Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 31/10/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Deals yet Another Blow to Independent Science Advice at the EPA
Oct 31, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Genna Reed
Before September, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board was composed of 47 scientists volunteering their time as public servants to help advise the agency on issues ranging from the safety of selected chemicals to the types of models used by the agency to sufficiently study emissions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt to Replace Science Advisers With Industry, State Officials
Oct 31, 2017 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Emily Holden
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to dismiss science advisers who have received agency grants and replace them with representatives of the fossil fuel and chemical industries and a handful of mostly Republican state environment officials, according to a list obtained by an advocacy group. -
(ACC Mentioned) Local: South Lake Tahoe Might Ban Styrofoam
Oct 31, 2017 | The Nevada Sage Brush
The South Lake Tahoe City Council is considering the ban of styrofoam products. The idea of the polystyrene ban was presented by city staff at a council meeting last week. -
(ACC Mentioned) Coalition Touts 'Scientific Evidence,' Scores Surprise Win
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Despite opposition from the powerful flame retardant industry and concerns from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's staff, the commission voted last month to outlaw many household uses of flame retardants — chemicals linked to reproductive problems, decreased childhood IQs, cancer and other health problems (Greenwire, Sept. 28). -
(ACC Mentioned) Cincinnati Lawyer Claims Firefighters’ Gear Hazardous
Oct 31, 2017 | Firefighter Nation
By Earl Reinhardt
The turnout gear that firefighters are encouraged to wear for protection against toxic chemicals at fire scenes could itself be a hazard, according to a lawyer who's demanding a study be done for a group with "unusually high rates of cancer." -
Corals May Have a Taste for Dangerous Plastic
Oct 31, 2017 | The New York Times
By Veronique Greenwood
The ocean is full of plastic. Eight million tons are dumped in the seas every year. Plastic bags have been found in the guts of dead sea turtles, which mistake them for jellyfish. More than 200 species have been documented eating plastic, which looks colorful and edible but can kill them. -
Efsa Publishes Safety Assessment of Food Contact Material Plastic
Oct 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority has published its safety assessment of the substance [3-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)propyl]trimethoxy silane, for use in food contact materials. The substance is a component for sizing glass fibres used for manufacturing glass-fibre-reinforced plastics. -
European Trade Union Body Sees Nanomaterials Observatory Limitations
Oct 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Plans by the European Commission to set up an EU Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON) have been criticised by the European Trade Union Institute, Etui, as "not an ideal option". -
Exxon to Pay Fine, Slash Emissions at 8 Chemical Plants
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Exxon Mobil Corp. will spend about $300 million to reduce flare-related emissions at eight petrochemical plants in Texas and Louisiana, the Justice Department and U.S. EPA announced today. -
Court Agrees to Slow BLM Methane Rule Litigation
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court yesterday granted a request from the Trump administration to slow down litigation over Obama-era standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
N.Y. Regulators Clash With FERC Over Millennium Project Approval
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New York is again asking federal officials to suspend construction of a natural gas pipeline until the state's jurisdictional questions are answered. -
Enviros Make Emergency Bid to Stop Pa. Project
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups are making an urgent request to block construction of a natural gas pipeline in Pennsylvania. -
Toxic Chemical Spill? Wait for Our Fax.
Oct 31, 2017 | Bridge Michigan
By Chad Silweski
from Canada’s Chemical Valley is outdated, overly complicated and often useless in giving Michigan coastal cities timely notice of an environmental threat. -
In Unprecedented Move, EPA to Block Scientists Who Get Agency Funding From Serving as Advisers
Oct 31, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis, and Chris Mooney
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is poised to make wholesale changes to the agency’s key advisory group by jettisoning scientists who have received grants from the EPA and replacing them with industry experts and state government officials. -
UN Environment Chief: US Could Meet Paris Goals Despite Trump
Oct 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The head of the United Nations’ environmental office said Tuesday that he expects the United States to live up to its commitments under the Paris climate deal despite President Trump’s plan to pull out of the agreement. -
Is Pruitt Good for the Environment? He Thinks So
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The U.S. EPA chief has been pilloried by Democrats and environmentalists who say he's gutted environmental regulations, gotten too cozy with the industries he's charged with policing, tried to weaken EPA through budget cuts and pulled environmental cops from enforcement work to serve as his around-the-clock bodyguards.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Deals yet Another Blow to Independent Science Advice at the EPA
Oct 31, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Genna Reed
Before September, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board was composed of 47 scientists volunteering their time as public servants to help advise the agency on issues ranging from the safety of selected chemicals to the types of models used by the agency to sufficiently study emissions.
The process of becoming an SAB member has always come with full ethics disclosures and careful consideration of potential conflicts of interest, from all sources of funding, whether it’s an EPA grant or industry funding. Scientists with agency funding have served on the board ever since the SAB was first formed, and because EPA grants are awarded through a competitive, peer-reviewed process, the objectivity of scientists with EPA grant funding was not likely to be questioned. SAB members with conflicts pertaining to specific subjects have mitigated those by disclosing them and recusing themselves from conversations that might represent a conflict.
After nearly 40 years of operation, it appears that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has decided to change the rules of the SAB and possibly other advisory committees at the agency by ordering that no individuals receiving EPA grant funding can serve on the board. Why would the administrator of an agency whose mission is to protect public health and the environment actively work to ensure that some of our greatest minds wouldn’t be allowed to advise him on pressing scientific questions? No need to ask Pruitt, just ask his friends from the regulated community who have been working to turn conflict of interest on its head at the agency in the name of “balance.”Trade group gets warm and fuzzy about “balance”
The Federal Advisory Committee Act, under which federal advisory committees operate, requires that committees are “fairly balanced,” and it’s up to the agency to determine what that means for each committee. For the EPA SAB, the 2017 charter and membership balance plan explicitly say that balance involves a “range of expertise required to assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues.” For the SAB and CASAC, balance should not be a balance of opinions or interests in the EPA’s policy outcomes. The American Chemistry Council and other industry representatives disagree.
In March, the American Chemistry Council endorsed the EPA SAB Reform Act, writing, “The Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the peer review process—a critical component of the scientific process used by EPA in their regulatory decisions about potential risks to human health or the environment. The Act would make peer reviewers accountable for responding to public comment, strengthen policies to address conflicts of interest, ensure engagement of a wide range of perspectives of qualified scientific experts in EPA’s scientific peer review panels and increase transparency in peer review reports.” The press contact on this release? Liz Bowman. Yes, the same Liz Bowman who is now a spokeswoman at the EPA. A cherry on top of the revolving door sundae.
After the bill passed the House in March, the ACC wrote again, “We urge the Senate to take up the bill and are committed to working with Congress to advance legislation that will enhance accountability and ensure appropriate balance in EPA’s peer review process.”
In May, the American Chemistry Council responded to Pruitt’s dismissal of BOSC members by saying, “A number of people and groups have been concerned in the past the membership of EPA’s scientific advisory boards lacked diversity: diversity of interests, diversity of scientific disciplines, and diversity of backgrounds, resulting in a narrow or biased perspective concerning issues EPA was researching,” Openshaw said. “Everyone benefits when regulations are based on the best available science.”
After the nominees were announced in September, the Heartland Institute told E&E news that: “We applaud any effort by Administrator Pruitt to bring qualified non-alarmist scientists onto the EPA’s advisory boards. There is a vigorous debate over the causes and consequences of climate change, and it’s vital that EPA acknowledge that fact and have a more balanced approach to the agency’s rule-making.”
Administrator Pruitt parroted these same arguments in his announcement on the impending SAB decision made at a recent Heritage Foundation event.What’s in store for the SAB?
The new SAB will consist of five fewer members than it did before, operating with 42 instead of 47 members. According to its new charter, it will also meet fewer times, 6-8 instead of 8-10 each year. While there may be representation from more states in the name of diversity, the number of women scientists on the committee has been slashed by half from nearly 21 to just 10. The decision not to renew the terms of six individuals who had already been fully vetted and were qualified to serve again also breaks with precedent. Additionally, rather than appoint a current SAB member as chair as has been done in the past, it appears that Michael Honeycutt from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will be leading this new board’s deliberations. Honeycutt was one of the individuals I urged Pruitt not to choose last month. Clearly, that plea fell on deaf ears.
The number of industry representatives on the SAB has more than doubled, which doesn’t include the individuals from consulting firms or state governments who have long histories of working very closely with the private sector.
New member Donald van der Vaart wrote an op-ed in 2015 criticizing the North Carolina Attorney General for his support of the Clean Power Plan, which van der Vaart called an “act of overreach” and “federal intrusion.” He supportedMyron Ebell as a suitable leader to run the EPA transition team. He later wrote a letter to President-elect Trump, alleging that the EPA has “run out of control,” is “agenda-driven” and an “autocrat.”
Also on the list are S. Stanley Young and Richard Smith, two of the co-authors on this paper, whose thinking on air pollution science is far outside the mainstream, ignoring long-held and understood concepts about air pollution and health risks.
The American Chemistry Council achieved its request for so-called “balance” to include more industry perspectives on the board, and gained an inside look at the SAB, as long-time staffer Kimberly White will also be a member.
These individuals are likely to dramatically skew science advice to the EPA in a way that will support Pruitt’s decisions to loosen pollution regulations and emissions standards. A hit on the quality of science advice at the EPA is a direct threat to our health and safety.
Fixing advisory committees to reach predetermined conclusions
Last week we introduced the plays of the Disinformation Playbook, often used by companies and trade associations to manipulate or suppress science in order to achieve a specific policy outcome. The way in which Scott Pruitt is stacking the Science Advisory Board to manipulate the science advice process is an example of “The Fix.” Unfortunately, we’ve already seen several examples of this play used by the likes of Dow Chemical Co. and the American Chemistry Council to cast doubt on the science to delay or obstruct public health and safety provisions just within the EPA in the past year.
In light of this blatant attack on independent science at the EPA, we’re calling on Congress to conduct oversight at the agency and to investigate Scott Pruitt’s actions with the SAB, CASAC, and BOSC as potential interference in the scientific process.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/scott-pruitt-deals-yet-another-blow-to-independent-science-advice-at-the-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt to Replace Science Advisers With Industry, State Officials
Oct 31, 2017 | Politico Pro Whiteboard
By Emily Holden
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to dismiss science advisers who have received agency grants and replace them with representatives of the fossil fuel and chemical industries and a handful of mostly Republican state environment officials, according to a list obtained by an advocacy group.
Pruitt has said he wants to eliminate conflicts of interest among the scientists who provide advice to the administrator, but critics and former EPA officials have blasted his plans as an attack on science.
Among the potential appointments to the chartered Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee are employees of the oil companies Total and Phillips 66, as well as the utility Southern Co. and the chemical lobbying group the American Chemistry Council.
The list also includes a researcher from NERA Economic Consulting, an industry-contracted firm whose estimates of the costs of the Paris climate agreement President Donald Trump cited when he moved to exit the deal. The document also lists Michael Honeycutt, head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division, who the Washington Post noted yesterday has questioned the health risks associated with smog.
Pruitt will not renew any members whose terms expired at the end of September. He also will cut short the service of scientists who have received EPA research grants, the list shows.
Terry F. Yosie, who directed the SAB under President Ronald Reagan and is now president of the World Environment Center, said in an email that the move represents a “major purge of independent scientists.”
Pruitt is scheduled to announce the changes at 2 p.m. EPA did not respond to queries.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
(ACC Mentioned) Local: South Lake Tahoe Might Ban Styrofoam
Oct 31, 2017 | The Nevada Sage Brush
The South Lake Tahoe City Council is considering the ban of styrofoam products. The idea of the polystyrene ban was presented by city staff at a council meeting last week.
Items ranged from banning polystyrene takeout food containers to restricting grocery stores from selling egg cartons. According to the RGJ, the council asked the staff to return with more research on how local business might be affected.
The League to Save Lake Tahoe have expressed their support of the ban.
“This year alone we hosted 17 organized cleanup efforts and just with polystyrene, which is expanded foam, we found 2,000 pieces,” said Marilee Movius, community engagement manager for the League. “This does not include other plastics that we also found, which is over 16,000 pieces.”
However, senior director of State Affairs for American Chemistry Council, Tim Shestek, expressed his disapproval of the ban.
“This ordinance falsely assumes that banning one type of food packaging material will result in a reduction in litter; overlooks many environmental benefits associated with polystyrene food service containers; (and) incorrectly assumes biodegradable or compostable alternatives have a lower footprint on the environment,” Shestek said in a statement.
http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2017/10/31/news-in-review-october-30/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Coalition Touts 'Scientific Evidence,' Scores Surprise Win
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
A new coalition of scientists, doctors and advocates for children's health notched a big victory last month.
Despite opposition from the powerful flame retardant industry and concerns from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's staff, the commission voted last month to outlaw many household uses of flame retardants — chemicals linked to reproductive problems, decreased childhood IQs, cancer and other health problems (Greenwire, Sept. 28).
"It's extraordinary for anyone to ban a product these days," said Rena Steinzor, a professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law who worked on reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act as a Capitol Hill staffer in the 1980s.
The win on flame retardants for public health advocates was due in no small part to the coalition, whose goal is "targeting environmental neuro-development risks" and which calls itself Project TENDR.
Eleven of the 31 witnesses who made presentations to the CPSC urging a ban on the use of organohalogen flame retardants in upholstered furniture, bedding, plastic electronics casing and children's products were either participants in TENDR or worked for organizations that include a participant.
Among them was Maureen Swanson, a 49-year-old mother of two, who's TENDR's co-leader and directs the Healthy Children Project at the Pittsburgh-based Learning Disabilities Association of America. Swanson conceived of the project after more than a decade of watching evidence pile up of toxic chemicals' dangers to children and the failure of state and federal governments to address the threats.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the co-author of the first significant overhaul of TSCA since it was enacted in 1976, supports the project because it has added new, authoritative voices to the call for stronger chemical safeguards.
"Maureen and Project TENDR have been incredible partners in this effort," he told E&E News. "They make a very significant contribution because of the expertise that they bring to this issue. They're respected scientists, neuroscientists, pediatricians, health professionals — all of these types of professionals don't necessarily weigh in on issues like this."
TENDR officially joined the cause in July 2016 with a bold "consensus statement," two years in the making, that sent waves through the research community, mainstream media and, now, the federal government.
Published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the statement called out six of the most dangerous chemical classes that research shows "can contribute to learning, behavioral or intellectual impairment" in children and called for immediate action to ban them. It was covered by The New York Times, CNN and several other major news outlets and has since spurred follow-up papers in several scientific journals.
Among the statement's "prime examples of neurodevelopmentally toxic chemicals": polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PDBEs, which are chemically similar to the flame retardants the CPSC moved to virtually ban last month, at TENDR's urging.'Making it up as we went'
Swanson came up with the concept for the project in 2014 with Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a University of California, Davis, professor, who had been invited to speak at the Learning Disabilities Association's annual conference in Anaheim, Calif. Hertz-Picciotto is one of the first epidemiologists to examine the role environmental factors play in the development of autism (Greenwire, Jan. 15, 2013).
Around that time, Swanson said in an interview, "I felt like I was hearing the same thing from a lot of different scientists. And they were saying that the science was ripe for them to say something definitive about toxic chemicals and brain development."
After Hertz-Picciotto's presentation, Swanson and the scientist discussed over dinner — surrounded by children and their families at the Disneyland Hotel — the evidence pointing to the threats chemicals pose to developing brains.
"I was impressed that she was conversant in all of the scientific literature," Hertz-Picciotto, who is two decades older than Swanson, recalled in a phone interview. "She knew the papers and knew the names of all the authors."
Their meal lasted for "hours," Swanson said. "We talked and talked because really it was the germination of TENDR."
But Hertz-Picciotto, who hadn't been an activist since her arrest during the 1968 student strikes at the University of California, Berkeley, said she didn't sign on with Swanson until all the dishes had been cleared.
"At the end of the meeting, she said, 'Well, are you interested in that issue?'" the professor recalled. "Nobody had ever asked me that" since entering academia, she said. "And the idea that I could help move the science forward towards change certainly was something that I was interested in, and I said 'yes.'"
The question then was, how to put that research into action?
"The only thing I could come up with was, we need to get a group of people together and come up with something," Hertz-Picciotto said.
Swanson was dogged in her pursuit of that concept.
"Every two weeks for a few months, she would call me back and we would flesh out this idea of bringing people together," Hertz-Picciotto said.
Soon Swanson, whose Learning Disabilities Association post is entirely grant funded, reached out to public health foundations to help support the idea. The John Merck Fund, Ceres Trust, Passport Foundation and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences quickly backed the endeavor.
"We were making it up as we went," the advocate admitted.
"Our initial proposal was for a consensus-building process and then an in-person meeting. At first, that's all we were envisioning. And I somewhat naively thought that we would come out of that in-person meeting with a consensus statement," she said with a laugh. "We came out with a draft."
Getting to publication would ultimately take over $150,000 in grant funding, a literature review, two surveys, four conference calls, and another in-person meeting with more than 40 top scientists and doctors.
"It was not a document that a few people drafted and everybody else signed on to," Swanson said. "It was a document that we painstakingly deliberated over and researched and reworded."
The statement argues that "the current system in the United States for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is fundamentally broken." It urges regulators "to follow scientific guidance for assessing how chemicals affect brain development," businesses "to eliminate neuro-developmental toxicants from their supply chains and products," and health professionals "to integrate knowledge" about those chemicals into their practices.
It was endorsed or formally supported by nine scientific or medical societies, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Building on 'consensus'
When it was published, The New York Times described the landmark statement as "a call for action on toxic chemicals."
But the chemical industry's top lobbying group dismissed the rallying cry. The American Chemistry Council, which declined to comment for this article, told the Times the TSCA overhaul "will give Americans greater confidence that chemicals in commerce are being used safely."
The law, the ACC noted, includes provisions that give U.S. EPA more authority to take into account the effect of chemicals on vulnerable populations like pregnant women, children and the elderly.
Ensuring that the agency uses those new powers, however, remains a challenge, Udall said.
"When you get a good law, you have to have implementation," he said. "The end of the story isn't you passed the law and now everything is going great."
The TSCA reform leader called the Trump EPA's early efforts to weaken chemical safety regulations proposed by the previous administration "very troubling."
But TENDR and Swanson, who lives in Hermitage, Pa., a city of 16,000 people near the Ohio line, are closely following EPA's moves.
She travelled to Washington this spring to speak at a congressional briefing on lead that was organized by Udall and at a news conference supporting his legislation to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos after the agency killed a proposal to outlaw it (E&E Daily, July 26).
The project, which is co-led by Hertz-Picciotto, also sent a letter signed by 115 scientists and health professionals to Senate appropriators this month. They called for maintaining or increasing funding on EPA standards and programs that protect children's and pregnant women's health and enable the agency to protect communities from pesticides and toxic chemicals.
"Having these professionals interested in that is important," Udall said.
In the wake of the Consumer Product Safety Commission victory, TENDR will continue to conduct scientific research on the priority chemicals targeted in the consensus statement. Swanson and Hertz-Picciotto are also planning another meeting with TENDR's 56 participating members to plot a longer-term strategy for the project.
"We've got initiatives and articles underway on lead, organophosphate pesticides, air pollutants, and phthalates as well as the flame retardants," Swanson said. "Our scientists, advocates and health professionals are putting our policy recommendations together and preparing articles for submission and then planning the next step of taking that information to policymakers and the public to see if we can help, in collaboration with a lot of others, to effect change — to get some of these other neurotoxic chemicals off the market."
Steinzor, the University of Maryland law professor, would like to see TENDR grow into something more permanent — and powerful.
"As someone who's been involved with nurturing an organization that is composed of legal academics, I know how hard it is to get people organized when they're so busy," she said, referring to her role as the founder of the Center for Progressive Reform. "What they really need is a small staff that can help them magnify their voice."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/31/stories/1060065185
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cincinnati Lawyer Claims Firefighters’ Gear Hazardous
Oct 31, 2017 | Firefighter Nation
By Earl Reinhardt
The turnout gear that firefighters are encouraged to wear for protection against toxic chemicals at fire scenes could itself be a hazard, according to a lawyer who's demanding a study be done for a group with "unusually high rates of cancer."
Cincinnati lawyer Robert A. Bilott notified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt last month that he intends to sue the government unless work begins on developing the study. The letter also was sent to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
The chemicals that concern Bilott are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoralkyl, collectively known as PFAs. They were used in firefighting foam and turnout coats worn by firefighters. They are popular because of their slick surfactant properties that help turnout coats shed oil, gasoline and hazardous chemicals and foam spread.
In his letter, Bilott gave the officials until Nov. 5 to respond to avoid "a citizen's suit."
He had not heard back from the officials as of Friday. A Dispatch request for an EPA interview also went unanswered.
Bilott has experience fighting PFAs in court. In 2000, he sued DuPont on behalf of 3,500 plaintiffs who claimed to have been sickened by water tainted with perfluorooctanoic acid, a PFOA commonly called C8, dumped into the Ohio River. He alleged it killed a farmer's cows and sickened humans. A panel of scientists concluded there was a probable link between C8 and kidney and testicular cancer and four other ailments. In February, DuPont agreed to settle for $670 million.
Now, Bilott is concerned the same chemicals are contributing to the high incidence of cancer among firefighters, who are 14 percent more likely to contract cancer than the general public, according to "Unmasked," an investigative series of stories in The Dispatch last week. The newspaper found that firefighters are dying more from cancer than from fires because they don't always wear the gear that protects them from hazardous materials.
"For many years, unusually high rates of cancer and other adverse health effects have been observed among our nation's firefighters and emergency responders, particularly among responders who handle or use firefighting foam ... or wear gear treated or made with such PFAs materials," he wrote in his letter to Pruitt.
He recommended the government form a science panel, like the one convened for the DuPont/C8 trial.
Representatives of the chemical industry said such a panel is unnecessary because the hazardous PFAs were phased out in 2015 per a voluntary program.
"For the most part the industry has moved to C6, which has already been studied and shown is not toxic," said Jessica Bowman, senior director for Global Fluoro-Chemistry for the American Chemistry Council.
Bowman said Class B firefighting foam is still made with PFOA but is reserved for hazardous spills, such as tanker-truck crashes or rail-car collisions involving fuel spills. Most cities use Class A foam that is biodegradable and doesn't have the same hazardous properties.
While PFAs have known detrimental health effects, chemicals such a C6 have "very different profiles from a human health" perspective, she said.
Bilott would not comment on studies of C6. However, while fighting DuPont, he was skeptical of DuPont's claims that its laboratory had adequately tested C8 and approved its use as safe for people. Years later, the science panel said there was a probable link between the chemical and cancer.
Bill Houk is president of the Ohio Fire Chiefs' Association. He's unfamiliar with Bilott's concern, but wouldn't oppose the study he suggests.
"I think we would support gathering more information," Houk said. "Every fire chief is trying to make sure his firefighters go home every day."
His gut reaction is there might be something to what Bilott says. But until there's a decision otherwise, he knows donning the gear to fight the hazard outweighs the possible danger of not wearing it.
http://www.firefighternation.com/articles/2017/10/cincinnati-lawyer-claims-firefighters-gear-hazardous.html
-
Corals May Have a Taste for Dangerous Plastic
Oct 31, 2017 | The New York Times
By Veronique Greenwood
The ocean is full of plastic. Eight million tons are dumped in the seas every year. Plastic bags have been found in the guts of dead sea turtles, which mistake them for jellyfish. More than 200 species have been documented eating plastic, which looks colorful and edible but can kill them.
In lab experiments, even tiny corals, the organisms that make up reefs, have been observed nibbling on a confetti of broken down plastic fragments similar to what swirls through the depths. But they aren’t just eating whatever floats by. Instead, according to a new study in Marine Pollution Bulletin, some of the chemicals infused in the plastic may actually taste like food to the corals.
It isn’t yet clear how much plastic is consumed by corals in the wild, or what harm it might do to these important marine organisms, which are already threatened by environmental dangers like warming seas and pollution. But understanding why plastic might appeal to them is important, especially because some particles appear to get stuck in the corals, potentially disrupting their digestive process.
Hundreds of chemicals are mixed into plastics to achieve certain textures or other characteristics. Because the corals sense the presence of food with receptors, it would not be all that surprising if some chemical additives mimicked substances that set off the corals’ appetites, suggested Alexander Seymour and Austin Allen, who were both graduate students at Duke University when they led this study.
In their experiment, the researchers offered corals collected from North Carolina’s coastal waters two different kinds of plastic to see what would be more popular: older plastic, weathered in seawater and covered with a thin layer of bacteria, or plastic fresh from the factory. The corals seemed to prefer the newer plastic, ingesting more of it than the older shards.
The difference between the consumption of new and old plastic could come down to the concentrations of additive chemicals. Perhaps the microbes on weathered plastic kept those added compounds from reaching the corals as swiftly. Or maybe the microbes produced substances that kept the corals from eating them as quickly.
Daniel Rittschof, the pair’s adviser, and other members of the lab are now working to verify whether specific substances in plastic are tasty to marine invertebrates. Finding out what these are and how they work could have far-reaching implications.
“If we could manufacture plastic to taste attractive, maybe we can manufacture plastic to taste repulsive,” Mr. Seymour said. “Maybe we can prevent critters from eating plastic in the first place.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/science/corals-plastic-taste.html?_r=0
-
Efsa Publishes Safety Assessment of Food Contact Material Plastic
Oct 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority has published its safety assessment of the substance [3-(2,3-epoxypropoxy)propyl]trimethoxy silane, for use in food contact materials. The substance is a component for sizing glass fibres used for manufacturing glass-fibre-reinforced plastics. Based on the toxicological data, the Efsa panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) concluded the substance has genotoxic potential. This may also apply to some of its reaction products that contain the epoxy function. However, due to the very low exposure, if any, there is not a safety concern if used as a component of sizing agents to treat glass fibres embedded into low diffusivity plastics (PET, PC, PBT, thermoset polyesters and epoxy bisphenol vinylester) in contact with all foodstuffs. In addition, the residues in the treated glass fibres must not be detectable at 10µg/kg for the substance and 60µg/kg for each of the reaction products (hydrolysed monomers and epoxy-containing cyclic dimer, trimer and tetramer). This may also apply to some of the reaction products that contain the epoxy function
https://chemicalwatch.com/60637/efsa-publishes-safety-assessment-of-food-contact-material-plastic.
-
European Trade Union Body Sees Nanomaterials Observatory Limitations
Oct 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Plans by the European Commission to set up an EU Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON) have been criticised by the European Trade Union Institute, Etui, as "not an ideal option".
In a policy brief, Etui propose an alternative monitoring scenario "based on rules that would ensure transparency and improve the ability of national authorities to track the materials along the supply chain".
This would also ensure adequate exchange of information on safety at all stages, they suggest.
And the organisation urges policy makers to make use of foresight and ethics to "address fast-moving technological convergence and the new frontiers of science and technology".
The policy brief, EU Observatory for Naomaterials: a constructive view on future regulation is written by Aída Ponce Del Castillo, an Etui researcher in the Foresight Unit in Brussels and Hildo Krop, director at KropConsult in Utrecht.
Echa launched EUON, a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market in June.
But the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) expressed disappointment shared by NGOs that the Commission had opted for listing existing information, rather than demanding new data.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60623/european-trade-union-body-sees-nanomaterials-observatory-limitations
-
Exxon to Pay Fine, Slash Emissions at 8 Chemical Plants
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Exxon Mobil Corp. will spend about $300 million to reduce flare-related emissions at eight petrochemical plants in Texas and Louisiana, the Justice Department and U.S. EPA announced today.
The settlement, which is expected to reduce releases of benzene, volatile organic compounds and other pollutants by more than 8,500 tons per year, also requires the oil giant to pay a $2.5 million fine, according to a news release summarizing the terms of the agreement.
Under the agreement, Exxon will have to install new equipment to curb pollution from 26 industrial flares at the eight plants.
Five of the facilities are in Texas and three are in Baton Rouge, La. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a key ingredient in ground-level ozone; long-term exposure to benzene has been linked to cancer.
The settlement "demonstrates the Justice Department's continuing efforts, alongside EPA and our state partners, to protect the American public from these harmful pollutants by bringing sources of air pollution into compliance with the Clean Air Act," Jeffrey Wood, acting chief of DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in the release.
In a separate settlement also announced today, Colorado-based PDC Energy Inc. will pay a $2.5 million fine and spend a projected $18 million on upgrades and other improvements to reduce VOC emissions from condensate storage tanks. The fine will be split between the federal government and Colorado.
PDC will also have to invest $1.7 million in environmental mitigation projects to further curb emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides, according to a separate news release. The deal is expected to cut VOC releases by more than 1,600 tons per year, the release said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/31/stories/1060065189
-
Court Agrees to Slow BLM Methane Rule Litigation
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court yesterday granted a request from the Trump administration to slow down litigation over Obama-era standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
In a move that disappointed industry groups, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming agreed to put off upcoming deadlines for briefs in the case.
At issue is the Bureau of Land Management's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule. The Obama administration finalized the measure last year, drawing quick lawsuits from several states and industry groups.
Trump officials are now working to freeze the rule and asked the Wyoming court to delay briefing in the litigation while they go through that process.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance opposed the delay, urging the court to keep the case on schedule so they can get a swift decision on the Obama rule in case BLM's effort to roll back the measure drags out longer than expected.
They're concerned drillers will be forced to comply with costly elements of the rule that kick in in January if the administration's rollback effort is sidelined.
Judge Scott Skavdahl sided with the administration yesterday, agreeing to extend deadlines for merits briefs.
"While the Court recognizes and appreciates Petitioners' concerns about the 'atmosphere of compliance uncertainty' created by the roller coaster ride this matter has been on, the Court finds another extension of the briefing deadlines warranted," he wrote.
Skavdahl noted that the legal issues in the case are intertwined with practical issues related to how the methane rule is crafted.
"To move forward in light of the BLM's continued efforts to suspend and revise the present Rule would be an inefficient use and likely waste of both the judiciary's and the parties' resources," he wrote.
An industry lawyer said he was reviewing the decision.
But the oil and gas industry may have another path to regulatory relief in that court, if needed. The groups last week asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would block BLM from enforcing the rule. Skavdahl will hear arguments for and against the request on Dec. 18.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/31/stories/1060065129
-
N.Y. Regulators Clash With FERC Over Millennium Project Approval
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New York is again asking federal officials to suspend construction of a natural gas pipeline until the state's jurisdictional questions are answered.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week gave the go-ahead for Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC to start building its Valley Lateral Project.
But the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied a water permit for that pipeline last month, and yesterday it said FERC still hasn't addressed the question of why that denial was invalid.
New York is trying to keep alive a peculiar legal debate about when it received the application. The result may affect state powers over construction of gas pipelines.
FERC has argued that New York took too long — over a year — to review the project's water application, thus ceding its right to do the review (Energywire, Sept. 18).
NYSDEC fired back on Oct. 13, saying it was within its rights because it acted within a year of a complete application.
The state also argued that the relevant federal statute is ambiguous about the timeline and that states' interpretation trumps FERC's (Energywire, Oct. 17).
FERC's Office of Energy Projects last week ignored New York's protest, saying Valley Lateral had all the required federal permits. The office also approved project modifications that, it said, would reduce damage to bodies of water and wetlands.
Yesterday, NYSDEC said FERC shouldn't let construction begin before addressing the state's protest.
"FERC's Notice to Proceed acts as a functionally dispositive authorization absent resolution of the important regulatory and jurisdictional issues framed in the Department's Request for Rehearing and Motion for Reopening," the state said. "That determination can be reviewed by a court."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/31/stories/1060065131
-
Enviros Make Emergency Bid to Stop Pa. Project
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups are making an urgent request to block construction of a natural gas pipeline in Pennsylvania.
In an emergency motion yesterday, a coalition of groups urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to stop the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline from moving forward in Pennsylvania.
The 200-mile pipeline, backed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC, is set to stretch across Pennsylvania to connect Marcellus Shale gas to an existing network of East Coast infrastructure. The Allegheny Defense Project, the Sierra Club and others sued over federal regulators' approval of the project earlier this year, arguing that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's review of the pipeline did not fully consider its impacts.
But Transco, with additional state permits in hand, is moving forward swiftly with pipeline construction, prompting environmentalists' emergency motion yesterday.
"Without a stay, construction could render moot full and complete relief that this Court could grant," they told the D.C. Circuit. "Petitioners' members would suffer irreparable injuries to their property and to their aesthetic and environmental interests without being afforded their day in court."
The request illustrates a timing issue that often frustrates pipeline opponents, who argue that projects are often able to complete construction before legal challenges make their way through the courts.
They're urging the D.C. Circuit to freeze construction and order FERC to conduct a broader environmental review that takes a second look at whether the pipeline is even needed.
"If it is built, the people of Pennsylvania will be stuck with the dirty, dangerous fracked gas Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline for decades," Tom Torres, conservation program manager for the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. "Transco has been ignoring the widespread concerns about this project since the beginning, rushing the process and cutting out the families and communities who would be most affected by this pipeline project."
FERC does not comment on pending litigation.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/31/stories/1060065127
-
Toxic Chemical Spill? Wait for Our Fax.
Oct 31, 2017 | Bridge Michigan
By Chad Silweski
from Canada’s Chemical Valley is outdated, overly complicated and often useless in giving Michigan coastal cities timely notice of an environmental threat.
Michigan officials say hours can pass before they are told of oil or chemical spills into the St. Clair River. Given the river’s swift current, a delay of over an hour from the Sarnia, Ontario facilities makes the warnings of limited value to coastal communities south of Port Huron, critics say.
MORE COVERAGE: Chemical Valley and the threat to Michigan’s drinking water
Officials overseeing the byzantine system concede that alerts sometimes pass through up to five government agencies in Canada and the U.S. before they reach cities and towns along a spill’s path.
In addition, many of the roughly 60 factories within Chemical Valley announce spill alerts not through some high-tech form of automated mass communication. Rather, they alert Sarnia police through a relic of pre-9/11 technology: the fax machine.
“A rat in a maze couldn’t follow the diagram that tells officials who to contact next,” Doug Martz, who served as chairman of the Macomb County Water Quality Board until it was disbanded in 2011, said of the Canadian warning system.
“In today’s age, it makes no sense,” he said. “Does the system work? Absolutely not.”Lots of grumbling, little change
Oil and chemical spills from the Sarnia factories flow through the St. Clair River into Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. What’s left of a spill would head further south into Lake Erie. A delay in reporting spills means the damage may have already been done by the time local health departments and drinking water plants in metro Detroit receive word of an accident.
Officials on the U.S. side, mostly from St. Clair and Macomb counties, have registered complaints about Canada’s alert system for more than a decade following spills in 2004, 2011, 2012 and again last year.
To this day, FAX machines are still used by 20 companies at Chemical Valley to notify Sarnia police and EMS about spills or air emissions that present a potential health hazard.
From there, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in Toronto is notified. That agency then warns Michigan State Police, which uses the computerized Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) to alert local police along with the state Department of Environmental Quality. DEQ say it then activates a warning network that spreads information from its Lansing headquarters to its southeast Michigan district office in Warren, which notifies local health officials if a potential public safety emergency is determined.
Water plant operators are sometimes the last to know.
Some recent spills have renewed concerns about the alert system. Bridge obtained descriptions of spill alerts since 2014 from Michigan DEQ and a bi-national committee that oversees environmental improvement efforts on the river.
In April 2016, when Imperial Oil spilled an unknown amount of diluted hydrofluoric acid, a toxic substance that can poison people through exposure, into the St. Clair River, local officials on the U.S. side were not notified until about two days later.
This past February, when a fire broke out at Chemical Valley, Michigan’s St. Clair County learned of it through social media, not through the warning system. As orange flames rose through the sky, an official on the U.S. side of the border said, “some feared for their lives, they thought the whole thing was blowing up.” A spokesman for Chemical Valley industries said Canadian authorities were not alerted about the blaze because it was determined that the public “was not in imminent danger.”
During another chemical release that same month from Shell Oil, the company’s phone line available for concerned residents was not in service. And an emergency number listed for a local Canadian fire department instead directed callers to an auto dealership in Omaha, Nebraska.
Still, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment insists the notification system functions properly.
“The ministry remains committed to ensuring timely notification to partners during emergencies and supports discussions between officials on our joint agreements to ensure this occurs,” said Lindsay Davidson, an agency spokesman.
He did not comment on individual incidents.
Beyond slow response times, internal documents reveal other shortcomings.
In some cases, spill warnings never made their way to DEQ. Others did not include basic information such as the source of the leak, the pollutant involved, or the volume of contaminants released.
Jeff Friedland, a St. Clair County official, said he relies on “a roller coaster ride of information sharing” from Canada that too often breaks down.
Friedland serves as the county’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management director, a title that has varied a bit during his 26 years on the job. His county is situated on the front lines, about a quarter mile across the St. Clair from Chemical Valley. St. Clair County is home to several water plants from Port Huron south to Algonac, where the river flows into Lake St. Clair.
Given the “history of events” impacting downstream communities, Friedland said the region faces as much of an environmental threat as anywhere in the Great Lakes basin.
After years of trying to establish better communication with factories and government officials across the river, Friedland said he accomplished a breakthrough earlier this year: Shell and the Sarnia Police Department agreed to put him on the list of those notified immediately when a spill occurs.
Officials in downstream areas of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties are not on that list. They still rely on a bureaucratic chain of government alerts before they are told about possible threats to public health.
http://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/michigans-future-stake-fixing-public-education
-
In Unprecedented Move, EPA to Block Scientists Who Get Agency Funding From Serving as Advisers
Oct 31, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis, and Chris Mooney
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is poised to make wholesale changes to the agency’s key advisory group by jettisoning scientists who have received grants from the EPA and replacing them with industry experts and state government officials.
The move represents a fundamental shift, one that could change the scientific and technical advice that historically has guided the agency as it crafts environmental regulations. The decision to bar any researcher who receives EPA grant money from serving as an adviser appears to be unprecedented.
A list of expected appointees to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, obtained by The Washington Post from multiple individuals familiar with the appointments, include several categories of experts — voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations. They would replace a number of scientists who currently have agency grants and whose terms are expiring.
The formal list of appointees is scheduled to be announced Tuesday.
Terry F. Yosie, who was the advisory board’s director during the Reagan administration, said the changes “represent a major purge of independent scientists and a decision to sideline the SAB from major EPA decision-making in the future.”
The EPA could not immediately be reached for comment, but Pruitt suggested in a speech this month at the Heritage Foundation that he planned to rid the agency’s scientific advisory boards of researchers with EPA funding. He argued that the current structure raises questions about their independence, though he did not voice similar objections to industry-funded scientists.
“What’s most important at the agency is to have scientific advisers that are objective, independent-minded, providing transparent recommendations,” Pruitt said at the time. “If we have individuals who are on those boards, sometimes receiving money from the agency . . . that to me causes questions on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way.
Among the likely appointees are sharp proponents of deregulation who have argued both in academic circles and while serving in government that federal regulators need to raise the bar before imposing new burdens on the private sector.
John D. Graham, who now serves as dean of Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, launched a major deregulatory push while head of the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under George W. Bush. He repeatedly informed agencies that they had not sufficiently justified the rules they wanted to enact, establishing a process under the Data Quality Act that allowed petitioners to ask agencies to withdraw information that did not meet OMB standards for “quality, objectivity, utility and integrity.”
In an interview with The Post in 2004, Graham said regulations are “a form of unfunded mandate that the federal government imposes on the private sector or on state or local governments.”
Anne Smith, who serves as managing director of NERA Economic Consulting and co-heads its environmental practice, belongs to a firm that has done extensive work for groups that fought the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda. In June, President Trump cited a report NERA produced for the American Council for Capital Formation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when announcing his decision to exit the international Paris climate agreement. The report projected that meeting America’s commitment under the accord would mean “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”
That study was based on several assumptions, including the idea that the United States would meet its emissions targets not by maximizing energy efficiency or other low-cost approaches but by forcing the industrial sector to cut emissions by 40 percent between 2005 and 2025. The report did “not take into account potential benefits” from cutting greenhouse gas emissions or technological advances that could make cutting carbon emissions cheaper.
After Trump’s use of these statistics drew criticism, NERA issued a statement saying that the 2016 report “study was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris agreement, nor does it purport to be one.”
At least three of the listed appointees have backgrounds working for large corporations whose activities are or could potentially be regulated by the EPA, including the French oil giant Total, Phillips 66 and Southern Co., one the largest U.S. utilities.
One of them, Larry Monroe, was previously chief environmental officer at Southern, which has millions of customers in the Southeast. Monroe has particular expertise in how the EPA regulated emissions from coal-fired power plants and criticized the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which Pruitt is trying to roll back. Monroe argued that the plan, which was intended to reduce carbon emissions, was “unworkable and would increase electricity prices to customers while hurting reliability.”
In addition, the group of new appointees include those who have, like Pruitt, battled the EPA in the past. They include Michael Honeycutt, head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division; he has suggested that the health risks associated with smog are overstated. Another expected appointee is Donald van der Vaart, the former secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, who has called Obama-era efforts to slash carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and to regulate water quality in the nation’s rivers and wetlands “glaring examples of federal overreach.”
The move to prohibit anyone receiving EPA grant money from serving on the board has prompted questions and criticism from independent researchers and from some of the agency’s current advisers, who noted that they follow strict ethics procedures to avoid conflicts of interest.
Robyn Wilson, an Ohio State University professor and an advisory board member who specializes in risk analysis, said in an interview Monday that she received a grant this year to work on a project evaluating the extent to which federal funds spent on restoring the Great Lakes have made an impact. The agency approved a roughly $750,000 grant that will be divided among about 10 researchers at three different institutions; about $150,000 would go to Ohio State.
“You want people there with expertise, who have experience with the issues EPA is dealing with,” Wilson said, adding that with each assignment board members must “go through a pretty elaborate conflict of interest process” to make clear that they don’t have a stake in the outcome.
“I just study how farmers make decisions,” she added. “Whether EPA regulates something or not, that doesn’t play into what I do.”
Angela Nugent, who previously worked for the EPA as the designated federal officer for the board, said that the determination regarding EPA grants would differ from how the agency used to determine when a conflict of interest had occurred.
“It would be a major departure from current policy” to assume that board members have a conflict of interest based on their grants without looking at the actual situation in which they are being asked to do their work and how those grants might affect it, she said.
In the past, Nugent said, the board has required financial disclosures from members in relation to each particular study or project on which they were advising. Determinations of conflict of interest were then made relating to the specifics of the subject matter conflicts, rather than a blanket bar because an individual had an EPA grant.
Current advisory members reached out to Pruitt on Sept. 13, formally asking him to meet with them so they could discuss his agenda and their role in advising the agency.
“Such a meeting would afford you the opportunity to highlight EPA activities and priorities and would allow for a dialogue on how best the SAB can work to ensure the highest quality science supports Agency’s policies and decisions,” wrote board chair Peter Thorne, a professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa. “The SAB stands ready to serve and encourages you to take full advantage of the vital resource we can provide.”
Pruitt has not met with the group.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/30/in-unprecedented-shift-epa-to-prohibit-scientists-who-receive-agency-funding-from-serving-as-advisers/?utm_term=.14f543ab5266
-
UN Environment Chief: US Could Meet Paris Goals Despite Trump
Oct 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The head of the United Nations’ environmental office said Tuesday that he expects the United States to live up to its commitments under the Paris climate deal despite President Trump’s plan to pull out of the agreement.
Erik Solheim, the director of the U.N. Environment Program, said the U.S. could achieve its goals because “all the big American companies are dedicated to go in the green direction,” The Associated Press reports.
He added, that, despite Trump, “at the end of the day ... the private sector and business are now driving the agenda” in the United States.
Solheim’s comments came as the United Nations released a new reportcalling on the world’s nations to do more to tackle climate change.
The report concluded the greenhouse gas reduction goals established in the Paris deal are only one-third of what is necessary to keep the Earth from warming by more than 2 degrees Celsius. That’s the level at which scientists believe the worst effects of climate change will kick in, and the Paris agreement aims to prevent that much warming.
Trump in June said he would pull the United States out of the Paris deal, under which the Obama administration had pledged a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump can’t formally take the U.S. out of the deal until 2020 at the earliest.
Many large American businesses, including some energy firms, pushed Trump to stay in the agreement rather than pull the U.S. out, calling climate change a threat and promising to reduce emissions on their own.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/357976-un-environment-chief-us-could-meet-paris-goals-despite-trump
-
Is Pruitt Good for the Environment? He Thinks So
Oct 31, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt is trying to change his image.
The U.S. EPA chief has been pilloried by Democrats and environmentalists who say he's gutted environmental regulations, gotten too cozy with the industries he's charged with policing, tried to weaken EPA through budget cuts and pulled environmental cops from enforcement work to serve as his around-the-clock bodyguards.
Now Pruitt's fighting back in what appears to be a concerted effort to paint himself as an environmental enforcer.
"I don't spend any time with polluters. I prosecute polluters," he told Time in an interview earlier this month when he was asked about criticisms surrounding his industry-friendly approach.
In a separate interview this month with Bloomberg, Pruitt vowed "to go after bad actors and go after polluters." He said of his critics, "They don't know me. ... I've led a grand jury. We are going to do enforcement."
A day later on Twitter, he posted a photo of himself addressing EPA's criminal enforcement investigators who he said were "working hard to ensure bad actors are held accountable."
The post came shortly after an EPA official revealed that most of the criminal investigators who had been tasked to Pruitt's security detail were returning to their regular enforcement jobs (Greenwire, Oct. 20). Pruitt came under fire from critics after special agents were pulled from the criminal enforcement staff to help fill in the gaps in his 24/7 security detail — unprecedented coverage for an EPA administrator.
The recent batch of interviews and social media posts portraying Pruitt as an EPA chief who's tough on polluters comes after months of Pruitt describing himself as a defender of EPA's "core mission" of protecting clean air and water.
From his first day in office, Pruitt sought to depict himself as someone who would refocus an agency that had overstretched itself tackling climate change, support state authority to regulate the environment and return EPA to focusing on conventional pollutants.
"Before he was confirmed, Administrator Pruitt said that he planned to enforce environmental laws and hold those that violate them accountable," said EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox.
Some of his supporters think he's gotten a bad rap.
"He's been going after brownfields and toxic waste sites. Of course a lot more needs to be done, but that's where the EPA should focus, and he's looking at practical environmental solutions," said Ed Russo, a former environmental consultant for the Trump Organization and the author of "Donald J. Trump: An Environmental Hero."
Russo said environmentalists have been paying too much attention to climate change and that the "climate's always changing." Instead, he said, "the focus should be on reducing pollution" and cleaning up hazards like "toxic waste dumps."
Still, plenty of Pruitt's foes in the environmental world doubt his sincerity.
"You would expect someone in that job would try to find a couple of easy things so he can confuse the bigger picture," said Frank O'Donnell, the president of the nonprofit Clean Air Watch.
While Pruitt has made much of his "back-to-basics" agenda, O'Donnell said there was no evidence to support that the Obama administration's climate focus hurt the agency's efforts to control more conventional air pollutants like soot and smog.
O'Donnell also said that the climate regulations Pruitt is working on undoing would also have slashed other pollutants. The Clean Power Plan — an Obama-era rule to cut power plants' emissions — would reduce smog-forming pollutants, and regulations on methane would cut pollutants that form ozone.
"Pruitt's rhetoric sounds nice, but I don't see it has done anything positive at all," said O'Donnell.Tackling Superfund sites
Even as he's railed against EPA's overreach in certain areas — including climate change rules — one of the few areas where Pruitt has maintained EPA hasn't been active enough is cleaning up toxic waste.
Pruitt has zeroed in on the Gold King mine spill in 2015, which sent 3 million gallons of heavy-metal-contaminated water into the Animas River. The EPA boss has frequently criticized the Obama administration for the spill in interviews, calling the former president "no environmental savior." The administrator announced this summer that EPA would reconsider certain tort claims previously rejected by the Obama administration (Greenwire, Aug. 7).
He has also emphasized Superfund sites, many of which have been slated for cleanup for years or even decades. Early on, Pruitt focused on finding ways to streamline the process of working through the country's most contaminated areas more quickly, setting up a task force and saying he would take charge of projects costing $50 million or more (Greenwire, May 11).
"Communities across the country are counting on each of us to get this done right and as expeditiously as possible, and we will," Pruitt said in a memo to staff in July.
Winston Porter, a former head of EPA's Superfund office who helped get the program started under President Reagan, said in an interview that Pruitt was on the "right track" with his approach to Superfund remediation.
"I'm fairly pleased with what he is doing on Superfund," Porter told E&E News. "I was impressed when I first read that he was going to get personally involved with Superfund."
Some of his critics, meanwhile, say they're worried that hastening cleanups could mean they're not done properly.
One problem with Superfund in the past has been that cleanup efforts haven't been championed by senior staff at the agency, and authority over sites has been pushed lower and lower within the ranks at the agency, Porter said. That has slowed progress and left areas contaminated in some cases for decades.
Other reasons cleanups lag, according to Porter, are bureaucratic red tape and time spent on minutiae and detailed studies. Site managers have also been slow to act on their end. In an op-ed he penned in The Hill last month, Porter noted that Superfund can be a moneymaker for lawyers and consultants who benefit from having the sites linger.
"I think you have a tough little management problem when you are dealing with this stuff. And the people being screwed are people living near these sites," he said. "What you really need is someone who can look at all the information and talk to people at the site and decide what is a good, cost-effective remedy."
But Pruitt himself likely will not have the time to directly lead this effort, and more of that management could fall to two or three other people in the Superfund and regional offices, Porter said. Pruitt will need to name a manager for the program to help get the work done.
One of the Superfund sites Pruitt has singled out early on has been the USS Lead site in East Chicago, Ind. Pruitt visited there this spring where he met with Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) and Sens. Joe Donnelly (D) and Todd Young (R). The politicians did not respond to specific questions about what progress had been made with the site since then but noted their appreciation for Pruitt's involvement.
In a statement to E&E News, Donnelly said cleanup efforts have been a team effort involving EPA's Region 5 office, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Indiana's state government, the mayor's office, and others.
"I appreciated Administrator Pruitt's visit to East Chicago to see firsthand the challenges these Hoosiers are facing. This situation remains full of complex challenges that will require a long-term effort," Donnelly said. "This community needs, and these families deserve, our fullest commitment going forward."
Earlier this month, EPA announced a plan to clean up the toxic chemical dioxin that's leaking from the San Jacinto River Waste Pits in Harris County, Texas, which has been on EPA's National Priorities List for nearly a decade. The site flooded when Hurricane Harvey hit in September, leaking the cancer-causing chemicals into the San Jacinto River (Greenwire, Oct. 12).States as 'stewards'
Pruitt has also touted his commitment to "cooperative federalism," which he says hands more authority back to state environmental regulators.
"Many environmental statutes empower the states to serve as stewards of their lands and environments," Pruitt wrote in an Oct. 16 memo to EPA's assistant and regional administrators. "Embracing federalism, EPA can work cooperatively with states to encourage regulations instead of compelling them, and to respect the separation of powers."
One way he wants to do that is by speeding up the agency's process for approving state implementation plans, known as SIPs, for federal regulations. These are federally enforceable plans that lay out how states will meet and maintain pollution reductions.
At the end of fiscal 2016, EPA had a backlog of 322 state implementation plans for national air pollution standards, according to a recent EPA report noting regulations that the Trump administration says unduly burden the development of domestic energy production. According to the report, EPA is planning to eliminate that backlog and streamline its methods for approving state plans through a "nationally consistent process" that sets performance targets and provides better monitoring for progress on SIP reviews.
Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies — a group of regulators — said both the Obama and Trump administrations had worked to improve the process for developing state-based plans, and there had been signs that this was an important issue for the current EPA.
"Timely SIP approvals are a positive sign for cooperative federalism," Woods said.
According to Woods, state regulators want more guidance from EPA on how to revise their state plans.
"Not knowing the rules of the road of what is required of their SIP revisions, that has been a real impediment to getting those approvals," Woods said. "For states, their internal process may take as long as a year, lots of time and effort and modeling, and it ends up being hundreds or thousands of pages of revisions."
Some state air regulators, meanwhile, say they're seeing business as usual continue under the new administration.
"Frankly, I haven't seen much change in how EPA works with the state so far," said Michael Dowd, director of the air division at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
He added that the state had always had a good relationship with its EPA regional office counterpart.
Karen Hays, chief of the air protection branch at Georgia's Environmental Protection Division, noted that EPA had been working since the Obama administration to cut down on the SIP backlog.
"They had made significant progress before the administration change, and the process continues," Hays said.
She added that over the next year as the agency gains more staff, its direction will become more evident.
"Clearly they are looking at how we can all work together," she said. "It's really early days in how they want EPA to run."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/10/31/stories/1060065093
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested