,” he said. “He knows what he doesn’t know and he’s not unwilling to let other people educate him.”
Despite a floor speech in 2013 where Bridenstine seemed to challenge global warming and the conclusion by the scientific community that humans were mainly to blame, Droegemeier said that’s a misconception.
“He believes that (carbon) is increasing. He believes the planet’s warming. He believes (carbon) is a greenhouse gas. (And) he understands that you really need to have observations of the whole earth system,” the Oklahoma scientist said. “He’s not what people think he is ... I think he really wants science to be used but I think he’s also very much about ‘let’s not do it behind closed doors. If there are decisions, let’s put it out there’.”
Opponents of the legislation argue the EPA already discloses which peer studies it relies on to support its regulatory actions. But the agency doesn’t make the raw data from these studies publicly available — and cannot compel its release — because much of that information, such as health data of individuals who are part of the study, is confidential and legally protected, they contend.
The law would discourage the EPA from even proposing regulations because agency officials know releasing the information behind it would violate the law, opponents argue.
For instance, the EPA could not use epidemiological studies critical for linking exposure to toxics with certain types of diseases in the creation of standards that ensure safe drinking water and healthy air, Sarah Lamdan, an environmental expert at the City University of New York School of Law, wrote to Congress earlier this year.
“The data access requirements would obstruct public protections critical to human safety and health,” Lamdan wrote. “Any studies that utilize confidential medical records — including many human health studies — would be nearly impossible for the EPA to use because personally identifiable medical data cannot be released to the general public.”
The bill has the backing of industry groups who say it would restore the consistency and transparency in rule-making that was lacking during the Obama administration.
“It is critical that the regulated community and the public have confidence that decisions reached by EPA are grounded in transparent and reproducible science, while ensuring the protection of confidential business information and competitive intelligence,” American Chemistry Council President and Chief Executive Officer Cal Dooley wrote in March to the chief sponsor, Texas Republican Lamar Smith.
“The days of trust-me science are over,” Smith, who chairs the House Science, Space and Technology committee, said during floor debate on the bill in March. “If the EPA’s mandates really are based on sound science, then the American people should be allowed to see the data. The EPA’s past refusal to cooperate, leads to the question: What have they been hiding?”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/nasa-nominees-support-secret-science-bill-alarms-environmentalists/784888001/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) We Can Devise a Smarter, Multistream Recycling Approach

Oct 23, 2017 | The Register-Guard

By Terry McDonald

Ffteen years ago, I could have written an article titled “Comingle at your peril.”
This was back in the day when residents who had been sorting their curbside recyclables — paper and cardboard in one container, metal and plastics in another and glass in still another — were told to just throw everything into one big blue bin. Haulers and solid waste officials said the single-stream process would boost recycling rates, and they were right.
Back then, materials recovery facilities — or MRFs as we now know them — were all the rage. These big Rube Goldberg contraptions were supposed to be able to sort the paper and cardboard from the plastic and metal.
And they did. Sort of.
But they couldn’t keep people from putting non-recyclables into those big blue carts. Garden hoses, for example. Or soiled diapers. Or umbrellas. Or clothing. Or food.
No surprise, then, that China, one of the world’s largest consumers of used paper and plastics, has finally said “No thanks” to U.S. plastics and paper. The loads from America are just too contaminated.
Garbage in. Garbage out.
I’m not the only one singing this song. A study by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality concluded that between 9 percent and 10 percent of incoming commingled materials were contaminants that should not have been placed in the recycling bin. A smaller percentage of materials was mis-sorted: aluminum cans mixed in with paper, for example.
Research by the Container Recycling Institute has concluded between 73 percent to 78 percent of single-stream collected recyclables actually make it to the secondary markets. The rest is landfilled.
With the price paid for paper, plastic and other materials plunging, many solid waste haulers are reconsidering their options. In Oregon this month, one hauler has decided it will no longer collect plastic. It’s cheaper to landfill it.
But there’s an opportunity for smart people to come up with solutions.
Here in Lane County, for example, St. Vinnie’s is already diverting polystyrene — better known as Styrofoam — by densifying it and selling it back to secondary markets. We’re able to do this because we accept it at our donation sites and keep it separated from other materials. It’s a clean stream for us. (We don’t accept food-contaminated polystyrene.)
And that’s not the only kind of plastic that can be managed in this way. Innovative companies are developing systems that can convert some plastics to fuel, and the American Chemistry Council and its Plastics to Fuel Petrochemistry Alliance are tracking these nascent companies.
Initial reports suggest that it’s the cleanest streams of plastic that show the best results.
To get there may require a return to sorted recycling. And that may have benefits beyond plastic. Pulp mills don’t like the glass that gets mixed with the newsprint. Metal recyclers don’t want the wayward fabric with the tin or steel.
British Columbia may be leading the way, moving to a multi-stream system with paper and packaging products sorted separately from glass and from plastics, thanks to an extended producer responsibility law that puts the collection/sort/recycling burden for paper and packaging on manufacturers.
Yes, it’s a little more work for a consumer, but more of the materials that still have a usable life get the place they were meant to go.
Terry McDonald is executive director of the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County.
http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/36049315-78/we-can-devise-a-smarter-multistream-recycling-approach.html.csp

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Park Exhibit Focuses On First Responders

Oct 22, 2017 | MDJOnline.com

They run into burning homes, brave raging floodwaters, battle devastating wildfires and help stop epidemics. These and other heroes are featured in “Protecting Our Heroes: A Tribute to Safety and Innovation,” an online gallery, video, and multi-city popup exhibit launched earlier this month by Plastics Make it Possible.
The popup exhibit, which is free and open to the public, opened Oct. 20 at Piedmont Park in Midtown. Its final day in Atlanta is Oct. 22, when it will be open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The exhibit was in Boston Oct. 13 through 15 before coming to Atlanta.
Working with the International Safety Equipment Association, Plastics Make it Possible identified a dozen everyday heroes across the country — firefighters, policemen, medical professionals and other rescuers — and tells their personal stories of harrowing experiences on the job. These often-unsung heroes rely on personal protective equipment to help keep them safe, such as strong polycarbonate plastic helmets and goggles to help prevent head and eye injuries, and innovative neoprene plastic dry suits that help protect water rescuers from frigid temperatures and debris.
“For all the protective gear you wear, there’s nothing that can prepare your nerves for the roaring intensity of a wildfire,” wildland firefighter Bailey McDade, a featured hero and one of many firefighters facing an especially turbulent 2017 season, said in a news release. “To keep me here — and the fires out — we rely on plastic protective equipment that’s resistant to heat and flames, yet very lightweight. When I’m on the front lines fighting a fire, putting on my plastic face shroud feels like closing an oven door.”
In addition to McDade, the online gallery and interactive exhibit include a search and rescue specialist who helps save victims in floods, a smokejumper who parachutes into remote locations to fight wildfires, and the nation’s first female bomb technician who uses a plastic bomb detector with sensors to locate and disarm explosives, sometimes in the midst of sandstorms. These three heroes are highlighted in a short video that airs in the popup exhibit, as well as online at www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/heroes.
“Plastics makers are proud to have a role in protecting the brave Americans who protect us all,” Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council, which sponsors Plastics Make it Possible, said in a news release. “High-performance plastics provide the critical combination of strength, durability and mobility that protect the heroes who protect us.”
Widespread use of this equipment can help reduce risk of injury in dangerous occupations.
“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 4,000 workers are killed on the job in a given year. When used correctly, (the equipment) can help bring those numbers down,” association President Charles Johnson said in a news release. “May we be ever diligent to put protection into every practice of our lives and be thankful for the technology and the innovations that allow our heroes to do their jobs.”
Piedmont Park is located at 400 Park Drive in Atlanta. The Protecting Our Heroes online gallery can be found at www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/heroes.
http://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/northside_sandy_springs/community/piedmont-park-exhibit-focuses-on-first-responders/article_4d39ddae-b742-11e7-a255-3bf9b1ce1f82.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Dourson’s Account Of His Work On PFOA Is Incomplete And Misleading

Oct 20, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on October 4 and in responses to Questions for the Record submitted by Senators after the hearing, Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to run EPA’s chemical safety program, provided information about his work on a DuPont chemical called PFOA (also known as C8) that is incomplete and misleading. His selective responses to Senators’ questions reinforce the already serious concerns about his nomination and his suitability for the job.
In 2002, the state of West Virginia hired Dourson’s firm, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) to convene a panel to set a “safe” level of PFOA in drinking water, after the chemical was found to be contaminating water supplies in the state. Among other implications, the level set would determine the number of communities and people for which DuPont would be required to pay to provide alternative sources of drinking water – and hence which families and communities would continue to drink PFOA-contaminated water because it was found “safe.”
During the hearing Senator Kirsten Gillibrand questioned Dourson about his work on PFOA. The panel convened by TERA recommended 150 parts per billion (ppb) as the “safe” level for PFOA. Gillibrand asked Dourson whether he knew that DuPont itself had an internal guideline of 1 ppb. Dourson responded by saying: “Our understanding at the time was the 1 part per billion was a placeholder; it wasn’t based on a full reading of the science.” She then asked whether he knew that EPA has set a health advisory level of 0.07 ppb. Dourson responded that “the science has progressed, significantly advanced since the time of 2004 [sic] and the new science indicates a lower level.”
We have ourselves noted that EPA’s current level was set in 2016, well after Dourson’s work. However, what Dourson failed to acknowledge is that in March 2002 – 5 months before the report recommending the 150 ppb level was issued – EPA had imposed a much stricter standard of 14 ppb on DuPont through a consent order, based on a review of the latest science commissioned by DuPont. That level is over 10-fold more protective than the standard set through Dourson’s work. Since that time, EPA has steadily lowered its standard, as more evidence emerged about PFOA’s myriad risks, reaching the current level of 0.07 ppb that is more than 2,000 times lower than that Dourson advocated.
Dourson’s response to Questions for the Record (QFRs) submitted by EPW Ranking Member Tom Carper contains other incomplete or misleading assertions.
Dourson asserted that: “In 2002, 4 governments and one industry recommended TERA as the independent and neutral party to assist in a PFOA evaluation. A West Virginia judge agreed.” We know who the company is that recommended TERA: As reported in The Intercept, that company was DuPont, which argued in an internal memo that has since surfaced that: “TERA (i.e. Mike Dourson) was the leading choice” because TERA had “a very good reputation among the folks that are still in the business of blessing criteria” and had the ability to “assemble a package and then sell this to EPA, or whomever we desired.”
However, the source Dourson cites – the final report of the panel – provides no support whatsoever for his claim that 4 governments recommended TERA for the job and that a judge had agreed. While several government agencies were involved in the panel, we could find no evidence in the report or elsewhere that supports the claim. Perhaps this evidence was among the documents that a West Virginia official admitted were shredded after the panel concluded? If such evidence exists, Dourson should be compelled to provide it. In any case, this is one of many examples of his obfuscation when it comes to the funding of and engagement in his work by different parties.
Here’s another: Dourson’s QFR response also states: “Five panelists were government employees; 3 were from EPA.” This response is both selective and misleading: Dourson fails to mention that there were five additional panelists: 3 were TERA employees, including Dourson, and the remaining 2 were DuPont employees. It also downplays the central role TERA was assigned in the panel process, as described in a November 2001 consent order between the state of West Virginia and DuPont.
These questionable and selective responses Dourson provided to Senators in the context of his confirmation hearing serve again to illustrate why we believe Dourson lacks both the credibility and the trustworthiness needed for the job of overseeing our nation’s chemical safety program.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/10/20/doursons-account-of-his-work-on-pfoa-is-incomplete-and-misleading/

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) The E.P.A.’s Top 10 Toxic Threats, and Industry’s Pushback

Oct 21, 2017 | The New York Times

By Eric Lipton and Emily Cochrane

The Environmental Protection Agency has published a list of 10 toxic threats it will evaluate first under a law passed last year intended to crack down on hazardous chemicals. They are among 90 chemicals identified by the agency that may harm children, damage nerve tissue, cause cancer, contaminate the environment, accumulate in the bloodstream or show up in consumer products. As the review begins, industry and other interest groups are urging the E.P.A. to limit any restrictions.
Asbestos
Where you may find it: Asbestos has not been manufactured in the United States since 2002, but imports surged last year, and it is still used in certain vehicle braking systems, asphalt roof coatings and gaskets. Asbestos is also commonly used by chlorine manufacturers.
How it could hurt you: Asbestos is associated with lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin lining of the lung, heart, chest and abdomen.
Industry intervention: The trade group representing the chlorine industry, the American Chemistry Council, argues that “the few remaining uses for asbestos are tightly controlled,” and that banning it would not do much to protect health.1-Bromopropane
Where you may find it: 1-bromopropane is used as a refrigerant, a lubricant, a degreaser and a solvent in spray adhesives and dry cleaning. Its use in agricultural chemical manufacturing and foam-cushion manufacturing has also been reported.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGETRUMP RULESWhy Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots OCT. 21, 2017
How it could hurt you: Exposure can cause dizziness, headaches, slurred speech, confusion, muscle twitching, difficulty walking and loss of consciousness. Studies on animals suggest that exposure is also associated with reduced blood cell counts along with toxicity to the liver and the reproductive and nervous systems.
Industry intervention: The Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council, which represents companies that manufacture the chemical, arguethat the E.P.A. should not consider health threats that occur when people do not follow warning labels.Carbon Tetrachloride
Where you may find it: Carbon tetrachloride, a clear liquid with a sweet smell, was once used in refrigeration fluids, aerosol propellants, pesticides, cleaning fluids, spot removers and degreasing agents. Most of those uses have been banned, but it is still has industrial applications, such as manufacturing petrochemicals.
How it could hurt you: It can cause injuries to the liver and kidneys and, at high levels, can result in fatal damage to the brain and nervous system.
Industry intervention: Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance arguesthat worker exposures are already regulated by Labor Department safety rules and that “occupational conditions of use do not pose an unreasonable risk.”1,4-Dioxane
Where you may find it: 1,4-dioxane is a flammable liquid with a variety of industrial applications, such as the manufacture of adhesives and sealants and other chemicals. It is used in paint strippers, dyes, greases, varnishes and waxes, and it can be found in antifreeze, aircraft de-icing fluids, deodorants, shampoos and cosmetics.
How it could hurt you: The E.P.A. says that the chemical is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and that it may cause kidney and liver damage. It is now often found at low levels in drinking water supplies.
Industry intervention: The American Cleaning Institute argues that while many consumer products may have small amounts of 1,4-dioxane, they are “extraordinarily low levels” and should be ignored.Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster
Where you may find it: Cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster is a group of chemicals found in flame retardants, plastic additives and certain polystyrene foams used in the construction industry for thermal insulation boards.
How it could hurt you: People may be exposed to the chemicals from products and dust in the home. Animal test results suggest potential reproductive, developmental and neurological effects.
Industry intervention: The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers argues that the E.P.A. should not consider “potential of an accident or misuse, whether intentional or unintentional,” when deciding to restrict these chemicals, as “misuse is not even predictable and should never be included in toxicological risk assessment.”Methylene Chloride
Where you may find it:Methylene chloride is used in pharmaceutical manufacturing and polyurethane foam manufacturing. It is also found in paint strippers, adhesives, metal cleaners and aerosol solvents. Many products are sold at home improvement stores.
How it could hurt you:Exposure can harm the central nervous system, with effects including dizziness, incapacitation and, sometimes, death. It is also linked to liver toxicity, liver cancer and lung cancer. It has been associated with dozens of deaths. The E.P.A., just days before the end of the Obama administration, proposed banning its use as a paint stripper because of these hazards.
Industry intervention: W.M. Barr & Company, the largest national manufacturer of solvents, removers, fuels and cleaning products, asked the E.P.A. to withdraw its proposed rule to ban methylene chloride in paint strippers, arguing that its products do “not present an unreasonable risk.”N-Methylpyrrolidone
Where you may find it: N-Methylpyrrolidone is a solvent used in petrochemical processing. It can be found in plastics, paints, inks, enamels, electronics, industrial and consumer cleaning products and arts and crafts materials.
How it could hurt you: It may pose a particular risk to women who are pregnant or of childbearing age, according to studies on animals that suggest delayed fetal development.
Industry intervention: The NMP Manufacturers Group argues that the chemical “is used in many industry sectors, in varied processes,” and that it would be “unworkable for industry and unworkable for EPA” to evaluate them all.Perchloroethylene
Where you may find it: Perchloroethylene, also known as perc, is a solvent widely used in dry-cleaning chemicals, automotive-care products, cleaning and furniture-care products, lubricants, greases, adhesives, sealants and paints and coatings.
How it could hurt you: High-level inhalation exposure is associated with kidney dysfunction, dizziness, headache, sleepiness and unconsciousness, while long-term inhalation exposure may affect the liver, the kidneys and the immune and reproductive systems. The E.P.A. has classified it as likely to be carcinogenic to humans, as it is associated with bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. It is also a drinking-water contaminant.
Industry intervention: The Drycleaning and Laundry Institute and the National Cleaners Association argue that “any future decision to reduce or phase out the use of perc in drycleaning will put an oppressive burden on thousands of cleaners” and that “sadly, in taking any radical regulatory action the EPA will be doing little to reduce the negligible risks associated with the use, while threatening the future viability of thousands of dry cleaners.”Pigment Violet 29
Where you may find it: Pigment Violet 29 is used in watercolors, acrylic paints, automotive paints, inks for printing and packaging, cleaning and washing agents, pharmaceuticals, solar cells, paper, sporting goods and industrial carpeting. It is also approved to be used in food packaging.
How it could hurt you: There are limited health studies, but preliminary work suggests “acute toxicity, eye irritation, skin irritation, skin sensitization,” and perhaps reproductive and developmental toxicity.
Industry intervention: Color Pigments Manufacturers Association argues that it “does not pose any known hazard in any reasonably foreseeable use or misuse, and therefore cannot present an unreasonable risk.”Trichloroethylene
Where you may find it: Trichloroethylene, also known as TCE, is used to make a refrigerant chemical and remove grease from metal parts. It is also a spotting agent for dry cleaning and can be found in consumer products. The E.P.A., in the final days of the Obama administration, proposed a ban on its use in dry-cleaning chemicals, spot removers and aerosol degreasers.
How it could hurt you: It is associated with cancers of the liver, kidneys and blood. Animal studies suggest that it may also be a factor in birth defects, testicular cancer, leukemia, lymphomas and lung tumors. TCE is also a drinking-water contaminant.
Industry intervention: The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, which manufactures the chemical, argues that the E.P.A. has conducted a “very deficient risk assessment.” Pointing to one study the E.P.A. has used, the group says that “a single flawed study should not be the basis for the toxicological value that serves as the basis for regulation.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/epa-toxic-chemicals.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Reuters Reporter Again Promotes False Narrative About IARC and Glyphosate Cancer Concerns

Oct 20, 2017 | U.S. Right to Know

By Stacy Malkan

Continuing her record of industry-biased reporting about the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Reuters reporter Kate Kelland attacked the science panel again yesterday with a story that the panel edited a draft scientific document before issuing the final version of its assessment on glyphosate that found glyphosate a probable human carcinogen.
The American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry trade group, immediately issued a press releasepraising Kelland’s story, claiming her story “undermines IARC’s conclusions about glyphosate” and urging policy makers to “take action against IARC over deliberate manipulation of data.”
Kelland’s story quoted a Monsanto executive claiming that “IARC members manipulated and distorted scientific data” but failed to mention the significant amount of evidence that has emerged from Monsanto’s own documents through court-ordered discovery that demonstrate the many ways the company has worked to manipulate and distort data on glyphosate over decades.
The story also failed to mention that most of the research IARC discounted was Monsanto-financed work that did not have sufficient raw data to meet IARC’s standards. And though Kelland cites a 1983 mouse study and a rat study in which IARC failed to agree with the original investigators, she failed to disclose that these were studies financed by Monsanto and the investigators IARC failed to agree with were paid by Monsanto. She also failed to mention the critical information that in the 1983 mouse study, even the EPA toxicology branch did not agree with Monsanto’s investigators because the evidence of carcinogenicity was so strong, according to EPA documents. They said in numerous memos that Monsanto’s argument was unacceptable and suspect, and they determined glyphosate to be a possible carcinogen.
By leaving out these crucial facts, and by twisting others almost inside out, Kelland has authored another article that serves Monsanto quite well, but victimized innocent members of the public and policy makers who rely on trusted news outlets for accurate information. The only encouraging point to be taken from Kelland’s story is that this time she admitted Monsanto provided her with the information.
As we have previously reported, Kelland’s earlier reporting on IARC has been deeply problematic; her stories have contained errors that Reuters refused to correct, made blatantly misleading claims about documents that were not provided to the public, and relied on industry-connected sources who were presented as independent sources. The story below by Stacy Malkan, originally published in Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, documents these examples.
See also these related stories and documents:
·         his Monsanto document describes the company’s public relations plan to “orchestrate outcry with IARC decision” in anticipation of the agency’s cancer rating on glyphosate. The PR plan names Sense About Science, a London based lobbying group, as a “Tier 2” ally and suggests the group could lead media outreach efforts against IARC. Sense About Science is the sister group of Science Media Center, a corporate-funded PR firm in London with close ties to Kelland (as documented in the story below).
·         “Reuters’ Kate Kelland IARC Story Promotes False Narrative,” by Carey Gillam, 6/28/2017
·         “Monsanto Spin Doctors Target Cancer Scientist in Flawed Reuters Story,” by Carey Gillam, 6/19/2017

https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/acc_loves_katekelland/

Return to headline | Return to top
New California Law May Set Standard For Cleaning Product Disclosure

Oct 23, 2017 | Inside EPA

A new California law requiring cleaning product makers to identify most of the chemicals used in their products on labels and company websites may establish a de facto national disclosure standard because manufacturers are likely to produce one set of complying labels for all the products they sell.
"California is such a big part of the market that it wouldn't make much sense, particularly for the large companies, to produce multiple labels," says a representative of one of the public health groups that sponsored the California law, SB 258 by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D).
But as reported by Inside Cal/EPA's Curt Barry, at least one other state -- New York -- is floating a draft plan that would impose even stricter standards than the California requirements, which in turn could set a more stringent requirement if finalized.
Some leading industry groups, including the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), threw their support behind the California law and are strongly opposing the New York effort.
California's new law creates the "Cleaning Product Right To Know Act of 2017," requiring manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose specified chemical ingredients on product labels and on their websites, including those that are listed under Proposition 65 as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. The online disclosure requirements become effective on Jan. 1, 2020; the product label disclosure requirements become effective on Jan. 1, 2021.
In an especially important requirement for environmentalists, the California law requires disclosure of information related to fragrance ingredients or allergens contained in the designated product.
Manufacturers are authorized by the new law to protect as confidential business information any intentionally added ingredient or combination of intentionally added ingredients that meet the definition of confidential business information as described in the California law.
CSPA and other major consumer product industry groups are now turning their attention back to opposing a set of new chemical disclosure standards that New York environmental officials are proposing. CSPA says in an Oct. 13 press release on California's new law that "politically motivated and unfeasible regulations" are being pursued by New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and other states.
"The recently released draft ingredient disclosure guidance from the state of New York is unworkable, costly and unscientific," said Steve Caldeira, CSPA president and CEO, in the release. "Pursuing the implementation of this guidance will lead to a complicated and increasingly contradictory set of ingredient communication rules."
The New York approach "will ultimately cost existing and future jobs, while stifling cleaner and greener product innovation that consumers and workers are increasingly looking for," Caldeira also claims. "This is in stark contrast to the comprehensive and transparent effort undertaken by the state of California to reach a broad consensus between public health advocates and industry."
In April, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced the launch of the new initiative to require all manufacturers of household cleaning products sold in New York to disclose chemical ingredients on their websites. Subsequently, the DEC released the "Draft 2017 Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Certification Form and Guidance Document," establishing a July 14 deadline for public comment.
The effort includes new restrictions to reduce the amount of perchloroethylene, a chemical widely used in dry-cleaning, and other dry cleaning solvents that are released into the environment,
A revised proposal is expected to be released soon.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/new-california-law-may-set-standard-cleaning-product-disclosure

Return to headline | Return to top
A Red Light For The UK’s Plans For Chemical Regulations After Brexit

Oct 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By W Caffey Norman

Likely to increase costs for industry, while not providing equivalent protection for health and the environment
On 29 September, the Greener UK coalition, a group of UK environmental NGOs, including CHEM Trust, published the second version of their ‘Brexit Risk Tracker’. This uses the expert knowledge of the NGOs involved to examine the UK government’s position on different policies with regard to Brexit. In the case of chemicals policy, the analysis was carried out by CHEM Trust and PAN UK.
In this risk tracker, as with the first version published on 23 June, chemicals policy has been identified as a ‘red’, or high risk, policy area. This is because Thérèse Coffey, the minister responsible, has stated that the UK should not stay within REACH, as she believes that doing so would jeopardise parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of the UK courts.
Mrs Coffey therefore argues that the UK should not automatically follow decisions made in REACH processes. In addition, the minister responsible for pesticides policy, George Eustace, has called for a more risk-based approach to pesticides approval than the EU system.
Although it does have deficiencies, as CHEM Trust has pointed out in the past, REACH is generally viewed as the most sophisticated chemicals regulatory system in the world. Our analysis is that if the UK leaves REACH, there is likely to be a weakening in the protection of human health and the environment in the UK.
Either in or out
The evidence from other non-EU countries - Switzerland, for example - is that a country is either in REACH or outside it. If you are in it, like EU and European Economic Area (EEA) members, you participate in Echa regulatory processes and you can access the REACH database, so you have full information on the safety of chemicals.
If you are outside REACH, like Switzerland, you cannot do either. Switzerland did investigate being part of REACH - it has a complex mesh of bilateral agreements with the EU - but the three conditions the EU set were not acceptable to it. These were:accepting the supervision of the European Court of Justice (or presumably the European Free Trade Area (Efta) court, which the EEA countries use);adopting all REACH decisions on chemicals, without a vote in the process. The EEA countries accept this, though they are able to participate in all Echa processes, including preparing dossiers; andadopting the other EU regulations that work with REACH to protect human health (including worker health) and the environment.
We can assume that the UK would be presented with the same conditions if it wanted to stay in REACH outside the EU and the EEA.
On 27 September, Echa released guidance on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, which emphasised the impact of it not being in REACH. As this states, from 30 March 2019, assuming there is no transition period or deal keeping the UK in REACH, REACH registrations by UK-based companies will "be regarded as non-existent, as your company will, after the UK withdrawal, be based in a ‘third country’ outside the EU/EEA".
Therefore, all UK-based registrations and authorisations must be moved to entities in EU27 or EEA member states, or they will vanish. In addition, the UK authorities’ access to the REACH and other databases and to the IT tools Echa provides for regulatory purposes will be cut back to the same level of information that the general public can access.
That will mean that UK regulators will have to make decisions on chemical controls with very limited information. Even if a new registration system were to be created in the UK, which would be a significant burden to industry, it would not have the same volume of information in it as the REACH database. It is worth noting that much of the information in the REACH databases is actually owned by companies and industry consortia, not by Echa.
Copying is not enough
Even if the UK decided to largely copy REACH, it would still run into problems. If it does not move at least as fast at controlling the use of chemicals as the EU system, for instance, the UK would be likely to become a dumping ground for products that had been restricted by REACH.
Without access to the full REACH database, moreover, the UK authorities might have problems defending any legal challenges to controls in the UK. Would the government really stand up in court and say "We banned this chemical, but unfortunately we don’t have access to most of the data justifying the ban"? In addition, if the UK did not implement the REACH authorisation procedure, companies would be able to use chemicals in the UK that could not be used in the EU. This would reduce protection in the UK, but would also weaken the EU system, as it would be possible for a company to say that that it would move production to a UK plant if it were suggested they would not secure a REACH authorisation.
CHEM Trust is particularly concerned that the UK government does not seem to be aware of the difficulties in this area, as indicated by a response of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Gove, to a question from Mary Creagh, a Labour MP, on 20 July. Ms Creagh pointed out that UK participation in REACH allows it to protect the environment and human health and allows UK businesses to sell exports worth £14 bn/year to the EU.
"The Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into the future of chemical regulation heard that the legislation cannot be cut and pasted. There are severe concerns about market supply chain freeze and regulatory disruption. How will the Secretary of State regulate chemicals when we leave?" she asked. Mr Gove simply replied: "Better."
Deregulation and sovereignty
The UK public does not support deregulation. CHEM Trust partnered with the campaign group SumOfUs and the polling company Greenberg Quilan Rosner Research to poll UK public attitudes to Brexit and chemicals; 63% of all the sample and 62% of those who had voted to leave the EU (as well as 74% of Remain voters), supported the statement "There should be no reduction in regulatory standards that protect people and the environment from potentially harmful chemicals when the UK leaves the EU".
In this situation, what is the problem for the government with staying in REACH? Looking back at the Swiss tests, the court issue is important, but will probably have to be resolved in order to get any substantive Brexit deal between the UK and EU. The UK already has the EU legislation in place that is associated with REACH, though it would need to retain this.
This leaves sovereignty, which is a key part of the Brexit positioning of the UK government - that a UK sovereign parliament should be able to make its own decisions about every issue, with no need to follow EU decisions. In the case of chemicals policy, however, the UK is so integrated into international supply chains for goods and is dependent on a complex (EU-controlled) database that it can be argued that there is no such as thing as national sovereignty in this area.
In addition, CHEM Trust argues that the UK will be more sovereign if it is in the room at Echa, discussing controls on hazardous chemicals, as Norway is, with full access to REACH databases, rather than sitting outside copying, with only minimal access to safety data.
Conclusion
As long as the UK government continues to argue that the UK should not stay within REACH, the Brexit Risk Tracker will continue to show this policy area as ‘red’. It was very clear from the recent Chemical Watch conference on UK chemicals regulation after Brexit that the vast majority of stakeholders from industry and civil society think that the UK should stay in REACH.
The UK would be able to do this through either including it in a free trade agreement or by joining the EEA or similar. It is time the government adopted this position.
The views expressed in this article are those of the expert author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60310/a-red-light-for-the-uks-plans-for-chemical-regulations-after-brexit

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Vote on Roundup Could Go Nowhere Next Week

Oct 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker

A pivotal decision is coming to head in Europe next week that could spell the long-term future of an important weedkiller there.
Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide and dozens of other off-brand versions, is running out of time on its current authorization, which expires Dec. 15.
The European Commission's Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed has scheduled a vote among representatives of European countries on a 10-year renewal of glyphosate on the continent—two-thirds of the length of the typical 15-year extension given for approving pesticides. The vote could be a milestone in the lengthy debate on allowing glyphosate on the continent.
A committee within the European Parliament, Europe's legislative body, also voted Oct. 19 to phase out the herbicide by 2020.
But it's unlikely that the delegates will muster enough support for a vote at all—leaving the commission scrambling to revise the proposal so it will pass, or let the registration of the widely used farm chemical lapse.
Opponents of glyphosate, who say it carries unacceptable health and environmental risks, hope the delay will force the commission to place more restrictions on the herbicide, such as banning it in public parks or allowing farmers to gradually cut back on use.
Monsanto declined to comment on whether it is confident that glyphosate will be re-registered next year, saying only that “there is no scientific or health basis to withhold approval.”
France, Italy Oppose Renewal
The European Commission wants to “modify the proposal until the majority of member states vote in favor,” Angeliki Lyssimachou, a campaign coordinator with the non-governmental Pesticides Action Network Europe, told Bloomberg Environment.
“If they decide to phase out in three years, in five years, it would be much better [than the] 10 years that they have right now,” Lyssimachou added.
France, Italy, Austria and other countries have stated they will not vote to renew glyphosate for 10 years.
Under commission rules, the member-states must reach a “qualified” majority to pass any proposal, meaning at least 15 nations and a representation of 65 percent of the EU's population. Under this system, populous countries such as France hold more sway.
If there is no qualified majority, the commission won't call for a vote, Lyssimachou said.
Glyphosate has long been controversial, particularly for its relationship to the first generation of genetically modified crops that were engineered not to die when sprayed with the chemical.
But opposition to the weedkiller hit its apogee over the last two and a half years, following a finding from the World Health Organization's cancer-research arm that glyphosate “probably” causes cancer, specifically, non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) finding in March 2015—which is at odds with the conclusions of regulatory bodies around the world—breathed life in the movement to restrict glyphosate use.
Mixed Messages on Cancer Risk
Next week's vote will be a milestone in the lengthy debate on allowing glyphosate on the continent. In June of last year, the European Commission renewed the license for 18 months when the bloc's member-states refused to approve a longer term reauthorization for the chemical.
The renewal, which ends in December, allowed more investigation on its safety from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The agency ruled in March that glyphosate should not be classified as a carcinogen.
Skeptics of the IARC decision—including the chemical and agricultural industries—point to the ECHA finding, plus an earlier European Food Safety Agency opinion that cleared glyphosate of cancer-causing properties, as justification for an easy reauthorization.
“How long will they continue to push on this?” David Zaruk, a risk communications consultant based in Brussels and blogger who has been outspokenly critical of IARC, told Bloomberg Environment. “The commission has other business on the table.”
‘Psychologically Difficult’ for Merger Plan
Although uncertainty in Europe may not create a financial hit, it could complicate Monsanto's pending $66 billion merger with Bayer AG, Christopher Perrella, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst, told Bloomberg Environment.
“If it's not re-registered in Europe ... it would have a minimal impact on exact financials, but it could be psychologically difficult, could make the deal more difficult,” Perrella said.
The fight in Europe closely mirrors the fight over Roundup in the United States, but with a key distinction: most European countries do not allow farmers to plant genetically modified seeds.
The adoption and development of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. boosted demand for glyphosate, which can be sprayed atop the engineered crops without harming them.
Exemptions to a Ban
Only 15 percent of global glyphosate production goes to Europe, according to the European Crop Protection Association. Monsanto controls about 40 percent of the share of the global glyphosate market. Other manufacturers include Bayer AG, BASF Corp., and Syngenta, but Monsanto has taken the lead in defending glyphosate.
Even if the European Commission allows the registration to expire in December, it's unlikely that European farmers won't have access to glyphosate next year.
Member-states can request a “derogation,” or exemption, from European bans, said Zaruk. This happened as a result of the 2016 law that banned neonicotinoids, a class of pesticides linked to bee declines.
If the renewal fails, the commission is more likely to offer a proposal with a shorter renewal period or with additional restrictions, Zaruk said. An outright ban could trigger legal action or a dispute at the World Trade Organization.
Farmers to Brussels
The issue has fused anti-glyphosate activism in the U.S. and Europe. Members of the European Parliament have shown a keen interest in the trove of documents unveiled as part of a lawsuit against Monsanto brought by cancer victims and their families in a San Francisco federal court. The lawsuit is in discovery phase, with hearings scheduled for December.
The documents indicate a close relationship between the company and regulators working on glyphosate, as well as efforts to edit or even ghost-write scientific papers before publication. The European Parliament held a hearing on the so-called “Monsanto Papers” last week.
Zaruk said the opponents of glyphosate have drowned out the supporters. He has tried to raise money to bring Romanian farmers to Brussels to protest a possible lapse in glyphosate registration.
“The farmers need to come to Brussels,” he said. “The farmers don't really have a voice in this debate.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122837267&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122837267&jd=122837267

Return to headline | Return to top
War Against Chemicals Is A Shame On Science

Oct 23, 2017 | The Times

By Matt Ridley

Bad news is always more newsworthy than good. The widely reported finding that insect abundance is down by 75 per cent in Germany over 27 years was big news, while, for example, the finding in May that ocean acidification is a lesser threat to corals than had been thought caused barely a ripple. The study, published in the leading journal Nature, found that corals’ ability to make skeletons is “largely independent of changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, and hence ocean acidification”. But good news is no news.
And bad news is big news. The German insect study, in a pay-to-publish journal, may indeed be a cause for concern, but its findings should be treated with caution, my professional biologist friends tell me. It did not actually compare the same sites over time. Indeed most locations were only sampled once, and the scientists used mathematical models to extract a tentative trend from the inconsistent sampling.
Greens were quick to use the insect study to argue for a ban on the widely used herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, despite no evidence for a connection. Glyphosate is made by Monsanto and sometimes used in conjunction with genetically modified crops.
Their campaign comes to a head this Wednesday in Brussels, where an expert committee of the European Commission will decide whether to ban glyphosate. The European parliament has already voted to do so, though its vote carries no weight. The committee will probably defer a decision until December, amid signs that the commission is getting fed up with the way French politicians in particular demand a ban in public then argue against it in private.
The entire case against glyphosate is one “monograph” from an obscure World Health Organisation body called the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which concluded that glyphosate might cause cancer at very high doses. It admitted that by the same criteria, sausages and sawdust should also be classified as carcinogens.
Indeed, pound for pound coffee is more carcinogenic than the herbicide, with the big difference
that people pour coffee down their throats every day, which they don’t glyphosate. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was recently found to contain glyphosate at a concentration of up to 1.23 parts per billion. At that rate a child would have to eat more than three tonnes of ice cream every day to reach the level at which any health effect could be measured.
The IARC finding is contradicted by the European Food Safety Authority as well as the key state safety agencies in America, Australia and elsewhere. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment looked at more than 3,000 studies and found no evidence of any risk to human beings at realistic doses: carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or reproductive. Since glyphosate is a molecule that interferes with a metabolic process found in all plants but no animals, this is hardly surprising.
Meanwhile, glyphosate has
huge environmental benefits for gardeners and farmers. In particular, it is an alternative to the destructive practice of ploughing to control weeds. It allows no-till agriculture, a burgeoning practice that preserves soil structure, moisture and carbon content, enabling worms and insects to flourish, improving drainage and biodiversity while allowing the high-yield farming that is essential if we are to feed humanity without cultivating more land. Organic farmers rely on frequent tillage.
How did the IARC paper come to its alarmist conclusion? Well, we now know, thanks to Reuters, which reported that IARC prepared a draft which somebody altered in ten different places. “In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one.”
Last week, The Times reported how the scientist who advised the IARC to classify glyphosate as carcinogenic received $160,000 from law firms suing Monsanto on behalf of cancer victims. Christopher Portier began advising one of the firms about two months before IARC’s decision on glyphosate. He said that he had been hired to advise on an unrelated matter and his contract to advise on glyphosate was dated nine days after the IARC announcement in 2015.
Dr Portier has denied that his advice was influenced by financial interest. He told The Times that he “probably should have” declared his links with the law firms in an open letter sent to the European health commissioner urging him to disregard the European Food Safety Authority’s finding before he did so.
The Corporate European Observatory, which claims that it is in the business of “exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU”, rushed to the defence of
Dr Portier. It argued that reports about the scientist should be seen as “outright attempts at character assassination”.
Europe banning glyphosate would open up a litigation bonanza in the US. Bounty-hunting law firms are in cahoots with environmental NGOs, to bring them business putting companies under pressure based on the theory that barely detectable doses of chemicals might do harm. Johnson & Johnson faces claims over the alleged carcinogenicity of talcum powder, for instance.
The technique, says David Zaruk of the Université Saint-Louis, Brussels, is to “manipulate public perception, create fear or outrage by co-operating with activists, gurus and NGOs, find a corporate scapegoat and litigate the hell out of them”. The glyphosate story is a scandal, of the kind that would be front-page news if it happened in industry, rather than a branch of WHO. But the BBC has not covered the Reuters story. WHO itself shows no sign of investigating, although the US Congress, a major funder of IARC, is starting to take an interest.
The episode lifts the lid on a questionable network of activist scientists, NGOs, and financiers, not to mention useful-idiot politicians. Scientists raise a scare, lawyers sue on the back of it, bureaucrats give themselves work, all profit. Cancer victims are misled, consumers deceived, farmers’ livelihoods destroyed and environmental benefits undone. But who cares if there is money to be made?
Note: I have never been paid by Monsanto.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-against-chemicals-is-a-shame-onscience-bvgwpkwmq

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

New NatGas Pipeline Designed for Growing Northeast Ohio Demand

Oct 23, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Jamison Cocklin

Newly formed RH energytrans LLC has filed at FERC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct a 60-mile pipeline that would deliver natural gas from northwest Pennsylvania to northeast Ohio.
The 55,000 Dth/d Risberg Line would take gas from an interconnect with Tennessee Gas Pipeline in Crawford County, PA, to help meet peak day supply deficits and new industrial demand in Ashtabula County, OH.
Dominion Energy Ohio entered into a binding precedent agreement as the foundation shipper for 40,000 Dth/d. North Atlantic Iron Corp., which plans to build a pig iron plant in Ashtabula on Lake Erie, has expressed interest in contracting for 15,000 Dth/d of firm transportation.
RH energytrans wants to convert 31.6 miles of 8-inch and 12-inch gas pipeline in Crawford and Erie counties. From Erie County, the company said about 28 miles of 12-inch pipe would be constructed to traverse the state line and terminate at a new delivery point that interconnects with Dominion’s distribution system in North Kingsville, OH.
The company has requested the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorize the project by June to place the pipeline into service later next year.
RH energytrans has no other existing operations. The company is owned by Opatho Gas Trans LLC. Opatho stakeholders also own EmKey Energy LLC, Viking Energy Broker LLC and Nucomer Energy LLC. EmKey has natural gas gathering and processing operations in New York and Pennsylvania.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112167-new-natgas-pipeline-designed-for-growing-northeast-ohio-demand

Return to headline | Return to top
US Shale Outlook Seen At Risk From More Intensive Fracking

Oct 23, 2017 | Platts

By Robert Perkins

US shale oil production is unlikely to peak before the middle of next decade, but current fracking techniques may be risking the prospect of faster decline rates from tight oil than many are forecasting, a top oil industry event was told this week.
New techniques may offer short-lived gainsShale well productivity rates slippingOthers more upbeat over late-life declines

As the US shale industry continues to chase lower breakevens and boost productivity in the wake of the 2014 price downturn, shale players have turned to pumping much larger volumes of sand and water into horizontal wells.

In addition to "bigger fracks", drillers have also increased the density of their fracking stages in a bid to boost the volumes of tight oil drained from each well.

Although the techniques have raised initial flows rates by up to 30% in some wells, the intensive fracking is depleting the source rocks faster risking a sharp rise in future decline rates, according to Bernand Duroc-Danner, the former CEO of Weatherford International.

"If you're going to be fracking closer zones like crazy, lots of sand, lots of water, lots of pressure, you drain the hell out of those zones which is why production goes up," Duroc-Danner told the Oil & Money conference in London.
"But then those zones don't get replenished...after two years, there'll be a build up in decline rates...I am not so sure if the battle won't be, in two years, to sustain the base as opposed to keep on growing," he added.

With higher intensity fracking, US shale decline rates are already creeping up in some shale plays, but the impact is overwhelmed by increased drilling activity, Duroc-Danner said.

Energy research group Wood Mackenzie recently flagged similar concerns over the production outlook for the Permian Basin, the world's top shale play.

Citing risks related to tighter well spacing and well-on-well "interference", Wood Mac last month estimated that the Permian could see peak production by 2021, putting more than 1.5 million b/d of future production in doubt.GAINS CEILING

The Permian, which sprawls across West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, currently produces about 2.735 million b/d of oil, according to Platts Analytics.

Forecasts a year or two ago for roughly 3 million b/d crude oil output for the play by 2020 are now looking at 5 million to 5.5 million b/d in the early-to-mid-2020s -- and even more after that. Wood Mac's central forecast is for Permian output to increase to more than 5 million b/d in 2025.

Although upbeat on the future prospects for the Permian, US shale giant Pioneer Natural Resources is also wary that current efficiency gains from bigger fracks may be hitting a ceiling.

"In the US, we are essentially using a sledgehammer approach. We are using larger volumes or sand and fluids and pumping at higher rates," Pioneer's CEO Tim Dove told the event.

"As some point you reach a peak on logistics, limits on sand, water volumes..that's where we are getting to, (although) we're not quite there as an industry," he added.

Indeed, while technology gains in the past few years have been key in lowering shale costs and boosting well performance, productivity has been been falling of late. Well productivity data from the US' Energy Information Administration shows flows from new wells have been mostly falling since mid-2016. Permian rig productivity will average 572 b/d this month, the EIA predicts, down from more than 729 b/d in August 2016.

Dove said he thinks the productivity data is an unfair measure of future shale production, however, as the current rate is being dragged down by a number of factors.

"What you have here is a portfolio effect, the fact that some of these rigs are attacking zones that may not be as prolific as the core of the core...by definition we'll see averages come down," he said.

Dove said shale well productivity is also being hampered by a shortage of workers returning to the recovering sector and a current tightness in the fracking equipment market due to the uptick in more intensive well completions.

PRICE KEY

But he remains optimistic the productive life of the Permian will extend "far beyond" 2025. Output from the prolific shale play could peak before then, he said, but only if oil prices fail to recover significantly from current levels.

"Clearly until the middle part of the next decade we're going to be growing." he said. "We'll see what happens after that, but its a matter of price...at $60-$70/b all kinds of new portfolio opportunities are presented.

"At some point the number of locations you would drill at $50/b would be minimal, in say 10 years from now, and we might need a higher price to bring in new resources," Dove said.

Pioneer, which is planning to quadruple its current shale-led production to 1 million b/d of oil equivalent by 2026, is the lowest cost US shale producer with cash breakeven's at roughly $20/b, he said.

"{The falling productivity] is certainly not a reflection of anything other than the ramp up." Dove said. "The quality of these [assets] are really phenomenal, no doubt about it."

Dove's more upbeat outlook for the US shale industry was in part supported by comments from energy analyst group Rystad Energy.

Rystad's head of analysis Per Magnus Nysveen said he expects drilling to be active on the shale sweet spots for "quite some time", with drilling the less prolific Bakken lasting another 2-3 years and activity on the best acreage in the Permian to continue for a "very long time."

He said US shale output would "flatten out" sometime between 2020-25, but estimated the sector's decline curve may also be flatter than some are predicting.

"What we have seen in the data is that there is not a terminal decline after 10-15 years," Nysveen said. "The wells seem to stay relatively robust producing 40-50/b when they are getting old."

Without giving further details, he said if late-life declines from shale plays perform to Rystad's modeling, older US shale wells could be pumping at rates much higher than current so-called "stripper wells" which produce less than 10/b.
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/london/us-shale-outlook-seen-at-risk-from-more-intensive-21314676

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Lawmakers To Tackle Emerging Cyber, Energy Tech

Oct 23, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Blake Sobczak

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing Thursday on technologies to block hackers from breaking into the U.S. power grid and other critical computer systems.
Grid cybersecurity has become a top concern for the panel, chaired by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), amid an ongoing series of energy sector cyber intrusions.
Late last month, North Korea-linked hackers tried to break into electric utilities' corporate networks via malicious emails, according to cybersecurity firm FireEye Inc. (Energywire, Oct. 12). Earlier this year, a similar series of "phishing" emails targeted nuclear power plant operators and other energy firms.
To date, hackers have not managed to flip off the lights anywhere in the U.S., though cyberattackers succeeded in briefly bringing down parts of Ukraine's power grid in 2015 and again in 2016.
Thursday's hearing will focus on "advanced cyber technologies that could be used to help protect electric grids and other energy infrastructure" from such disasters, according to the panel's website.
The top Democrat on the committee, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, has often criticized the Trump administration for proposing to cut some of the Department of Energy's cybersecurity budget despite an uptick in threats.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has maintained that cybersecurity is a priority for his agency and has pledged tens of millions of dollars for research and development in the area (Energywire, Sept. 13).
Witnesses at this week's hearing — their names are likely to emerge today — will likely update lawmakers on research efforts underway at U.S. national labs.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, Oct. 26, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/10/23/stories/1060064283

Return to headline | Return to top
Indiana Popcorn Workers’ Suit Over Lung Condition Tossed

Oct 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Martina Barash

Givaudan Flavors Corp. has shed the last claim by popcorn-plant workers in Indiana who alleged they developed respiratory problems due to diacetyl in the company's butter flavors (Aregood v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 2017 BL 375577, S.D. Ind., No. 1:14-cv-00274-SEB-TAB, 10/18/17).
The 27 workers can't show a design defect because they have no expert testimony showing the costs and benefits of the diacetyl-free butter flavors they pointed to as alternative designs, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana said Oct. 18.
Diacetyl is a chemical used to give buttery flavors to popcorn and other foods.
Showing the cost-effectiveness of an alternative design is required under Indiana law, the court said. That information can't be assumed from other expert evidence in the case, and it's not common knowledge, the court said.
The court threw out the other three claims in the case, for defective condition, failure to warn, and negligence, in a June 1 opinion.
The plaintiffs worked in a ConAgra Snack Foods Group popcorn packaging facility, according to the court.
Popcorn-factory workers, a few consumers and even a retail clerk have alleged in various cases since 2001 that diacetyl caused them respiratory harm. The results in these “popcorn lung” cases have been mixed, with some multimillion-dollar verdicts, some settlements and some defense wins.
The court entered final judgment for Givaudan in the case, disposing of all 27 plaintiffs’ claims.
Allen Wellman McNew Harvey LLP, Humphrey Farrington & McClain, P.C., and Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP represented the plaintiffs.
Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP and Thompson Hine LLP represented Givaudan.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122837279&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122837279&jd=122837279

Return to headline | Return to top
Feds Warn About Cyberattacks On Energy, Industrial Firms

Oct 23, 2017 | The Hill

By Josh Delk

The Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a joint statement on Friday warning of an increased danger posed to infrastructure sectors by a malicious "multi-stage intrusion campaign," which the agencies warned had successfully compromised several of their security networks.
The analysis points to cyberattack campaigns going on since at least May of 2017 that the agencies said have been targeting the aviation, energy and nuclear industries.
The agencies did not name any specific networks that had been compromised by the attacks.
Hackers reportedly used emails and malicious websites in a phishing campaign to obtain the credentials necessary to access and sabotage the networks.
According to the report, the campaigns first focus on "staging targets," third-party and peripheral organizations tied to the primary targets which hackers then use to house their malware for attacks.
The agencies said that the hackers were targeting the company-controlled sites of specific agencies, to access information on equipment and organizational designs and "control-system capabilities" that could be used to further harm the organizations.
The new revelations of hacking attempts represent an escalation of initial threats identified by the agencies in an earlier report provided to Reutersin June, which identified a narrower set of nefarious activity targeting energy, nuclear and manufacturing sectors.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/356540-feds-warn-about-cyber-attacks-on-energy-industrial-firms

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Pollution's Annual Price Tag? $4.6 Trillion and 9 Million Dead

Oct 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By John Tozzi

Pollution in all its forms killed 9 million people in 2015 and, by one measure, led to economic damage of $4.6 trillion, according to a new estimate by researchers who hope to put the health costs of toxic air, water and soil higher on the global agenda.
In less-developed nations, pollution-linked illness and death drag down productivity, reducing economic output by 1 percent to 2 percent annually, according to the tally by the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, published Oct. 19 by the U.K. medical journal. The report is intended to illuminate the hidden health and economic consequences of harmful substances introduced into the environment by human activity.
Diseases caused by pollution account for about one in six deaths worldwide. “I was shocked, when we started running the numbers, to see what a substantial impact it had on health,” said Richard Fuller, co-chairman of the commission and founder of Pure Earth, a nonprofit that cleans up toxic sites in developing countries. Fuller said the report was inspired by conversations he had with finance ministers who wanted evidence that pollution was a real problem.
The report represents an “extremely comprehensive and rigorous quantification” of pollution costs, said Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who wasn't involved in the study.
“In the scientific community, I don't think there is any disagreement about the cost-benefit analysis of controlling pollution,” Dominici said. Reducing air pollution from vehicles and power plants, for example, would simultaneously improve human health and reduce planet-warming carbon emissions, she said. “The major barrier has been political, but not scientific.”
While the scientific and public health consensus on the harms of pollution may be clear, reducing it means confronting “powerful vested interests” that often hold sway over governments, sow doubt about science and “paralyze governmental efforts to establish standards, impose pollution taxes, and enforce laws and regulations,” the Lancet commission's report notes.
Political Will
The study aims to bolster the political will to take on such fights. That's already happening in some places: Chinese President Xi Jinping mentioned the environment more than the economy in his speech this week to the National Congress of the Communist Party, a major gathering of party leaders that happens every five years. Almost 20 percent of deaths in China are attributable to pollution, according to the Lancet commission report. In India and Bangladesh, about a quarter of fatalities are tied to it. In the U.S., meanwhile, less than 6 percent of deaths are attributable to pollution.
The most fatal type of pollution is airborne, causing about 6.5 million of 9 million annual deaths. That includes smog from power plants, factories and vehicles, as well as household emissions from dirty indoor stoves used in poorer countries. Contaminated water, soil and occupational exposures to dangerous chemicals contribute significantly to the death toll as well.
“The costs of pollution-related disease are often overlooked and undercounted,” the report states. Conditions such as heart or lung disease or cancer can take years to manifest and are spread across broad populations. Meanwhile, the burden of pollution-related disease falls disproportionately on the world's most vulnerable people—children and the poor.
The authors argue that countries can separate pollution from economic growth, pointing to the U.S. as an example. Gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, has increased by 250 percent since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. Over the same period, concentrations of such common air pollutants as lead, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide have dropped in the U.S. by 70 percent.

An economic system “in which natural resources and human capital are viewed as abundant and expendable”
Reducing environmental toxins can also yield economic benefits in ways that aren't as apparent as more obvious health benefits. For example, burning leaded gas leaves the pollutant in the air. When children inhale lead-polluted air, they can suffer cognitive impairment.
Children's Lead Levels Down
The levels of lead in children's blood plummeted after regulators began phasing it out of fuel in the 1970s. By the late 1990s, the average IQ of preschoolers had risen by an estimated 2 points to 5 points, according to one analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. That improved cognitive power would lead to greater productivity over their lifetimes, accruing economic benefits calculated at more than $110 billion a year.
But such improvements won't happen on a global scale without a fundamental change to an economic system “in which natural resources and human capital are viewed as abundant and expendable, and the consequences of their reckless exploitation are given little heed,” the authors write.
The Lancet Commission report took two approaches to valuing the costs of pollution. Looking strictly at productivity, the researchers calculated that deaths from pollution reduced gross domestic product by up to 2 percent in low-income countries, and in smaller degrees farther up the income scale. That measurement counts only the lost economic contributions of working-age people, so the cost of deaths of people over 65, for example, wouldn't be included.
The financial benefits that flow from pollution are concentrated among a relatively small group of industries
An alternative approach attempts to quantify the “welfare loss,” essentially a way to put a value on lost life. By estimating how much people are willing to pay to reduce their risk of dying prematurely, economists can put a price tag on the costs of the pollution that increases that risk. In 2015, this number was $4.6 trillion, equivalent to about 6 percent of global economic output and close to the GDP of Japan, the world's third-largest economy.
As large as that figure is, it may even underestimate the full cost of pollution. Because the amount is derived from death rates, it doesn't include the price of medical expenditures or lost productivity from those sickened but not killed by pollution-related disease. And it doesn't measure some forms of pollution that are likely to have health effects, such as soil tainted with heavy metals or industrial toxins, because data to calculate its influence on health are insufficient.
While the harms of pollution are widespread, the financial benefits that flow from it are concentrated among a small group of industries that don't bear the external costs of their activities. Fuller said that, as multinationals have grown more interested in cutting pollution, it's the smaller companies in developing nations that are least willing to comply. In an inventory of toxic sites his organization maintains, he says, the responsible parties are “generally smaller local companies, or even small artisanal activities where people are just making a living.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122837269&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122837269&jd=122837269

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump EPA Removes 'Climate' References From Its State Energy Website

Oct 23, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Lee Logan

The Trump EPA has removed references to “climate change” from an agency webpage that previously offered resources to state and local governments regarding climate adaptation, renewable energy and energy efficiency, with the new site geared only to “energy resources.”
The changes are outlined in an Oct. 17 report made public Oct. 20 by the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI), which is a group of academics and non-profits “addressing potential threats to federal environmental and energy policy,” with a focus on “infrastructure” such as websites or databases.
EPA's prior webpage, which included 380 sub-pages, was titled, “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local and Tribal Governments.”
Now, the page includes 175 sub-pages and is titled “Energy Resources for State, Local and Tribal Governments.”
EDGI notes that many pages were excluded from the new site entirely, and others were moved but “altered significantly.”
It adds that EPA dropped almost all references to “climate change” from the site, including links to state and local “climate action frameworks,” examples of “climate showcase communities,” and a site about tribal climate efforts. It also dropped examples of state and local efforts to adapt to climate change.
“The continued removal of Web content makes it more difficult for the public and for state, local, and tribal governments to access climate-related Web resources,” EDGI says in an Oct. 20 blog post announcing its report. “Moreover, without clear notice from the EPA explaining its decision to remove information and resources, website users may be confused as to why the removals were necessary: was the removed content inaccurate or is there some other kind of justified change in priority or policy?”
The report says the climate-focused page was removed April 28, and that the new energy-focused page was published “approximately three months later.”
Some tools on the site appear to have been left unchanged, the group says, including EPA's Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool, known as AVERT, as well as a resource for states to assess the “multiple benefits” of clean energy.
Data Removal
The report comes amid months of unease from environmentalists and academics over EPA's plans to scrub many mentions of climate-related information from its website.
For instance, the Natural Resources Defense Council launched a Freedom of Information Act suit to force the agency to respond to its request for “all records setting forth general policy or guidance for EPA staff to apply when determining whether to remove information, documents or webpages from an EPA website.”
The website changes were first reported by Inside EPA in January, just as the Trump administration was poised to take office.
That article noted that the agency planned to remove non-regulatory climate data from the website, including references to President Barack Obama's June 2013 Climate Action Plan and strategies to cut the potent greenhouse gas methane, among other information.
EPA in the earliest days of the Trump administration also suspended a plan to remove climate-related information from its website, pending a legal review of the implications of deleting the information, according to another Inside EPA report.
In February, the agency posted a link to an archived version of its website from Jan. 19, the day before President Donald Trump took office. However, observers note that version includes a host of links that are now broken because of changes to the main website.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-removes-climate-references-its-state-energy-website

Return to headline | Return to top
Pruitt Rejects Conservatives' Call To Review GHG Finding In CPP Notice

Oct 20, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the agency does not plan to take comment on the Obama administration's greenhouse gas endangerment finding as part of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for how to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a move likely to disappoint conservatives who have sought an assault on the finding to forestall any future GHG rules.
In an interview with Time, Pruitt calls the endangerment issue “untethered” from, and “unrelated” to, the agency's immediate efforts to repeal the CPP and eventually replace the rule.
“We wouldn't take comments on the endangerment finding as part of the [ANPR],” Pruitt says in the response to a query on whether the agency plans to revisit the finding in tandem with the ANPR. “A lot of people just start with the endangerment finding and the scientific questions about the underpinnings of that. They don't ask about what authority we have to do it ultimately anyway, and both are very important,” he added.
Pruitt's comments on the endangerment finding are consistent with the administrator's long-standing view that targeting the endangerment finding is a much broader battle -- requiring significantly more time and resources than what might be strategic.
Instead, he has launched a relatively narrower attack on the CPP and other Obama-era GHG rules, such as methane rules for the oil and gas industry.
With respect to power plants, Pruitt suggested that the agency might only have “modest” authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions, though he cautioned that this has yet to be determined. “We have been spending many months evaluating section 111 of [the Clean Air Act] to ask and answer the question of what authority exists. And I do believe that there is authority, some modest authority, in section 111 for us to take action.”
“That is something that is yet to be determined, but that is something that we are looking at doing through this [ANPR],” he said.
GHG Endangerment
But Pruitt's comments appear likely to thwart calls from the most aggressive critics of GHG regulation, who have sought to use the Trump administration's CPP repeal-and-replace process as a formal vehicle to begin attacking the agency's GHG endangerment finding.
The Texas Pubic Policy Foundation, for example, in a Sept, 28 meeting urged White House officials to use the upcoming ANPR to resolve the issue of whether the Obama administration should have issued the finding in the first place.
It also charged that the Obama EPA unlawfully failed to make a sector-specific GHG risk finding before issuing the power sector GHG limits.
Although he rejects calls to target the endangerment finding, Pruitt does not rule out a future fight over the GHG finding, and does suggest it could be part of his long-proposed “red team, blue team” public debate on climate science.
Pruitt offered perhaps his most detailed criticisms to date of the process the Obama administration used to develop its finding -- going far beyond statements during his Senate confirmation hearing that the finding is, at least for now, the law of the land.
“This agency took work product of the [United Nations] International Panel on Climate Change, and adopted it and transferred it to this agency and used that as the basic underpinnings of the endangerment finding. That had never happened,” Pruitt said.
“It happened in months, by the way. This agency doesn't build a record in months with respect to these kinds of issues. So it really draws into question: Did this agency engage in a robust, meaningful discussion with respect to the endangerment that [carbon dioxide] poses to this country? And I think by any, any definition about process, they didn't.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-rejects-conservatives-call-review-ghg-finding-cpp-notice

Return to headline | Return to top
Pruitt Says He Doesn't Meet With 'Polluters'

Oct 23, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Kevin Bogardus

U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in new remarks defended meeting with energy companies and business groups that have interests before his agency.
In an interview with Time posted online today, the EPA chief pushed back against criticism from environmental organizations that the majority of his meetings were with representatives of polluting industries. Pruitt instead called them "stakeholders."
"I don't spend any time with polluters. I prosecute polluters. What I'm spending time with are stakeholders that care about outcomes," Pruitt said.
The administrator said it is better for EPA to partner with industries to help reduce pollution and protect the environment.
"I think it's a wrong premise. It's Washington, D.C., think to look at folks across the country — from states to citizens to farmers and ranchers, industry as a general — and say they are evil or wrong and we're not going to partner with them. That's a disservice to achieving good environmental outcomes," Pruitt said.
Pruitt noted he has met with farmers and ranchers in Iowa and North Dakota who care about conservation.
"They are our first environmentalists. Their greatest asset is their land," Pruitt said.
Pruitt's private calendar, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the administrator has met often with executives in the automotive, coal, oil and gas, and utility industries as he has sought to roll back several EPA regulations. His public calendar, which EPA began releasing last month, also shows that Pruitt has kept to an industry-heavy schedule (Greenwire, Sept. 25).
Pruitt also discussed the Clean Power Plan, the signature Obama-era rule designed to curb power plants' carbon emissions. The agency has begun the regulation's repeal process but has yet to offer a replacement.
Pruitt said he saw "some modest authority" under the Clean Air Act's Section 111 for a replacement rule.
"I do believe there's some authority, some modest authority under Section 111, for us to take action. That's something yet to be determined, but that's something we're looking at doing through this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking," Pruitt said.
The EPA administrator also raised questions about the agency's 2009 endangerment finding on carbon dioxide, which serves as the basis for its climate regulations, although he noted that is "untethered" to the repeal process EPA has initiated with the Clean Power Plan.
"It really draws into question, did this agency engage in a robust, meaningful discussion with respect to the endangerment that CO2 poses to this country? And I think by any definition about process, they didn't," Pruitt said.
"That's still untethered. It's unrelated to the obligations we're engaged in — CPP withdrawal, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, those kinds of issues."
Pruitt then touted his idea of a "red team, blue team" exercise to debate climate change science and help build consensus around the issue.
The EPA chief has said he has focused on returning the agency to its core mission and has energized career staff in the process.
"We're going to get the job done. We are getting the job done. We've had many people in this agency come up to me and say, 'We're vitalized in ways that we hadn't been vitalized before.' So that's a good thing," Pruitt said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/10/20/stories/1060064253

Return to headline | Return to top
Pollution Is Responsible For 9 Million Deaths Globally: Two-Thirds Are Due To Air Pollution

Oct 20, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Dr. Ananya Roy

Over the last few weeks as forest fires engulfed large areas of California, air quality in the Bay area plummeted. Doctors and pediatricians were on high alert to deal with the health impacts felt most acutely by children and the elderly. Pediatrician’s offices had phone messages that said “If you are concerned about air pollution and calling to make an appointment for your child’s asthma please dial …” and advised citizens to use face masks and air purifiers and stay indoors. News outlets compared air pollution levels there to winter days in Beijing or New Delhi where air pollution is a more consistent threat. These fires drive home the reality of the effect of pollution on health.
Time and time again pollution related news from across the country and globe have made headlines, ranging from lead and PFOAS in water Flint and Hoosick Falls, benzene in Houston, to the “Airpocalypse” in Beijing and New Delhi. Though these articles highlight the disastrous effects of pollution from major pollution and weather events, the constant and ongoing silent impact of air pollution on the lives of children and communities remains underappreciated.
Today, the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, an initiative of The Lancet, the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP), Pure Earth, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, with additional coordination and input from United Nations Environment, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the World Bank, and others provide the first comprehensive global analysis of the health and economic impacts from all forms of pollution (air, water, soil, occupational). My colleague Elena Craft and I were contributors to this report.
The analysis carried out through the Global Burden of Disease framework estimated that pollution across air, water, soil, and occupational exposures costs the global economy $4.6 trillion per year, approximately 6.2% of global GDP, and resulted in 9 million deaths in 2015. This is equivalent to 16% of all deaths worldwide. Three times more deaths than AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined; and fifteen times more than all wars and other forms of violence.
Of the 9 million deaths, air pollution accounts for 6 million deaths. The remaining 3 million deaths is a woeful underrepresentation of the true burden pollution has on communities. This is because of the lack of data on levels of exposures to known toxicants like mercury, asbestos, and contaminated sites in areas where there is unregulated recycling, mining, industrial activity, or a legacy of known and unknown chemical spills. Further unquantified is the wide spread use/ exposure to chemicals and their health effects.
Pollution affects the most vulnerable. It is intrinsically linked to poverty and development- nearly 92% of pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. More than 50% of air pollution related deaths take place in India and China. Even within countries, pollution’s toll is greatest in poor and marginalized communities. A recent study reports that in 2010, black and Hispanic people in America had 37% higher exposures to air pollution than whites and face more severe health effects due to air pollution. Children face the highest risks because small exposures to air pollution and chemicals in utero and in early childhood can result in lifelong disease and disability, premature death, as well as reduced learning and earning potential. This has an impact on the future generation’s productivity, in addition to downstream effects on equitable economic development in countries battling disparities in health and poverty.
Despite the enormous impact of pollution on health and the interconnection with development, it remains an underfunded issue. The political will to deal with pollution is overshadowed by the perceived trade off with economic development.
Globally, however, there are new shifts in willingness to address pollution. Just this week Xi Jinping, China’s president, emphasized the move toward green development and the importance of the environment. Countriessuch as China and India and cities like Paris and London are making commitments to ban the sale of gasoline cars and switch to electric vehicles within the next 10 to 15 years. The health benefits of this is only going to be realized, however, if the electric power generation utilizes more renewable sources of energy. This is already happening as countries move away from coal for electricity generation.
However, here in the US, our current administration is rolling back environmental protections. Earlier this month, Scott Pruitt, issued a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan outright. Also being reviewed are vehicle emission standards. All this is being done in the guise of promoting the economy and jobs, even as 90,000 Americans die each year due to air pollution alone. EPA’s own analyses show that reducing pollution and growing the economy at the same time is possible, since 1980 air pollution has gone down 65% while the economy has grown by more than 153%.
This report is a reminder that pollution has very real health and economic impacts. Our leaders have a responsibility to protect the health of the people and we need to hold them accountable.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/10/20/pollution-is-responsible-for-9-million-deaths-globally-two-thirds-are-due-to-air-pollution/

Return to headline | Return to top
The Fatal Flaw in California’s Cap-and-Trade Program

Oct 20, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal

By Richard Sexton and Steven Sexton

When California’s Gov. Jerry Brown signed a 10-year extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program this summer, it was heralded as a rebuke of President Trump, who had just announced he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord. While the nation was failing on climate change, the story went, states could succeed. The trouble is that California could leak—like a sieve.
In the decade since Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, first signed the Global Warming Solutions Act, the cap-and-trade program has done little to abate carbon emissions, let alone planetary warming. Under the law, companies in California that emit carbon in their production processes must secure scarce permits for the right to do so. The theory is that this creates an incentive to invest in green power and energy efficiency.
Yet the law’s designers still have not confronted the central conundrum of trying to impose a state or regional climate policy: As firms compete for a limited supply of carbon permits, they are put at a disadvantage to out-of-state rivals. Production flees the state, taking jobs and tax revenues with it. Emissions “leak” outside California’s cap to other jurisdictions.
Lawmakers recognized the problem when they first authorized the program in 2006, instructing its overseers at the state’s Air Resources Board to “limit leakage to the extent feasible.” To comply with the statute, the board has so far given away freely virtually all the permits manufacturers need. This has limited leakage and economic harm, but also obviated the cap-and-trade program’s purpose.
The rules were supposed to be tightened this coming January. As it prepared to curtail dramatically the quantity of permits it gives away, the board commissioned economic studies to determine which industries were most likely to flee the state and result in carbon leakage. The plan was to offer these companies “leakage assistance”—free permits for some or all of their production.
In our view, these studies, although written by skilled economists, were incapable of determining with any scientific certainty which industries pose a high risk of leakage. That task pushes beyond the bounds of available data and economic understanding. Thus, the board’s allocation of “assistance” would be arbitrary and insufficient to meet its statutory obligations. We came to these conclusions in a report we prepared for a state trade association, which was presented to the board staff in February.
As it turns out, the day of reckoning wasn’t coming after all. The recent extension of the cap-and-trade program, along with agreements between Mr. Brown and various stakeholders, allows free permit allocations to continue until 2030. Kicking the can down the road allowed Mr. Brown to enlist industry support and a handful of Republican votes in reauthorizing the cap-and-trade program. But it postpones the realization of any substantial emissions reductions and brings the state no closer to solving the leakage problem.
One solution sometimes floated is for state regulators to impose a border-adjusted carbon tax. Products from other states would be assessed the tax after being imported. When California manufacturers exported products, they would receive a tax refund. That would effectively level the playing field between California companies and those in other states. But this strategy carries a high risk of running afoul of both trade agreements and the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Moreover, determining how much carbon tax to charge for every imported item would not be straightforward. And since international imports are beyond the reach of state regulators, California companies would still be at a competitive disadvantage to firms abroad.
We doubt that California regulators will ever be able to curtail leakage effectively. If they fail, their cap-and-trade experiment could not only hurt the state’s economy but also increase carbon emissions in the end. California has some of the cleanest production in the world, due in large part to its high environmental standards. When production leaks out of the state, its replacement may well be more polluting. China, for instance, emits twice as much carbon as the U.S. per purchasing-power adjusted unit of gross domestic product.
The only way really to solve the leakage problem would be to institute a uniform global price on carbon emissions. That would leave dirty manufacturing with no place to hide. But it’s also a pipe dream. California is the only American state with an economywide cap-and-trade program. Even if the Paris Agreement is sustained without the U.S., it doesn’t remotely guarantee that other countries will pursue the stringent climate policies that would level the playing field for California.
“California is leading the world in dealing with the principal existential threat that humanity faces,” Mr. Brown said during this summer’s signing ceremony. “What could be a more glorious undertaking?” But five years into cap and trade, neither he nor the state’s regulators have shown that regional climate policy can overcome the leakage problem and actually succeed. If they truly want to lead, they need to offer more than hot air.
Richard Sexton is a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Davis. Steven Sexton, his son, is a professor of public policy and economics and a faculty fellow of the energy initiative at Duke University.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fatal-flaw-in-californias-cap-and-trade-program-1508538322

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested