Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 11/01/17

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Trick or…Trick? Who’s Behind the Mask at the Trump Environmental Protection Agency?
Oct 31, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Cindy Luppi

With the possible exception of those stuck in the attic searching for a Halloween costume, we’ve all seen the havoc unleashed by the Trump EPA lately — the proposed rollbacks of commonsense safeguards that protect us from air and water pollution and that restrict exposure to toxic chemicals in our lives. This has real-world impacts, making our communities less safe and harming young children and the most vulnerable among us in particular.
(ACC Mentioned) Military Service Members And Families Deserve Better Than Michael Dourson
Oct 31, 2017 | News & Observer
By Jerry Ensminger

I was serving at Camp Lejeune when doctors discovered my 6-year-old daughter Janey had leukemia. More than a decade after her death and three years after I retired from the Marines, I finally learned the likely cause: massive amounts of toxic chemicals in our drinking water.
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Bars Some Scientists From Advising E.P.A.
Oct 31, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, stripped a half-dozen scientists and academics of advisory positions Tuesday and issued new rules barring anyone who receives E.P.A. grant money from serving on panels that counsel the agency on scientific decisions.
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Blocks Scientists With EPA Funding From Serving As Agency Advisers
Oct 31, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency upended the agency’s key advisory groups on Tuesday, announcing plans to jettison scientists who have received EPA grants.
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Say EPA Panel's New Scientists to Skew Public Confidence
Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's new scientific advisers could erode public confidence in industry and agency environmental efforts, former EPA advisers say, while industry representatives support Pruitt's vision.
EPA Shakes Up Scientific Panels by Adding More Industry Voices
Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

The Trump administration is shaking up the expert panels that interpret the scientific research underpinning pollution regulations by making it harder for some scientists to participate.
Pruitt Prepares To Axe Current Science Advisers, Driving 'Purge' Charge
Oct 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is applying his new policy barring science advisors from receiving agency grants retroactively to current advisors, a move that will force some to either give up their grants or step down from the panels on which they serve, opening the door to Pruitt making additional appointments and intensifying criticisms that the he is seeking to “purge” independent advisors.
To Be True To Your New Directive, Mr. Pruitt, You Need To Fire Michael Dourson Today
Oct 31, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive today that prevents independent scientists who receive research grants from EPA from serving on any EPA advisory panels. Wholly unaddressed by the directive is any counterpart prohibition on scientists funded by industries with conflicts of interest from serving as EPA advisors.

LCSA News

Sparking Fears, EPA Drops Use Of Orders To Control Some 'New' Chemicals
Nov 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA has dropped its use of enforcement orders to limit some 'new' chemicals' uses that it had previously applied as a bridge before issuing a rule governing those uses, but the move is sparking concerns from environmentalists who fear it will speed chemical approvals and end a backlog of reviews but make short shrift of public health concerns.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) How Monsanto Captured the EPA (And Twisted Science) To Keep Glyphosate on the Market
Nov 1, 2017 | In These Times
By Valerie Brown And Elizabeth Grossman

IN APRIL 2014, A SMALL GRASSROOTS GROUP CALLED MOMS ACROSS AMERICA announced that it had tested 10 breast milk samples for glyphosate, and found the chemical in three of them.
(ACC Mentioned) Has the Asbestos Industry Met Its Match? The Latest Update on an Asbestos Ban
Nov 1, 2017 | Mesothelioma.com
By Jennifer Lucarelli

Decades of scientific evidence proving the harmful and often fatal effects of asbestos have been overshadowed by a judicial system wrought with legal obstacles that have allowed asbestos to continue to be imported, sold and utilized in the United States.
Pennsylvania High Court to Weigh Duty to Warn on Asbestos
Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas

An appeals court in Pennsylvania is asking the state Supreme Court if manufacturers have a duty to warn about asbestos-related hazards of component parts made by third parties.
US CPSC Publishes Rule Banning Phthalates In Children's Products
Nov 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The US Consumer Products Safety Commission has published its regulation banning five phthalates in toys and other children's products.
Groups Sue EPA Over Delayed Formaldehyde Rule
Nov 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar

Two environmental groups filed a lawsuit today aimed at forcing U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to fully implement an Obama-era rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from wood products.
Norwegian Study Finds Harmful Chemicals In House Dust
Oct 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch

A 2016 screening study of compounds in the environment carried out in Norway, has found that samples of house dust gave the most positive results for the chemicals it was looking for.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) How The Shale Boom Is Boosting U.S. Exports
Nov 1, 2017 | Oil Price
By Robert Rapier

Most people are at least somewhat aware that the U.S. shale oil boom has resulted in lower fuel prices at the pump. But they are probably less familiar with the economic impacts of the shale gas boom.
Port Arthur Pipeline Files for FERC Approval of Louisiana Connector Project
Oct 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

Sempra Energy's Port Arthur Pipeline LLC has requested that FERC issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for its proposed $1.2 billion Louisiana Connector Project, which would supply feed gas to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction and export facility in Port Arthur, TX.
Cruz Urges Trump To Use NAFTA 2.0 To Open Energy Markets
Oct 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Megan Cassella

President Donald Trump and his administration should be focused on using the renegotiation of NAFTA to boost U.S. access to North American markets, and Mexican energy markets in particular, Sen. Ted Cruz said today.
The Fracking Boom’s Midlife Crisis
Nov 1, 2017 | Bloomberg Businessweek
By Alex Nussbaum and David Wethe

Crude prices bouncing around $50 to $60 a barrel have kept U.S. shale producers stuck on the edge of profitability.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) New Alliance Focused on Diisocyanates
Nov 1, 2017 | Occupational Health and Safety
By Jerry Laws

OSHA and the American Chemistry Council have joined in a two-year alliance to raise awareness of workers' exposure hazards and promote the chemicals' safe use in the polyurethane industry.
Exxon to Pay $300 Million to Resolve Chemical Pollution Cases
Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and David McLaughlin

Exxon Mobil Corp. agreed to pay more than $300 million to resolve air pollution violations tied to eight chemical plants in Texas and Louisiana, one of a pair of environmental settlements with oil companies announced by the Trump administration Oct. 31.
Explosion occurs at Marathon's Texas City refinery
Oct 31, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum

Marathon Petroleum reported an explosion early Tuesday at its Texas City oil refinery.

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

Environment News

Meet The 'Eco Right' Pushing For A Carbon Fee
Nov 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell

Over the summer, Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii introduced legislation to instate a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and said they were looking for a Republican co-sponsor.
Trump Support Sought on Deal to Limit Climate-Warming Coolants
Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The refrigeration industry is hoping the Trump administration keeps intact the Obama-era commitment to phasing down refrigerant chemicals that are potent greenhouse gases.
Efforts to Meet Paris Accord Goals Slipping from Reach, UN Says
Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan

The goals set under the Paris climate accord to limit global warming are slipping further from reach as emissions rise and political will falters.
EPA Sees GHG Cuts From Oil & Gas Settlements But Declines To Quantify
Oct 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA officials say they expect that settlement agreements announced Oct. 31 with oil company Exxon Mobil and oil and gas producer PCD Energy requiring cuts in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions will have a “co-benefit” of reducing sector greenhouse gases, though agency officials are declining to quantify the exact benefit.
Rep. Smith Slams GAO's Warning On Climate Costs
Nov 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

House science committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) is strongly criticizing the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recent warning that the federal government is not doing enough to limit the financial costs of climate change, charging the watchdog's report relies on a study that has not been peer reviewed and is politically motivated.
Alaska Governor Signs Order On Climate Change Strategy
Oct 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) has signed an order establishing a climate change strategy for the state and appointing a board to investigate ways to limit its effects.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Trick or…Trick? Who’s Behind the Mask at the Trump Environmental Protection Agency?

Oct 31, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

By Cindy Luppi

With the possible exception of those stuck in the attic searching for a Halloween costume, we’ve all seen the havoc unleashed by the Trump EPA lately — the proposed rollbacks of commonsense safeguards that protect us from air and water pollution and that restrict exposure to toxic chemicals in our lives. This has real-world impacts, making our communities less safe and harming young children and the most vulnerable among us in particular.
Researchers like Kathryn Rogers at the Silent Spring Institute are on the front lines of this battle, particularly during October, the month when the breast cancer epidemic is in the spotlight. According to Kathryn, “The Environmental Protection Agency is giving less scrutiny to toxic chemicals that are making Americans sick. This is especially concerning for breast cancer, where exposure to environmental chemicals is a key risk factor for the development of disease.”
Given the founding mission of the Environmental Protection Agency, this should not be happening — the “P” is supposed to stand for Protection, not Pile on the Pollution. So how is the Trump Administration able to move this polluter-friendly agenda so quickly?
In part, the answer lies in the leadership staff appointments at EPA who have been plucked from polluting industries to serve under Scott Pruitt, who has cultivated a cozy and deferential relationship with corporate polluters. The nominations for EPA’s top two positions dealing with toxic chemicals are perfect cases in point.
Dr. Nancy Beck: Just last year, Beck represented the American Chemistry Council, the trade group for the chemical industry, as one of their senior advocates. In a nutshell, her job involved advocating for chemical policies to be shaped in ways that benefited the financial interests of the chemical industry. This year, the Trump team nominated and successfully pushed for her appointment as Deputy Assistant Administrator within EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The “revolving door” between government and industry deposited her in one of the top positions in the Trump EPA regulating her former employers in the chemical industry.
Dr. Michael Dourson: Dourson has been nominated to the Assistant Administrator position in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention alongside Beck. Dourson founded and led an organization (TERA) with a troubling track record of downplaying the health threat from chemicals and is considered a go-to source for hire for the chemical and tobacco industries. As an example, DuPont sought out Dourson’s firm for a recommendation for “safe” levels of exposure for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical made by DuPont that is linked to cancer and other health damage. Dourson’s recommendation turned out to be 1,000 times weaker than the level ultimately determined by the EPA when they later conducted their own assessment.
Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted along party lines to approve Dourson’s nomination to the EPA. In other times, Dr. Dourson’s ties to the chemical and tobacco industries would most likely have prevented consideration for this post. Despite the controversial nature of the nomination, and potentially in violation of federal law, Scott Pruitt has been allowing Dourson to serve in an advisory capacity.
But before he is fully confirmed, there will need to be a full vote on the Senate floor. Join us in urging that we #DumpDourson by calling your own Senator and urging a no vote. You can reach them through the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Below is a sample message to leave for your Senator:
I’m calling to urge you to vote no on Michael Dourson’s nomination to lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. He has a record of working hand-in-hand with the chemical industry to undermine public health protections. We need advocates at EPA for health and safety, not someone with this troubling conflict of interest.

http://saferchemicals.org/2017/10/31/trick-or-trick-whos-behind-the-mask-at-the-trump-environmental-protection-agency/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Military Service Members And Families Deserve Better Than Michael Dourson

Oct 31, 2017 | News & Observer

By Jerry Ensminger

I was serving at Camp Lejeune when doctors discovered my 6-year-old daughter Janey had leukemia. More than a decade after her death and three years after I retired from the Marines, I finally learned the likely cause: massive amounts of toxic chemicals in our drinking water.
It turned out that the drinking water at Camp Lejeune was highly contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, benzene and scores of other toxic chemicals. Camp Lejeune is one of roughly 400 military bases that might also be contaminated. So far, 149 current and former bases have already been designated as toxic “Superfund” sites.
Now, the Senate is poised to place Michael Dourson, the “hired gun” of chemical lobbying, in charge of reviewing toxic chemicals for the Environmental Protection Agency, including TCE. In fact, TCE would be one of the first chemicals Dourson would review if he is confirmed by the Senate later this year.
While Dourson is a toxicologist who calls himself a “doctor,” he might be better described as a “spin doctor” or a “scientific hired gun.” For the last two decades, Dourson has been paid by chemical companies like Monsanto and Dow to argue for weaker chemical safety standards. He has mastered the art of twisting the science to serve his corporate clients. Internal company emails characterized Dourson as a scientist who was in the business of “blessing” industry’s proposals.
In fact, he’s even argued for a weaker safety standard for TCE, which is known to cause cancer. Dourson was paid by the American Chemistry Council, a trade association representing big chemical companies, to argue for a safety standard that was 5 times weaker than the safety standard proposed by the EPA and that was 15 times weaker than the safety standard proposed by state regulators in California.
TCE was not the only chemical “reviewed” by Dourson that threatens service members and their families. Dourson was also paid by chemical companies to argue for weaker standards for perchlorate, PFOA and 1,4-Dioxane, chemicals that routinely contaminate military bases. Dourson argued for a standard for PFOA, also linked to cancer, that was 150 times weaker than the safety standard proposed by the manufacturer, Dupont. PFOA has contaminated military bases from Brunswick Air Force Base in Maine to Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska and many sites in between. After chemical companies paid Dourson to review 1,4-Dioxane, he argued for a safety standard that was 1,000 times weaker than the standard proposed by EPA. These chemicals not only threaten service members. For some North Carolina residents, 1,4-Dioxane levels are well above the levels recommended by the EPA.
There’s never a good time to put chemical safety reviews in the hands of someone who has been paid by industry to understate the risks posed by toxic chemicals. But this is an especially bad time. Just last year, Congress updated the nation’s primary chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, to finally regulate chemicals like TCE. Putting Michael Dourson in charge of implementing this new law for the EPA would be like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department, a walking, talking example of conflict of interest.
Our legislators in North Carolina have worked hard to right the wrongs caused by toxic chemical pollution at Camp Lejeune by introducing and enacting the “Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans and Families Act,” or the “Janey Ensminger Act,” which makes it easier for military families poisoned by Camp Lejeune pollution to get health care. By contrast, voting to put Michael Dourson in charge of reviewing the same chemicals that poisoned children like Janey would be a slap in the face of all the military families who have lost loved ones to this environmental disaster.
When the cameras are rolling, our elected leaders in Washington love to say they’ll do anything (within reason) to keep our soldiers, sailors and Marines safe. I say “within reason” because we all understood when we raised our right hands and signed on the dotted line that our very lives could be in jeopardy to protect our nation. Do our U.S. Senators think that poisoning our military members and our children is “within reason?”
When any industry that threatens the health and safety of Americans is permitted to control the regulations meant to curb the problems they’ve created, we are in deep trouble.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article181973661.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Bars Some Scientists From Advising E.P.A.

Oct 31, 2017 | The New York Times

By Lisa Friedman

WASHINGTON — Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, stripped a half-dozen scientists and academics of advisory positions Tuesday and issued new rules barring anyone who receives E.P.A. grant money from serving on panels that counsel the agency on scientific decisions.
The move will effectively bar a large number of academic researchers, many of them experts in fields ranging from toxicology to epidemiology, from advising the E.P.A. on scientific matters, since the agency is one of the largest funders of environmental research.
Mr. Pruitt was expected to appoint several industry representatives to the panels. He did not impose any new restrictions to prevent them from offering advice on environmental regulations that may affect their businesses.
In an announcement at agency headquarters surrounded by conservative activists and Republican lawmakers who have long called for an overhaul of the advisory boards, Mr. Pruitt said he made the decision to ensure the agency would receive data and advice free from conflicts of interest or any appearance of a conflict. He said that people currently serving on E.P.A. advisory boards had received $77 million in grant money over the past three years as they were issuing advice on policy.
“Our focus should be sound science, not political science,” Mr. Pruitt said. “We want to ensure independence.”Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEE.P.A. Chief’s Calendar: A Stream of Industry Meetings and Trips HomeOCT. 3, 2017E.P.A. Cancels Talk on Climate Change by Agency Scientists OCT. 22, 2017graphic52 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump OCT. 5, 2017graphicFrom Heat Waves to Hurricanes: What We Know About Extreme Weather and Climate Change SEPT. 15, 2017
Democrats, scientists and environmental groups denounced the decision. They said E.P.A. advisory boards already had stringent conflict of interest policies, and they asserted that neither Mr. Pruitt nor Republican critics of the panels had found any cases in which academic advisers profited from the agency by providing advice.
“The really galling part of this is that it’s all in an effort to avoid conflict of interest, but they pretend that the industry people who are being offered up positions on the panel are somehow unbiased because they’re not getting money from E.P.A.,” said Donna Kenski, director of data analysis at the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium in Illinois. Ms. Kenski, who was dismissed from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee on Tuesday, said her organization received money from E.P.A. indirectly through the State of Illinois.
“I don’t believe it’s really about the funding,” Ms. Kenski said. “I believe it’s a blatant attempt to politicize a process that has been refreshingly free of politics.”
Mr. Pruitt is expected to ask about two dozen people to replace advisers whose terms have ended or were removed under the new rules, according to a list provided by several people close to the process. Among the expected appointees, several are state regulators and private consultants; one is a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, a trade association; another is the chief environmental officer for Southern Company, an electric utility; and one is the vice president of technology for Phillips 66 Research Center in Oklahoma, and previously worked for ConocoPhillips.
The E.P.A. did not confirm the full list of new appointees, but did announce that Michael E. Honeycutt, the top toxicologist at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, would chair the E.P.A.’s Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Honeycutt has sparred with the E.P.A. over ozone standards, and was a co-author of a study in an air and waste management magazine arguing that the agency has inflated the health benefits of more stringent air quality standards.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/climate/pruitt-epa-science-advisory-boards.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Blocks Scientists With EPA Funding From Serving As Agency Advisers

Oct 31, 2017 | The Washington Post

By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency upended the agency’s key advisory groups on Tuesday, announcing plans to jettison scientists who have received EPA grants.
The move sets in motion 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.
“It is very, very important to ensure independence, to ensure that we’re getting advice and counsel independent of the EPA,” Administrator Scott Pruitt told reporters Tuesday.
He estimated that the members of three different committees — the Scientific Advisory Board, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee and the Board of Scientific Counselors — had collectively accepted $77 million in EPA grants over the last three years. He noted that researchers will have the option of ending their grant or continuing to advise EPA, “but they can’t do both.”
EPA will not impose a similar litmus test on scientific advisers who receive grants from outside sources. But Pruitt said they will undergo the same sort of ethics review that is already in place “to ensure that there aren’t issues of potential conflict with areas that they’re working upon.”
The agency made an effort to enlist researchers from a wider range of states to broaden the panels’ outlook, he said. Members will include experts from 40 states and the District of Columbia, he said, reflecting the addition of researchers from Alaska and several states in the middle of the country.
“We want to ensure geographical representation,” he said. “We want to ensure the independence and integrity of the process through the decisions we’re making.”
Pruitt did not announce his selections for new appointees to the Science Advisory Board, but a list obtained by The Washington Post from multiple individuals familiar with the likely appointments includes 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.
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.”
Environmental and scientific groups were quick to condemn the changes and question Pruitt’s motives on Tuesday.
“Pruitt is turning the idea of ‘conflict of interest’ on its head — he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn’t,” Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “The consequences of these decisions aren’t just bad for a few scientists. This could mean that there’s no independent voice ensuring that EPA follows the science on everything from drinking water pollution to atmospheric chemical exposure.”
But industry groups and conservative lawmakers, including longtime EPA critic Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who attended the announcement, applauded the action.
“The changes announced today will help ensure EPA’s scientific review panels are well balanced with perspectives from qualified scientists of diverse backgrounds and board members are free of any disqualifying conflicts of interest,” American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley said in a statement.
Pruitt had foreshadowed the sweeping changes 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 expected 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.”
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 lowered greenhouse gas emissions or technological advances that could make cutting carbon emissions cheaper.
At least three potential appointees have backgrounds working for large corporations with activities now or potentially 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, intended to reduce carbon emissions, was “unworkable and would increase electricity prices to customers while hurting reliability.”
In addition, the group includes those who have, like Pruitt, battled the EPA in the past. One is Michael Honeycutt, head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division, who Pruitt announced Tuesday as the new head of the Science Advisory Board. Honeycutt has suggested that the health risks associated with smog are overstated.
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 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.
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 merely based on their grants, 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 never met with the group.
Chris Mooney contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scott-pruitt-blocks-scientists-with-epa-funding-from-serving-as-agency-advisers/2017/10/31/959d91ac-be5a-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.a723833cbee2

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Say EPA Panel's New Scientists to Skew Public Confidence

Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's new scientific advisers could erode public confidence in industry and agency environmental efforts, former EPA advisers say, while industry representatives support Pruitt's vision.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) advises the Environmental Protection Agency and some congressional committees on such issues as chemical toxicity, how to assess certain kinds of air emissions, and how to model the costs and benefits of environmental regulations.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council said Pruitt's picks will ensure EPA's scientific review panels are balanced “with perspectives from qualified scientists of diverse backgrounds.”
The council represents companies such as Arkema Inc., BASF Corp., Velsicol Chemical LLC and Monsanto Co.
Critics Concerned
But allowing underqualified scientists to advise Pruitt could lead to less protective standards, providing more leniency in consumer product standards and industry operations, and ultimately eroding public confidence, said Terry Yosie, director of the agency's Science Advisory Board during the Reagan administration.
“If EPA's approval process becomes destabilized because it's too politicized, then business is going to see that public confidence in its own products may diminish in the marketplace,” he said.
EPA's Science Advisory Board is tasked with reviewing the quality of the scientific and technical information EPA uses to support regulations. The board also advises the agency's administrator and the agency in scientific matters.
Pruitt announced Oct. 31 that scientists who receive EPA grants can no longer serve on the board.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said it's impossible for a board to be transparent if its members are receiving EPA funds.
The agency's boards “are giving us the bedrock of science to ensure we're making informed decisions,” Pruitt said, and members can't appear to have conflicts of interest.
But former agency science advisers are questioning that view. “Receiving grants doesn't really bias you in any way,” former SAB member Madhu Khanna told Bloomberg Environment.
Grant recipients may even be more qualified to serve, she added. “It's a sign of being a good researcher…because the grants are so competitive,” she said.
Losing Faith
EPA is required to ensure that it has the best possible information to make its decisions about environmental protectiveness, Yosie said, and the SAB reviews that information. But if the SAB doesn't have members with significant scientific experience and achievements, “the public can no longer have that faith” in the agency's mission, he said.
“What you're seeing is a significant dumbing down of the SAB,” he told Bloomberg Environment. Yosie is currently president and chief executive officer of the World Environment Center.
He said it's unclear if there are external forces that could compensate for an unbalanced or unqualified board.
“What's happening now destabilizes the entire regulatory process,” Yosie said.
New Members
On Oct. 31, Pruitt announced new heads of the agency's committees, including the Science Advisory Board, an air pollution advisory board, and the Board of Scientific Counselors, which reviews EPA research office efforts.
Michael Honeycutt, director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's toxicology division, will be the new chairman of the SAB.
The agency plans to roll out a list of the committee's new members in the next week.
Historically, the board's decisions have been based on “sound science, but it's hard to speculate” how new members might affect those decisions, Khanna said.
The agency chose SAB members from a list of about 130 candidates. Of the candidates on the list, more than half are employed in academia. About a quarter are working in industry, and others are independent consultants or employees of state or local governments or nonprofits.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123229073&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499381000&searchid=30739208&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Shakes Up Scientific Panels by Adding More Industry Voices

Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

The Trump administration is shaking up the expert panels that interpret the scientific research underpinning pollution regulations by making it harder for some scientists to participate.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said his new policy would bar members of EPA's scientific advisory boards from also receiving agency grants, portraying the change as a way to limit conflicts of interest and ensure “independent, arms-length input” on issues ranging from pesticides to drinking water.
“Whatever science we're involved in here at the EPA should not be political science,” Pruitt said ahead of a 2 p.m. event to highlight the policy info for lawmakers and conservative, free-market advocates at the EPA building in Washington.
Some $77 million in grants has gone to members of the Science Advisory Board, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and other EPA panels over the past three years, Pruitt told reporters on Tuesday. “It just is not right for the agency to be issuing $77 million in grants and then asking these people to be providing independent counsel.”
Conservatives and congressional critics of the committees have argued that members depending on EPA funding are vulnerable to pressure from the agency's top political officials and more likely to support regulations. On the other hand, scientists said the new policy would upend the traditional balance of voices on EPA's scientific advisory panels, potentially edging out academics who depend on agency funding in favor of experts from industry.
Pruitt said advisory board members will have to make a decision: whether to keep accepting EPA grants or forgo their membership on the panels. All EPA panel members, including those with industry ties, will still be subject to customary ethics reviews, he said. “This is only with respect to EPA's grants, because that is what we think is important to achieve independence,” Pruitt said.
Pruitt's new directive is set to limit the panel participation of scientists accepting EPA funding based on a false premise that their scientific views can't be trusted, said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy.
At the same time, people who work for regulated industries will still be able to serve, Rosenberg said. “This makes no sense. It turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head.”
Results Suspect
Conservatives called Pruitt's policy overdue.
“The fact that some of the EPA's advisory boards are filled with members whose research receives millions of dollars of funding from the EPA is an obvious conflict of interest that should never have been allowed to develop,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group advocating limited government. “Advice from people who are financially dependent on those they are advising may of course in many instances be sound, but it will always be suspect.“
The new policy will apply to grant recipients who are listed as investigator or co-investigator on award contracts, meaning an academic whose university receives EPA grants but is not personally involved in the work would not be affected.
The EPA is set to formally announce new advisory board members in coming days, Pruitt said.
Although full membership rosters will be announced later, Pruitt said he had selected Michael Honeycutt, a toxicologist with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to be chairman of the Science Advisory Board. Tony Cox, a Denver-based consultant in quantitative risk analysis, will head CASAC, Pruitt said.
The new panelists are set to include some scientists with industry ties, some academics and others from the western U.S.
Some western lawmakers say their region historically has been underrepresented, and Pruitt stressed the importance of addressing that on Tuesday.
Air & Water Pollution
The EPA has about two dozen advisory committees. The overarching Science Advisory Board is meant to help the agency evaluate scientific evidence -- work that sometimes has it delving into controversial topics, such as whether fracking is responsible for contaminating water near oil and gas wells.
Another panel, the seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC, plays a critical role guiding the EPA's decisions on national standards for ozone, particulate matter and other pollutants. It's tasked with reviewing studies governing air pollution and recommending whether existing national standards need to be rewritten.
There's a long history of scientists from EPA-regulated industries serving on the agency's advisory panels. The EPA has been considering 132 candidates for the Science Advisory Board, including representatives from Alcoa Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Phillips 66 and the Southern Co. About 25 members are expected to stay on.
The agency has been mulling 43 candidates for CASAC.
One of the new members of CASAC is set to be Larry Wolk, a pediatrician who heads Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment, a role that puts him at the front lines of the state's efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing and clamp down on smog. Under Wolk, the department published a review of research concluding there is limited evidence that living near oil and gas drilling sites poses health dangers.
New Science Advisory Board members are set to include John Graham, the dean of Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs; Don Van Der Vaart, who previously headed the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality; and Stanley Young, a statistician who previously worked at Eli Lilly & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Ebell said.
At least some scientists who reapplied are returning to the committees, Pruitt said.
“Many of those folks who have served historically have reapplied,” Pruitt said. “Some of those very same folks are going to continue serving.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123229074&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123229074&jd=123229074

Return to headline | Return to top
Pruitt Prepares To Axe Current Science Advisers, Driving 'Purge' Charge

Oct 31, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is applying his new policy barring science advisors from receiving agency grants retroactively to current advisors, a move that will force some to either give up their grants or step down from the panels on which they serve, opening the door to Pruitt making additional appointments and intensifying criticisms that the he is seeking to “purge” independent advisors.
Invoking a Biblical passage in the Book of Joshua, where Joshua leads the Israelites into the promised land after Moses' death, Pruitt told an Oct. 31 event at EPA that current agency advisors will have to choose between continuing to receive EPA grants or remaining on the advisory panels.
“Joshua says to the people of Israel, 'Choose this day whom you're going to serve,” Pruitt said in Oct. 31 remarksreleased on YouTube. “This is sort of like the Joshua principle. As it relates to grants from this agency, you're going to have to choose either service on the committee … or choose the grant but you can't do both. That's the fair and right thing to do for the American people.”
Pruitt said staff will be reaching out to current members over the next week to advise them of the new policy, and any members who are receiving EPA grants will have to forgo the grant or leave the advisory committee.
But by reaching back and applying the new policy retroactively, Pruitt is drawing charges from environmentalists and others that he is “purging independent, academic scientists from the agency’s science advisory boards” so he can replace them with more industry-friendly advisers, the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement.
And Terry Yosie, whose experience as the director of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) during the Reagan administration coincided with a political removal of SAB members under former Administrator Anne Gorsuch, added that the policy “serves as the rationale to purge many knowledgeable, independent and experienced scientists from advisory committees and to substitute political and ideological proponents of policies Pruitt seeks to implement.”
The controversy stems from Pruitt's Oct. 31 directive “Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees,” which seeks to “strengthen member independence,” “increase state, tribal and local government participation,” “enhance geographic diversity,” and “promote fresh perspectives.”
Key to the principle on member independence is the new requirement that “no member of an EPA federal advisory committee be currently in receipt of EPA grants, either as principal investigator or co-investigator, or in a position that otherwise would reap substantial direct benefit from an EPA grant. This principle shall not apply to state, tribal or local government agency recipients of EPA grants.”
The policy was expected to apply to a suite of new advisers whom Pruitt is appointing to EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Those appointments, first reported by Inside EPA Oct. 30, are slated to replace advisors whose terms expired Sept. 30 and who Pruitt chose not to re-appoint -- even though they may have been eligible to serve another term as was customary.
Similarly, Pruitt has already elected to remove two members from CASAC in the middle of their terms.
Unprecedented Step
Former EPA officials and other critics have already charged that such actions are unprecedented and will open the door to the agency precluding many top scientists from serving on advisory panels while allowing industry and other deregulatory proponents to serve.
Angela Nugent, a retired Designated Federal Official to the SAB, tells Inside EPA that the new policy will “have a chilling effect on whether scientists with distinct merits can apply to the agency.” Noting that the agency is a major source of competitively-awarded funding for environmental research, Nugent adds the policy “will prevent the SAB from getting the advice of outstanding scientists in their field.”
Nugent is not alone in her concern. The American Geophysical Union said in a statement that “[b]y curtailing the input of some of the most respected minds in science, Pruitt’s decision robs the agency, and by extension Americans, of a critically important resource.”
The academic group of geologists also “takes strong issue with the assertion that the independence, transparency, and objectivity of the scientists who receive federal grants is compromised. … All federal grant recipients must pass a thorough merit review, proving their high standards in professionalism and ethics. Further, all EPA grant applicants must formally declare that there is no conflict of interest posed by receiving such awards.”
But the concerns about what the policy and personnel changes mean to SAB and CASAC are perhaps missing a broader issue for EPA's advisory committees and its peer review mechanisms more generally.
Yosie, the former director of SAB's staff office during the Reagan administration, told Inside EPA Oct. 30 that the board is likely to become less influential given the limited number of reviews it is preparing. “The pipeline of future SAB reviews is drying up. Overall, SAB will become a much less active participant in EPA decision making as various EPA offices choose not to engage the SAB for scientific reviews,”
Yosie explains that the “usual process” for agency offices to seek SAB advice or review of scientific products “is for the program offices and SAB staff to identify scientific reviews for SAB to conduct. The pace of these requests has dramatically slowed due to several factors: resource limits, lack of senior program appointees, and the absence of a push from the Administrator’s office.”
Of Pruitt's new policy, Yosie calls it “a solution in search of a problem. There is no conflict of interest problem associated with scientists funded by EPA serving on advisory committees so long as individual scientists do not review their own work and other scientists with balanced points of view [as detailed in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)] are also reviewing the same information.”
Yosie's reference to FACA's requirement of balanced points of view on FACA committees could open the door to litigation -- with one environmental group hinting at a legal challenge in an Oct. 31 statement. “Today’s announcement is a blatant effort to stack the boards and put narrow industry interests ahead of public health and safety,”says the Union of Concerned Scientists' Andrew Rosenberg. “We will pursue all legal options available to us to prevent any scientist ban from remaining in place.”

https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-prepares-axe-current-science-advisers-driving-purge-charge

Return to headline | Return to top
To Be True To Your New Directive, Mr. Pruitt, You Need To Fire Michael Dourson Today

Oct 31, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive today that prevents independent scientists who receive research grants from EPA from serving on any EPA advisory panels. Wholly unaddressed by the directive is any counterpart prohibition on scientists funded by industries with conflicts of interest from serving as EPA advisors.
If Pruitt firmly believes that receipt of EPA funding is a basis for disqualifying a scientist from advising the agency, then he need look no further for someone to purge than his own recently named “advisor to the Administrator” on chemicals, Michael Dourson.
When it comes to advice the agency receives, the core concern over the need to avoid conflicts of interest is this: Is advice tainted because the entity employing and paying the advisor stands to gain or lose financially from the agency decision that is under advisement? Say, for example, EPA selected as an advisor a consultant to Koch Industries who it paid for work that concluded the company’s releases into the environment of the petcoke generated by its facilities are safe. A reasonable person would have a basis to believe that Koch could benefit financially from the advice its consultant might provide the agency. In contrast, how does EPA stand to benefit financially from the results of research conducted by an EPA-funded scientist? The simple answer is, it doesn’t.
Now let’s look at it from the perspective of the scientist receiving the funding. Pruitt’s directive is based on the outlandish premise that EPA funds research in order to find problems it can then regulate, and hence that an EPA-funded researcher has an incentive to find a problem in order to better ensure continued EPA funding. The claim is that the advice offered by that researcher would be “pre-tainted” toward supporting EPA policy decisions that drive regulation. This theory that imagines a grand conspiracy between researchers and the agency is inherently flawed and unfounded.
First, it ignores the fact that a distinctly non-regulatory part of EPA – the Office of Research and Development – funds virtually all of EPA’s extramural research. ORD is intentionally a separate entity within EPA that manages science issues, precisely to provide some degree of separation from the program offices that make regulatory decisions.
Second, it ignores the process by which the agency’s research dollars are awarded. These grants are competitive and grant applications undergo peer review by outside scientists – just like research grants funded by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health.
Third, the results of EPA-funded extramural research must undergo another round of peer review in order to be published. To the extent Pruitt believes that EPA researchers conduct unsound science just in order to find a problem EPA can regulate, there are safeguards the scientific community adopted long ago and continues to refine to prevent such scientific fraud or misconduct and punish it severely.
Folks, this is how public sector-funded science works across virtually every field of human inquiry.
But don’t take my word for the strength of EPA-funded research: Just this year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a review of the agency’s main research program, called “Science to Achieve Results” (STAR). That review effectively raved about the program. Among its conclusions:
·         EPA has high-quality procedures for priority-setting that allow STAR to be integrated within EPA's research program.
·         STAR's procedures to develop funding announcements and award grants ensure that the program sponsors research of high scientific merit.
·         Research proposals are subject to thorough peer review, and conflicts-of-interest checks are extensive and embedded throughout the peer review process.
·         The STAR program is productive. The committee found that the results of the research the program funded have led to numerous public benefits, including:
o    development of an environmental-science workforce,
o    development of human-resources and research infrastructure across the nation,
o    a potential reduction in the costs of compliance with environmental regulation, and
o    provision of the scientific basis of decisions required to protect public health and the environment.
Is Pruitt now going to impugn the integrity and objectivity of the NAS – the nation’s leading scientific body??
Which brings us back to Pruitt’s directive and the real motivation behind it: to skew the advice EPA receives heavily in the direction of supporting the anti-science and anti-public health agenda he is aggressively implementing.
So what does all of this have to do with the provocative headline I gave to this post? If Pruitt firmly believes that receipt of EPA funding is a basis for disqualifying a scientist from advising the agency, then he need look no further for someone to purge than his own recently named “advisor to the Administrator” on chemicals, Michael Dourson. Pruitt made that appointment so that Dourson could start work at the agency (he started two weeks ago) even though his nomination to head the chemical safety office at EPA has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. Dourson has repeatedly touted the fact that he and his company Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) were funded by EPA. Just look at their annual reports.
Pruitt seems just fine with ignoring Dourson’s extensive conflicts of interest involving his work for companies to exonerate their chemicals – companies and chemicals he would be charged with regulating if confirmed to his leadership post at EPA. Pruitt certainly didn’t let such things bother him when clearing his political deputy Nancy Beck of any ethical conflicts based on the astounding ethics agreement that gives her wide latitude to work at EPA on issues in which her immediately preceding employer the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has financial interests – in order to ensure those interests are taken into account.
My guess is Pruitt will just as readily ignore the fact that Dourson should be Exhibit A under his new directive. But then, the bar for hypocrisy has never been set lower than under this administration.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/10/31/to-be-true-to-your-new-directive-mr-pruitt-you-need-to-fire-michael-dourson-today/

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Sparking Fears, EPA Drops Use Of Orders To Control Some 'New' Chemicals

Nov 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA has dropped its use of enforcement orders to limit some 'new' chemicals' uses that it had previously applied as a bridge before issuing a rule governing those uses, but the move is sparking concerns from environmentalists who fear it will speed chemical approvals and end a backlog of reviews but make short shrift of public health concerns.
In an Oct. 16 letter to Jeff Morris, director of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), environmentalists raise concerns that EPA appears to have dropped its use of enforcement orders to prevent some uses of new chemicals, questioning whether this approach is sufficiently protective because of the time it takes to craft broader rules barring uses beyond those approved by the agency.
The environmentalists’ letter calls attempting to complete such rules, known as significant new use rules (SNURs) within 180 days of approving the chemicals uses “a daunting and probably impossible task."
“For this reason, it would be not only unlawful but dangerous to public health and the environment for EPA to relinquish the leverage,” environmentalists said in their letter.
Groups signing the letter include Earthjustice, Environmental Health Strategies Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.
EPA’s new chemicals program has been roiled by industry anger since Congress reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016.
The new law requires that EPA make a definitive finding regarding the safety of each ‘new’ chemical that it reviews and approves in a premanufacture notice (PMN), whereas in the past, EPA could allow some chemicals to enter the market without commenting upon them.
It also introduces a new concept, conditions of use, under which chemicals’ risks are to be evaluated, including in the PMN program. The law also requires that EPA consider “reasonably foreseeable” uses -- such as uses of the chemical that are not included in a PMN application, but could transpire once a chemical is added to the TSCA inventory.
But the new TSCA law took effect in June 2016 without any transition period for the changes to the new chemicals program, a move that may have led to a significant backlog in EPA approvals.
EPA’s former acting toxics chief, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired from the agency last summer, confirmed in June an industry attorney’s question that EPA was then using a two-step process to approve some new chemicals, including combining a consent order and a SNUR that limits approval to certain uses and requires approval for any future additional uses, following remarks at the Safer Products Summit in Washington, D.C.
At the June 1 event, Cleland-Hamnett called the consent orders and “follow up” SNURs “a big piece of helping us get out our goal of eliminating our backlog by the end of July.”
Because PMNs apply to specific uses, the agency wrote some voluntary consent orders, under which companies agreed to limits on 'new' chemical uses until the agency finalized significant new use rules (SNURs).
Two-Step Approach
But environmentalists say that EPA's Aug. 7 press release announcing efforts to address the backlog appeared to back away from the two-step approach.
EPA’s Aug. 7 press release “indicates that EPA no longer intends to issue section 5(e) orders ‘[w]here EPA has concerns with reasonably foreseeable uses, but not with the intended uses as described in a PMN or LVE [low volume exemption] application.’ Instead, the Agency plans to address these concerns solely through significant new use rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2),” the environmentalists' letter states.
“The obvious benefit of a section 5(e) order in these circumstances is that it prevents the manufacture of the new chemical for the reasonably foreseeable use except under the restrictions EPA deems necessary to assure that the use is safe,” the letter explains.
“In theory, a SNUR could also perform this function but would need to be finalized by the end of the PMN review period so that the use does not fall through the cracks. We appreciate your desire to complete SNUR rulemakings on this expedited schedule, but the rulemaking process takes time and previous SNURs for PMN chemicals have not become final until many months after the end of PMN review.”
The problem with a SNUR-only approach to such chemicals is the amount of time that it takes for EPA to issue a SNUR, which follows a lengthy rulemaking process. EPA has by statute at most 180 days to process a PMN application, unless the submitter agrees to extend the process. Generally, a SNUR takes longer to complete.
In a statement to Inside EPA, a spokesman confirmed that EPA has changed its approach. Asked if the agency's practice had changed such that OPPT is no longer issuing section 5(e) consent orders before finalizing SNURs on such PMNs, an agency spokesman reiterated the language in the Aug. 7 press release.
The spokesman emphasized the phrase, “those concerns can be addressed through significant new use rules” from the Aug. 7 release.
An environmentalist lawyer familiar with the letter explains that the worry is not with placing SNURs on uses of concern -- which are broader than consent orders, applying to any company, rather than just those that sign the consent order -- but rather the timing.
If a SNUR could be placed on chemicals within the PMN time line, there wouldn’t be a concern, the source says.
The environmentalist lawyer adds that one reason behind the concern with the possibility that EPA may no longer be issuing consent orders before SNURs is that “if a PMN is green-lighted without a 5(e) consent order,” the PMN applicant or other manufacturers could produce the chemical for an unapproved use before the SNUR is finalized -- which would then make that use “an existing use that couldn’t be SNUR’ed,” since SNURs can only bar new uses of a chemical.
“The difficulty with the PMN program is it’s such a black box,” the environmentalist said. “Before you find out something is happening, it’s over and done.”

https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sparking-fears-epa-drops-use-orders-control-some-new-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) How Monsanto Captured the EPA (And Twisted Science) To Keep Glyphosate on the Market

Nov 1, 2017 | In These Times

By Valerie Brown And Elizabeth Grossman

IN APRIL 2014, A SMALL GRASSROOTS GROUP CALLED MOMS ACROSS AMERICA announced that it had tested 10 breast milk samples for glyphosate, and found the chemical in three of them. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide and the primary ingredient of Roundup. Although the levels of glyphosate found by Moms Across America were below the safety limits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set for drinking water and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has set for food, the results caused a stir on social media.
The Moms Across America testing was not part of any formal scientific study, but Monsanto—the owner of the Roundup trademark and the premier glyphosate manufacturer—jumped to defend its most profitable pesticide based on a new study that found no glyphosate in breast milk. But this research, purported to be “independent,” was actually backed by the corporation itself.
“Anybody who finds out about this is not going to trust a chemical company over a mom, even if [that mom] is a stranger,” says Moms Across America founder Zen Honeycutt. “A mother’s only special interest is the well-being of her family and her community.” Honeycutt says she has been sharply criticized for the breast milk project because it was not a formal scientific study. But she says her intention was “to find out whether or not glyphosate was getting in our breast milk, and if it was, to have further scientific studies conducted and therefore to provoke a movement so that policies would be changed.”
Everyone is exposed to glyphosate: Residues of the herbicide are found in both fresh and processed foods, and in drinking water nationwide. More and more research suggests that glyphosate exposure can lead to numerous health issues, ranging from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney damage to disruption of gut bacteria and improper hormone functioning.
The Moms Across America episode fits a pattern that has emerged since 1974, when the EPA first registered glyphosate for use: When questions have been raised about the chemical’s safety, Monsanto has ensured that the answers serve its financial interests, rather than scientific accuracy and transparency. Our two-year investigation found incontrovertible evidence that Monsanto has exerted deep influence over EPA decisions since glyphosate first came on the market—via Roundup—more than 40 years ago.
We have closely examined the publicly available archive of EPA documents from the earliest days of the agency’s consideration of glyphosate. Significant portions of the relevant documents have either been partially redacted or omitted entirely. But this archived material reveals that EPA staff scientists, who found much of the data submitted by Monsanto unacceptable, did place great weight upon a 1983 mouse study that showed glyphosate was carcinogenic.
Yet their interpretation was subsequently reversed by EPA upper management and advisory boards, apparently under pressure from Monsanto. In years to come, that pivotal 1983 mouse study would be buried under layers of misleading analysis to obscure its meaning. Today, the EPA and Monsanto continue to cite that study as evidence that glyphosate poses no public health risk, even though the study’s actual evidence indicates otherwise.
Meanwhile, the EPA has overlooked a growing body of research suggesting glyphosate is dangerous. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on multiple peer-reviewed studies published since 2001. But the EPA has not changed its classification. Instead, the agency issued a rebuttal in September 2016 that said its scientists “did not agree with IARC”—and cited that 1983 mouse study as evidence of non-carcinogenicity.
Controversy continues to swirl around EPA management’s cozy relationship with Monsanto. The agency’s Office of Inspector General, an independent oversight body, is currently investigating whether a former deputy director in the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Jess Rowland, colluded with Monsanto to “kill” a Department of Health and Human Services investigation into glyphosate prompted by the release of the IARC report. On April 28, 2015, Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, emailed his colleagues that Rowland had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.”
In the meantime, people across the country are suing Monsanto, alleging that their health problems and the deaths of their loved ones are connected to glyphosate. At least 1,100 such cases are wending their way through state courts, and an additional 240 through federal courts.
To understand how we got to this point, we must examine how this four-decade-old dam of selective interpretation and industry interference—that is now leaking badly—was methodically assembled.
GLYPHOSATE USE EXPLODES
In 1974, 1.4 million pounds of glyphosate were sprayed across U.S. farm and ranchland. By 2014, 276 million pounds were applied. Glyphosate use began to mushroom in the 1990s when the USDA approved Monsanto’s request to market corn, soy and cotton seeds that had been genetically engineered to resist Roundup.
In the United States, the EPA has registered glyphosate for use on more than 100 crops, including wheat, rice, oats, barley and alfalfa. In California alone in 2015, more than 11 million pounds of glyphosate were used on crops, including almonds, avocados, cantaloupes, oranges, grapes and pistachios. In the wake of the IARC classification, this past March, California labeled glyphosate a carcinogen under the state’s Proposition 65 program, which requires businesses to notify consumers of carcinogenic chemicals in their products. Monsanto has fought this in court but so far has not prevailed.
Glyphosate is used worldwide, in more than 160 countries. In 2015, Monsanto’s sales of pesticides reportedly brought in $4.76 billion—much of it fueled by the sales of glyphosate used on fields planted with the company’s glyphosate-resistant GMO seeds like Roundup Ready Soybeans.
While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly measures Americans’ blood and urine for more than 200 industrial chemicals (including pesticides), glyphosate is not among those tracked. The USDA has declined to test for glyphosate in food products, but the FDA recently restarted its program monitoring glyphosate in food, although its data is not yet available.
In the absence of good government data, various nongovernmental organizations have commissioned testing of food for the herbicide’s residues. The most recent such testing, by Food Democracy Now, found glyphosate in Honey Nut Cheerios, Ritz crackers, Oreos, Doritos and Lay’s potato chips. Previous European tests have found residues in bread and beer.
MONSANTO WRITES THE REGULATIONS
In the 1970s, the pesticide landscape was far different from today’s. Many more very toxic compounds were on the market, including toxaphene (banned in 1990), endrin (banned in 1986) and chlordane (banned in 1988). In contrast, glyphosate appeared to be nontoxic. Regulators assumed that because glyphosate worked on a metabolic pathway found only in plants, it would be harmless to humans.
The EPA was only four years old when glyphosate entered the market in 1974, and the agency was faced with a large collection of chemicals to review. At the time, protocols for toxicology testing were relatively fluid, and it took the EPA until 1986 to finalize its guidelines. Yet the EPA’s analysis of glyphosate still relies heavily on the initial data.
The earliest example we have found of Monsanto attempting to reduce the perception of glyphosate toxicity is from May 1973, the year before glyphosate was registered. That was when biologist Robert D. Coberly at the EPA’s Toxicology Branch (TB) Registration Division recommended that, due to the herbicide’s tendency to cause eye irritation, the word “Danger” should appear on the label of a Roundup formulation Monsanto was seeking to register.
In November 1973, Monsanto senior staffer L.H. Hannah wrote a letter to the EPA that—as TB staff described in a memo to the Registration Division—“protested our recommendation” that “Danger” appear on the product label. The TB staff wrote that Monsanto suggested the eye irritation observed in the testing was caused by “a secondary infection in previously irritated eyes,” rather than the herbicide. EPA staff were reluctant to back down, but Monsanto persisted. The entire correspondence is not available, but in January 1976 Monsanto asked to have the “signal” word on the label changed from “Danger” to “Caution.” In June 1976, the EPA agreed to Monsanto’s request.
GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT
Throughout the 1970s, EPA staff repeatedly raised red flags about the inadequacy of testing data that Monsanto was submitting in support of glyphosate’s original registration. For example, in an August 1978 memo, TB scientist Krystyna Locke raised concerns about a Monsanto study in which the scientists from the contract lab had failed to record what happened in the experiment. Locke quoted Monsanto scientist Robert Roudabush, who defended the study this way: “The scientific integrity of a study should not be doubted because of the inability to observe all primary recording of data.” In other words, the EPA should not be concerned by the absence of data. It should simply trust the study’s conclusions.
The EPA’s Locke also pointed out that it is “difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the [lab] stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits).” (A male rabbit does not have a uterus.)
This is only the most egregious example of the unreliable data made available to the EPA during its original regulatory review in the 1970s. Many other EPA memos we examined detail incomplete or otherwise unacceptable toxicology screening tests.
Conversely, one apparently valid study has been the target of major attempts to discredit it by both EPA management and Big Ag. In 1983, the EPA was continuing to examine glyphosate toxicity data supplied by Monsanto in anticipation of the registration review that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires for each pesticide at least every 15 years. As part of that process, Monsanto submitted to the EPA a two-year mouse feeding study—a study that has since become a thorn in Monsanto’s side and a drag on the EPA’s push to find glyphosate benign. Its history merits close scrutiny.
The mouse study was conducted for Monsanto by a commercial lab called Bio/Dynamics, but the results of the research were neither peer-reviewed nor made publicly available. Bio/Dynamics studied 200 mice: 50 unexposed control mice and three groups of 50 mice exposed to three different doses of glyphosate. Four of the exposed mice—one at the middle dose and three at the highest dose—developed kidney tumors called adenomas, which tend to be initially benign but can transform into cancers.
Staff toxicologists, pathologists and statisticians in the TB provided the first interpretation of these results. On March 4, 1985, an ad hoc committee of these scientists reported that based on this mouse study, glyphosate was carcinogenic, or a “Class C” substance. They did not question the 1983 study’s structure or reported data. EPA staff toxicologist William Dykstra, in an April 3, 1985, memo, stated unequivocally, “Glyphosate was oncogenic in male mice causing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related manner.”
OUTSIDE EXPERTS
The TB scientists recommended further expert analysis, so in the fall of 1985 Monsanto recruited four outside pathologists to review the original tissue slides from the 1983 study and—eventually—fresh slides taken from the same animals used in that original study. In a March 11, 1986, memo, Dykstra reported on the results of this review: One of the outside pathologists, Marvin Kuschner, saw a tumor in the control group of mice like those found in the exposed groups. Based on this finding, the EPA decided to discount the entire study on the grounds that if an unexposed control mouse had a tumor, the tumors in the exposed mice were “not compound-related.” Subsequent evaluation of the same evidence by other pathologists found no evidence of a tumor in the control mouse, but the seeds of doubt had already been sown. As late as 2016 the EPA still mentioned the tumor in the control mouse, although it was not there.
Dissatisfied with the first outside experts’ verdict, the EPA asked another five outside pathologists to look at the mouse tissue slides from that study. According to a March 1, 1986, memo from EPA Hazard Evaluation Division toxicologist D. Stephen Saunders, these experts decided that “the incidences of renal tubular-cell neoplasms in this study are not compound-related”—in other words, that the kidney tumors were not related to glyphosate exposure.
Throughout this process, the EPA was riddled with internal dissent. In February 1985, TB statistician Herbert Lacayo wrote an impassioned memo regarding the 1983 mouse study. He concluded that without glyphosate exposure, the odds of seeing the kidney tumors noted in the study were about 156 to 1.
“Under such circumstances a prudent person would reject the Monsanto assumption that glyphosate dosing has no effect on kidney tumor production,” wrote Lacayo. “Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data. It is not our job to protect registrants from false positives.”
PASSÉ TOXICOLOGY
Monsanto’s interests were protected by a toxicological tenet that held sway at the time: the linear dose-response. This assumes that the greater the dose of a toxic substance, the greater the effects, and vice versa, often phrased as “the dose makes the poison.” Under this assumption, a carcinogenicity test would be expected to show tumor size or tumor numbers increasing in linear relation to increased exposure to the carcinogen. In the mouse study, tumor numbers followed this pattern, which the TB noted was an indication that the tumors were glyphosate-related. But the largest tumor was found in one of the middle-dose mice. Pathologist Robert A. Squire, a member of the first outside group consulted, wrote in a September 1985 letter to Monsanto, “This would be highly unlikely if the tumors were compound-related.” Thus, even though the tumor numbers followed a linear dose-response, the tumor size of the middle-dose mouse presented an opportunity to discount glyphosate’s effects as non-linear and therefore nonexistent.
In some circumstances, the linear dose-response reasoning makes sense, but the science of chemical health effects has advanced considerably since the 1980s. It is now generally accepted among academic researchers that non-linear dose-responses—responses in which low levels of exposure may produce more significant effects than high levels and responses in which effects at high doses sometimes plateau or tail off—often occur.
None of the regulatory studies of glyphosate considers the possibility of non-linear dose-responses. The registration documents submitted by Monsanto show that when glyphosate testing data did not conform to the linear dose-response model, the company’s hired scientists and the EPA’s consultants concluded that adverse effects found in exposed animals were not caused by glyphosate. But this outdated approach underlines why glyphosate’s toxicity should be revisited using modern concepts and methods.
After a decade of EPA staff scientists repeatedly flagging inconsistencies, mistakes and questionable scientific interpretations in Monsanto’s data, one might expect the EPA to require rigorous new studies. Instead, the agency continued to invite outside experts to review the data, as though it was determined to ask the same question until it got the answer it was looking for.
DON’T LIKE THE ANSWER? ASK AGAIN.
In early 1986, the EPA called in yet more outside experts—namely, the agency’s FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. The seven-member panel included the head of biochemical toxicology and pathobiology at the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT). This institute was founded by chemical manufacturers and funded by organizations and companies that included the American Chemistry Council (an industry group that boasts Monsanto as a member), and pesticide manufacturers BASF, Bayer and Dow Chemical. The panel also included a consultant who had worked for the ChemAgro Corporation (later part of Bayer’s agricultural division) before founding her own consultancy.
The FIFRA panel felt that calling glyphosate carcinogenic was going too far and suggested downgrading its classification to D, “not classified.”
Biostatistician Christopher Portier, formerly a director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the Department of Health and Human Services) says the agency should have stuck with the TB ad hoc committee’s original interpretation. Of the FIFRA panel, he says, “I have no clue how they got there.”
At the same time, according to a February 1985 summary memo by Stephen L. Saunders, based on the panel’s advice, “The Agency has determined that the existing mouse study does not provide sufficient evidence for a resolution of this issue. Therefore, a repeat mouse study is required.”
Despite the EPA’s requests for a clarifying experiment, Monsanto apparently refused. Monsanto’s registration director George B. Fuller protested vigorously in an Oct. 5, 1988, letter to the director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Edwin F. Tinsworth. “[There is] no relevant scientific or regulatory justification for repeating the glyphosate mouse oncogenicity study,” Fuller wrote. “We feel that to do so would not be an appropriate use of either the Agency’s or Monsanto’s resources.” In a 1988 meeting, the company again pressed the EPA to give up on the repeat mouse study requirement. The EPA backed down.
To our knowledge, the original 1983 mouse-feeding carcinogenicity study was never repeated.
What is clear from available EPA internal records is that when test results suggest toxicity, EPA management—as opposed to EPA staff scientists—consistently gives Monsanto and its testing laboratories the benefit of the doubt. They defer to Monsanto’s preferred conclusions instead of requiring the development of additional evidence that would clarify the questions regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. The documents we have examined indicate that the EPA may have asked for—or intended to enforce a requirement for—better data, but we have seen nothing to show that the agency ever did so. The EPA did not respond to our request for comment.
Despite these omissions and questions, in June 1991, the EPA announced that it was downgrading glyphosate from a “Class D”—“not classifiable” substance—to a “Class E” substance—“one that shows evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans—based on the lack of convincing evidence in adequate studies.” (Note that this implies adequate studies might still provide convincing evidence.)
IARC AWAKENS REGULATORS
After the EPA reregistered glyphosate in 1993, the agency’s investigation of glyphosate’s potential health effects became more or less dormant until controversy erupted when the World Health Organization’s IARC concluded in 2015 that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.” That in turn prompted the EPA to develop its Fall 2016 “Glyphosate Issue Paper.” This document references the 1983 mouse study as a linchpin in its conclusion that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen. Referring to the 1983 study, the EPA wrote, “The additional pathological and statistical evaluations concluded that the renal tumors in male mice were not compound-related.”
For its part, Monsanto called the IARC review “flawed” and accused the IARC committee of cherry-picking and overlooking data. Monsanto demanded the report’s retraction.
In a September 27 email to In These Times, Monsanto spokesperson Charla Lord stressed that IARC is not a regulatory agency and that “no regulatory agency in the world has concluded glyphosate is a carcinogen.” As noted above, however, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment has done so.
The IARC controversy and the EPA’s second re-registration process for glyphosate, which began in 2009, have triggered a salvo of scientific journal articles and comments from the agricultural industry. This includes an entire toxicology journal issue devoted to articles (all financed by Monsanto) asserting glyphosate safety and casting doubt on contrary results. The apparent goal of these comments and articles is to discredit the IARC decision and to influence the EPA’s re-registration process.
Judging by the stance of the EPA’s “Glyphosate Issue Paper,” the campaign has succeeded. The EPA has not commissioned or conducted any of its own studies to examine glyphosate’s potential health effects; rather, the EPA document relies on non-public industry research and industry-financed reviews. It ignores the significant body of peer-reviewed literature not only on the chemical’s carcinogenic effects, but also on glyphosate’s harmful effects on fetal development, hormonal balance, gut bacteria and ecological balance.
Indeed, the industry reviews are not simply convenient collations of relevant literature for the EPA—the agency appears to rely on the interpretations and conclusions of the industry-financed scientists as well, in some cases without seeing the original studies. In comments submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel on Nov. 3, 2016, Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist Jennifer Sass stated:NRDC strongly disagrees with EPA’s dismissal or reduced weighting of many of the positive studies, and its higher weighting of guideline studies which are most often the industry-sponsored studies generated to support regulatory approval. NRDC is especially concerned that EPA relied on a review article—particularly one sponsored by the industries whose products are the target of this risk assessment—instead of the original studies.
John DeSesso, a principal with the chemical consultancy Exponent, insists the studies and reviews the EPA relied on are solid. “Certainly they relied on those studies, but they happen to be the better studies that are out there,” DeSesso says. “I understand people saying of course it came out a certain way because Monsanto paid for it.” He adds, “If it went to the EPA, they don’t have the people to do it or the time to do it themselves. So they’re looking for people staying in the middle of the road and let the data tell the story.”
Yet two facts remain: First, the EPA failed to consider the large body of peer-reviewed science on glyphosate currently available. Second, neither the public nor the scientific community has access to the original study data from Monsanto upon which the EPA bases its claims of glyphosate’s safety.
SAFE AS MOTHER’S MILK
In July 2015, five months after IARC concluded that glyphosate was carcinogenic, Monsanto reacted publicly to Moms Across America’s 2014 breast milk survey. The company’s response to this small nonprofit organization parallels its lobbying of a federal agency over the last 40 years, demonstrating that it will seek to discredit all opposition no matter how small. It aggressively and publicly sowed doubt as it manipulated the science behind the scenes.
The first public salvo against Moms Across America came in a July 2015 press release from Washington State University (WSU). WSU biology professor Michelle McGuire was quoted as saying, “The Moms Across America study flat out got it wrong.” The release, which is no longer available at the WSU web site, explained that yet-to-be-published research by McGuire and her colleagues showed that glyphosate “does not accumulate in mother’s milk.” The WSU release described McGuire’s results as “independently verified by an accredited outside organization.” These assertions turned out to be false.
When asked about the study at the time, McGuire, WSU and Monsanto all said the study was conducted independently. Yet the press release noted that the study’s milk samples were tested at Monsanto’s laboratories in St. Louis, as well as by Covance, Inc. (The company was formerly named Hazleton, which was doing toxicology testing for Monsanto as early as 1979.) When we queried about this in July 2015, McGuire and Monsanto explained that Monsanto had developed the test method used to measure glyphosate in human milk.
Asked why the company had developed the test method, Monsanto explained via email that McGuire’s study had, in fact, been conducted in response to Moms Across America’s test results. The Monsanto spokesman wrote: “After the Moms Across America results were posted, Monsanto consulted with the researchers about the data. We all determined that the most appropriate way to address the issues was to conduct another analysis using an analytical methodology that was validated to be precise and specific for the detection of glyphosate in human milk.”
In a September 25 Biology Fortified, Inc. YouTube video, McGuire said the study had “a conflict of interest that needed to be managed really, really carefully.” As the most specific example of such careful management, she said that in order to “make sure we had an independent or third-party lab analyze the samples,” the samples were shipped “directly to Covance so it was not like we were going through Monsanto.”
Given the close ties between Covance and Monsanto, and Monsanto’s role in devising the study and developing the analytical method, McGuire’s description of the analysis as “independent” is something of a stretch.
In March 2016, the WSU study was published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The study’s acknowledgements detail extensive support from Monsanto:Three of the study’s nine authors are listed as Monsanto employees.
Research “gifts” of $10,000 are disclosed from Monsanto to McGuire and her co-author (and husband) Mark McGuire, in addition to the study costs for which Monsanto reimbursed the McGuires.
The study’s biological sample testing (milk and urine) was paid for by Monsanto, and the company was involved in other aspects of the study design and assay development.
Curiously, even though the authors included Michelle and Mark McGuire, the study footnotes also say that “the authors reported no funding received for this study” and that authors not employed by Monsanto reported no conflicts of interest related to the study.
Further undermining claims of the study’s independence is the fact that the journal that published McGuire’s study is copyrighted to the American Society of Nutrition, of which Monsanto—along with numerous other agricultural and food manufacturing corporations—is a “sustaining partner.” Michelle McGuire is listed in her university bio as an American Society of Nutrition spokesperson.
Phil Weller, a WSU spokesperson, says university scientists like McGuire “are encouraged to collaborate with researchers working in industry” and “to design their studies in such a way that any sort of bias that might be involved does not influence their results.”
BACK TO THE FUTURE
When glyphosate was first registered, it no doubt appeared benign compared to very toxic compounds that had been used as pesticides for decades. But glyphosate usage has ballooned beyond all expectations and, more than four decades later, we have no clear understanding of the consequences of this increased exposure on humans and the environment.
The EPA’s regulatory record on glyphosate is compromised by missing, incomplete, hidden, redacted, lost and otherwise faulty information. The EPA relies on data, most of which is unpublished, that is supplied by the manufacturer, interpreted by the industry and not publicly available. Consequently, a decisive and transparent assessment of glyphosate’s toxicity is impossible. The EPA has never wavered from its decision to dismiss and minimize the 1983 mouse study, which appears to be valid. The agency has never attempted to replicate the study in order to clarify its results—perhaps because it feared that such evidence would demonstrate that glyphosate was indeed a carcinogen. Furthermore, it’s a pattern the agency continues to follow, discounting later studies using similar arguments and research supplied by industry that have not undergone independent analysis.
Neither the public nor the scientific community has access to the original study data from Monsanto upon which the EPA bases its claims of glyphosate’s safety.
“I gave [the EPA] the benefit of the doubt in 1986,” says Portier. “I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt in 2017.”
Glyphosate is a clear case of “regulatory capture” by a corporation acting in its own financial interest while serious questions about public health remain in limbo.
The record suggests that in 44 years—through eight presidential administrations—EPA management has never attempted to correct the problem. Indeed, the pesticide industry touts its forward-looking, modern technologies as it strives to keep its own research in the closet, and relies on questionable assumptions and outdated methods in regulatory toxicology.
The only way to establish a scientific basis for evaluating glyphosate’s safety, as a group of 14 scientists suggested in 2016, would be to make proprietary industrial studies public, put them up against the peer-reviewed literature and conduct new studies by researchers independent of corporate interests—in other words, force some daylight between regulators and the regulated.
http://inthesetimes.com/features/monsanto_epa_glyphosate_roundup_investigation.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Has the Asbestos Industry Met Its Match? The Latest Update on an Asbestos Ban

Nov 1, 2017 | Mesothelioma.com

By Jennifer Lucarelli

Decades of scientific evidence proving the harmful and often fatal effects of asbestos have been overshadowed by a judicial system wrought with legal obstacles that have allowed asbestos to continue to be imported, sold and utilized in the United States.
On June 22, 2016, then President Obama signed into law The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—an amendment of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—aimed at updating the process for the evaluation and determination of whether or not regulatory control of an identified chemical is justified.
Nearly six months later on December 19, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a list of the initial ten chemicals selected for risk-evaluation under the amended TSCA.
Notably, asbestos was included in this first-round selection. This designation was viewed by many asbestos awareness advocates as a monumental step in the right direction towards achieving an eventual ban on asbestos in the United States.
While asbestos remains under evaluation for regulation by the EPA, data estimates from 2016 show that asbestos imports nearly doubled in comparison to 2015 with 705 metric tons of raw asbestos imported versus 343 metric tons.
In the United States, the chlor-alkali industry is the lone user of raw asbestos. Lobbyists from the American Chemistry Council are pushing hard on behalf of this industry to be granted an exemption under the amended TSCA that would allow for the continued importation and utilization of asbestos specific to this industry.
Is the United States on its way to overcoming the roadblocks imposed by the asbestos industry to join the more than 60 nations worldwide that have already banned asbestos? Or will bureaucratic industrial strongholds prevail? Time will soon tell.
https://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/authors/jennifer/has-the-asbestos-industry-met-its-match-the-latest-update-on-an-asbestos-ban.htm

Return to headline | Return to top
Pennsylvania High Court to Weigh Duty to Warn on Asbestos

Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Leslie A. Pappas

An appeals court in Pennsylvania is asking the state Supreme Court if manufacturers have a duty to warn about asbestos-related hazards of component parts made by third parties.
The case could have implications for Pennsylvania and beyond because “courts around the country are all over the place on this,” Marc P. Weingarten, a senior partner and product liability attorney with Locks Law Firm in Philadelphia, told Bloomberg Environment in a phone call Oct. 31. “This is probably one of the hottest issues in asbestos litigation.”
In an Oct. 26 order, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court granted a Sept. 27 petition, which came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to consider two issues: Whether, under Pennsylvania law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn about the asbestos-related hazards of component parts it has neither manufactured nor supplied; and if such a duty exists, then what is the appropriate legal test to determine whether the company is liable for failing to warn about the risks of asbestos?
It's a legal dilemma that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said it will consider in response to a petition from the Third Circuit (Dobrick v. Crane Co., Aplt., In re: Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), Crane Co., Pa., No. 32-EAP-2017, 10/26/17).
The court should consider the questions because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), “made an important change in Pennsylvania law” on the distinction between strict liability and negligence actions, Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote in the Sept. 27 petition.
“In light of that significant, and yet to be fully developed, change, this appears to be an instance in which Pennsylvania law should be interpreted first by an authoritative opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” Jordan wrote.
The large number of asbestos-related cases and the scale of financial exposure also are reasons the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should hear the case, Jordan argued.
Valves and Lungs
The appeals court's questions stem from a case involving Crane Co., a Stamford, Conn., valve manufacturer, and the late Valent Rabovsky, who his heirs said developed mesothelioma after years of being exposed to asbestos-laden gaskets and packing that came with the valves.
According to the petition, Rabovsky worked in power plant steam operations and had to disassemble Crane valves to replace the internal gaskets, which would corrode and fuse to the valves under heat and pressure, forcing Robovsky to use grinding tools to remove them. His attorneys argued that Crane knew the gaskets and packing contained asbestos and should have warned him of the hazards.
Crane argued that it manufactured and sold the valves—not the gaskets and packing inside the valves—and a negligent failure-to-warn action was not available under Pennsylvania law.
‘Bare Metal Defense’
Crane used what is called the “bare-metal defense,” meaning it was responsible only for the bare-metal parts and there was no duty to warn about hazards associated with components that it did not manufacture, the petition noted.
“This bare-metal defense in related cases has been coming up quite a bit,” Peter Patton, a senior partner and product liability attorney with law firm Galfand Berger in Philadelphia, told Bloomberg Environment in a phone call Oct. 31. “There's a reason for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to consider the issue.”
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123229080&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123229080&jd=123229080

Return to headline | Return to top
US CPSC Publishes Rule Banning Phthalates In Children's Products

Nov 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The US Consumer Products Safety Commission has published its regulation banning five phthalates in toys and other children's products.
The rule was approved on 18 October on a party-line vote. It was published on 27 October and will take effect on 25 April 2018.
The phthalates affected are:
·         diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP);
·         di-n-pentyl phthalate (DnPP or DPENP);
·         di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHP or DHEXP);
·         dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP); and
·         diisononyl phthalate (DINP).
https://chemicalwatch.com/60654/welsh-government-consults-on-microbeads-ban

Return to headline | Return to top
Groups Sue EPA Over Delayed Formaldehyde Rule

Nov 1, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar

Two environmental groups filed a lawsuit today aimed at forcing U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to fully implement an Obama-era rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from wood products.
The formaldehyde rule was required by a 2010 law that passed after victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita suffered nosebleeds, headaches, eye and skin irritation, and other ailments linked to Federal Emergency Management Agency-supplied trailers tainted with high levels of the chemical.
The law calls for EPA to establish national limits on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products by 2013. But the Obama administration didn't finalize wood emission limits for the carcinogenic chemical until last December.
The rule was supposed to take effect in February. But the Trump administration twice pushed back its implementation date, and last month EPA announced it would delay the rule's compliance deadlines for, in some cases, nearly seven years (Greenwire, Sept. 27).
In the wake of three devastating hurricanes this year, the Sierra Club and the Louisiana-based group A Community Voice are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to declare EPA's latest delay arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the 2010 formaldehyde law.
"It is outrageous that people recovering from this year's hurricanes might have to deal with the same health issues in their emergency housing that the EPA has known about — and was supposed to address years ago," said Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman, who is representing the groups. "It is long past time to put an end to cheap, imported wood products that needlessly make people sick."
Formaldehyde is used to bind plywood, particle board and other wood products that are then used in a wide array of consumer products, such as paneling, flooring, cabinets, furniture and recreational vehicles.
When asked about the lawsuit, an EPA spokesman said, "We don't normally comment on pending litigation."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/10/31/stories/1060065203

Return to headline | Return to top
Norwegian Study Finds Harmful Chemicals In House Dust

Oct 31, 2017 | Chemical Watch

A 2016 screening study of compounds in the environment carried out in Norway, has found that samples of house dust gave the most positive results for the chemicals it was looking for.
Furthermore, the Norwegian Environment Directorate research concluded that house dust and indoor air can serve as an early warning tool, because they are closely connected to the original product that caused them and they can reflect its composition.
The study looked at the occurrence of selected solvents, siloxanes, flame retardants, bisphenols and other PBT compounds in:
·         effluents;
·         sewage sludge;
·         surface water;
·         sediments;
·         house dust;
·         indoor air; and
·         biota.
With the exception of pesticides and some purely industrial chemicals, the study noted, most of the detected chemicals are either part of products used in an indoor environment or are easily transported into houses.
The chemicals were selected for screening because of their potential harm to the environment and relevance to EU regulation.
Among the findings:
·         volatile aromatic compounds, di-isopropylbenzenes and 4-Isopropyl-1,1'-biphenyl, were frequently found both in wastewater treatment plant sludge and indoor environmental samples, establishing their widespread use and emission;
·         all selected dechlorane compounds, with the exception of dibromoaldrin and dechlorane 601, were found regularly and at high concentrations in nearly all studied sample types, including house dust. This group of compounds should be selected for further and more thorough studies, the study says;
·         for the bisphenols, the estimated daily intake of house dust by ingestion may be as important as food intake, when calculating the total human exposure;
·         bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BAGDE)-related compounds were found in all house dust samples, and the measured concentrations were in the same range as BPA;
·         the phosphorous flame retardant bisphenol A bis(diphenylphosphate) BPA-BDPP was only found in three of the house dust samples, at relatively high concentrations. In other studies, this compound seemed to be related to electronic equipment;
·         the organotin compound di-n-octyltin, used in water-based paints, and the UV filter octocrylene were found in all house dust samples.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60628/norwegian-study-finds-harmful-chemicals-in-house-dust

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) How The Shale Boom Is Boosting U.S. Exports

Nov 1, 2017 | Oil Price

By Robert Rapier

Most people are at least somewhat aware that the U.S. shale oil boom has resulted in lower fuel prices at the pump. But they are probably less familiar with the economic impacts of the shale gas boom.
I have covered some of the impacts of the cheap shale gas bounty in the past. They include a surge of natural gas exports to Mexico and displacement of coal in electric power production.
Today I want to talk about the impact on the chemical manufacturing industry. Natural gas is used in chemical manufacture both as a raw material and as a source of fuel. The constituents of natural gas — methane, ethane, propane, etc. — can be separated out, with each being used as a raw material for different chemical processes.
Methane, for instance, is the primary raw material for methanol production. In 2015, Canada’s Methanex - the world’s largest methanol producer - began making methanol at a new 1.1 million ton per year plant in Geismar, Louisiana. In 2016, the company started up a second plant in Geismar with the same methanol capacity.
What is interesting about these plants is that they were relocated from the company’s production site in Punta Arenas, Chile because of much lower U.S. natural gas prices. The cost of the relocation of these two Methanex plants from Chile was about $1.4 billion, and they employ an estimated 165 people directly and 1,038 indirectly.
his is but a small fraction of the total amount being spent by the chemical industry to relocate and build new capacity in response to low U.S. natural gas prices. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), as of July 2017, there are 310 completed, started or potential chemical industry projects chemical industry projects due to shale gas.
The ACC estimates that these projects represent $185 billion in new capital investment and will create 464,000 direct & indirect jobs by 2025, $310 billion in new economic output, and will bring in $26 billion in new tax revenue by 2025.
Ethane is the second most abundant constituent of natural gas (behind methane) and is primarily used to produce ethylene, which is the world’s most widely used petrochemical. The flood of new shale gas supplies has overwhelmed the market for ethane, sending the price plummeting. This, in turn, has made the economics of ethane derivatives manufacture like ethylene and polyethylene extremely attractive in the U.S.
Four ethylene crackers are coming online this year on the U.S. Gulf Coast, and another five under construction will begin operations by the end of 2019. The total annual capacity of these projects is 10.9 million metric tons per year, which should fuel ethylene exports. Even with all the new ethylene capacity, the shale gas boom created so much excess ethane in the U.S. that ethane futures through December 2021 are under $0.35/gallon.
The $768 billion U.S. chemical industry is the second largest in the world, with 15 percent of the global market. The industry provided 811,000 U.S. jobs and accounted for $174 billion of U.S. exports in 2016 — 14 percent of all U.S. exports.
Thanks to the shale gas boom, those numbers are expected to grow.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-The-Shale-Boom-Is-Boosting-US-Exports.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Port Arthur Pipeline Files for FERC Approval of Louisiana Connector Project

Oct 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

Sempra Energy's Port Arthur Pipeline LLC has requested that FERC issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for its proposed $1.2 billion Louisiana Connector Project, which would supply feed gas to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction and export facility in Port Arthur, TX.
According to an application filed Monday with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [CP18-7], the project calls for construction of 131 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline, with a capacity of 2 MMcf/d. It also includes a new compressor station in Allen Parish, LA, interconnections with eight interstate and intrastate natural gas facilities, and other appurtenant facilities.
The Louisiana Connector would supply feed gas to a proposed liquefaction and export facilitythat is currently under review by FERC [CP17-20] and is being developed by two Port Arthur Pipeline affiliates -- Port Arthur LNG LLC and PALNG Common Facilities Co. LLC.
Specifically, the project would extend from an interconnect with Columbia Gas Transmission at a point northeast of Eunice, LA, in St. Landry Parish before traversing Louisiana's Evangeline, Allen, Beauregard, Calcasieu and Cameron parishes. The project would continue across Texas' Orange and Jefferson counties before terminating at the proposed liquefaction site south of Port Arthur. About 74% of the project (95.6 miles) would run parallel existing pipeline and power line corridors.
Last August, Port Arthur Pipeline held a binding open season requesting bids for firm service on the Louisiana Connector Project. In response to the open season, the company negotiated a binding precedent agreement with Port Arthur LNG for a level of firm service equal to the project's entire firm transportation capacity.
In an effort to get a jump start on the Louisiana Connector, Port Arthur Pipeline filed a request to initiate FERC's pre-filing process under the National Environmental Policy Act [PF17-5] last February. The Commission granted the request one month later, and the company proceeded to host several meetings with stakeholders and landowners. FERC staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the project last May.
Last November, Port Arthur Pipeline filed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Texas Connector Project [CP17-21] -- two initial segments of the pipeline system, measuring 26.6 and 7.6 miles in length, designed to serve the LNG facilities at Port Arthur.
In its Louisiana Connector filing, Port Arthur Pipeline requested that FERC issue authorizations for both the Louisiana and Texas connectors by Aug. 31, 2018, so the company can meet deadlines with its foundation shipper and place all of the facilities into service by the third quarter of 2022.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112284-port-arthur-pipeline-files-for-ferc-approval-of-louisiana-connector-project

Return to headline | Return to top
Cruz Urges Trump To Use NAFTA 2.0 To Open Energy Markets

Oct 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Megan Cassella

President Donald Trump and his administration should be focused on using the renegotiation of NAFTA to boost U.S. access to North American markets, and Mexican energy markets in particular, Sen. Ted Cruz said today.
The Texas Republican said he has urged the administration to focus on opening up Mexico's energy market, which he called "the single greatest opportunity for NAFTA renegotiation." Doing so would produce thousands of high-paying jobs on both sides of the border, he added.
"Developing those resources in Mexico will produce thousands of high-paying jobs in Mexico," Cruz said at a NAFTA event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But, he added, "as they develop the resources, the place they are naturally going to look for the expertise, for the know-how on how to develop those resources, is the United States."
Cruz described a recent meeting in his Senate office with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray Caso. He said Videgaray showed "considerable interest" in codifying recent reforms Mexico has made and in allowing increased U.S. access to the market. The hope is that the U.S. could push Mexico even further, "so that we incentivize developing those resources," Cruz said.
"It is a win-win," he added.
The senator noted that while modernizing NAFTA and boosting trade ties could be a good thing, renegotiating the agreement solely to erect trade barriers and slow global trade would do "profound damage to the American economy."
"I think there are voices within the administration pulling both directions," he said. "Now, which direction will the administration go? I will tell you candidly, I don't know."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
The Fracking Boom’s Midlife Crisis

Nov 1, 2017 | Bloomberg Businessweek

By Alex Nussbaum and David Wethe

Crude prices bouncing around $50 to $60 a barrel have kept U.S. shale producers stuck on the edge of profitability. That hasn’t been enough to shut down the oil boom in places such as North Dakota, Texas, and New Mexico—at least not yet. Drillers are heading into 2018 on the defensive as they face skepticism from shareholders who want to see less investment and more profit. They may also be finding that much of the easy oil has already been pumped.
“There’s a complacency that shale is going to continue to produce at the kind of volumes that we had in the past,” says Jim Brilliant, a portfolio manager for Century Management Investment Advisors in Austin, whose investments include shares in energy-related companies. Output has recently failed to meet expectations. As of June, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expected an average of about 9.3 million barrels a day, more than 220,000 barrels a day higher than companies reported.
Investors are demanding that companies sell off weaker holdings, pare spending, and pay down their debt, wrote Paul Sankey, a Wolfe Research LLCanalyst, in a Sept. 5 note. Shale producers traditionally market themselves as growth companies. With few exceptions, they eschew paying dividends and buying back shares, and instead plow their money into more drilling. Many are still outspending their cash flow. But their shares haven’t cooperated with this strategy: While the stock market has reached record highs this year, an S&P index of oil and gas explorers and producers has plunged about 17 percent. “I think people are disappointed for all the right reasons,” says Tom Driscoll, a Barclays Plc energy analyst.
Executive pay incentives for exploration and production companies are under scrutiny from investors, too. “The compensation plans laid out by E&P corporate boards encourage these companies to grow production at almost any cost,” says Kevin Holt, chief investment officer for value equities at Invesco Ltd. For example, pay may be tied to sales volumes or additions to reserves, rather than measures of cash flow. The strategy “builds the personal net worth of the CEOs but does nothing for the shareholders for whom they are legally fiduciaries,” says Holt.
Drillers also face technical questions about the shale boom’s sustainability. Pioneer Natural Resources Co. and Parsley Energy Inc. reported higher-than-expected natural gas output from their wells in August. That sent shares tumbling, because traders took it as a sign that oil flows, which are more lucrative, might peak more quickly than the industry expected. (As wells age, they tend to produce more gas and less oil.) The companies said their oil production hadn’t diminished, while analysts dismissed the worries as overblown.
Still, the market’s anxiety attack came amid other warning signs. In July, London-based investment manager Horseman Capital Management Ltd. noted government data that showed U.S. shale wells were petering out at a quickening rate and questionedwhether it was the result of increasingly intense drilling. Later, industry consultant Wood Mackenzie Ltd. warned breakneck development could be “testing the geologic limits” of U.S. shale’s crown jewel, the prolific Permian Basin, which straddles the border of Texas and New Mexico. “If you look at what the industry is set up to do in the next three years in the Permian, they are going to push on the rock harder than we’ve ever pushed on a shale play before,” says Robert Clarke, a research director at Wood Mackenzie. A shortfall there could ultimately affect world oil prices.
For some producers, that will be good news—if they can keep their own wells pumping as overall output growth slows, letting prices rise. “U.S. production is not nearly the Big Bad Wolf that everybody thinks,” Mark Papa, chief executive officer of Centennial Resource Development Inc., said at an investor conference in New York in September. But oil consumers could be in for a shock. “If the world keeps believing we’ve got surplus oil as far as the eye can see—which I don’t believe—then the reality is going to smack everybody in the face,” Century Management’s Brilliant says. “And it will be hard to catch up.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-01/fracking-boom-hits-midlife-crisis-as-investors-geologists-see-shale-limits

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) New Alliance Focused on Diisocyanates

Nov 1, 2017 | Occupational Health and Safety

By Jerry Laws

OSHA and the American Chemistry Council have joined in a two-year alliance to raise awareness of workers' exposure hazards and promote the chemicals' safe use in the polyurethane industry.
OSHA and the American Chemistry Council announced a new alliance in September that will raise awareness of how workers are exposed to diisocyanates and promote safe practices for their use in the polyurethane industry. These are raw materials used to make polyurethane products, such as insulation, car seats, and foam mattresses, and respiratory and dermal exposures can result in irritation of the skin and mucous membranes, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing. More serious health effects include asthma and other lung problems, according to OSHA.

According to EPA, diisocyanates are well-known dermal and inhalation sensitizers in the workplace and have been documented to cause asthma and lung damage, but the ACC Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) says manufacturers, in partnership with downstream users, have implemented product stewardship activities that have contributed to a reduction in diisocyanate-related asthma cases, even as production rates of diisocyanates have increased.
The alliance calls for the creation of a web-based training program on the safe use and handling of chemicals and the potential routes of exposure for users. The partners will develop guidance on medical surveillance and clinical evaluation techniques for employers and workers using the chemicals, and their agreement calls for best practices seminars on health and safety procedures for OSHA, On-Site Consultation, and State Plan staffers.
"OSHA's new alliance with ACC will help ensure that employers and employees who work with the identified chemicals better understand the health hazards associated with these potentially hazardous chemicals and the methods to control employee exposures," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Loren Sweatt.
Three groups from ACC will lead the work with OSHA: CPI and the Diisocyanates and Aliphatic Diisocyanates panels. According to ACC, members of these groups include manufacturers and distributors of chemicals and equipment used to make polyurethane, and CPI serves as the voice of the polyurethanes industry, covering more than 220,000 workers nationwide.
"We're thrilled to be working with OSHA on making American workplaces even safer, which has always been a top priority for CPI and ACC as a whole," said Lee Salamone, senior director of CPI. "Our partnership with OSHA will build on our strong foundation of product stewardship and outreach and will help us identify additional areas of emphasis so we can better target our activities."
The two organizations' agreement, signed Sept. 13, says the alliance partnership aims to provide information, guidance, and access to training resources to members, occupational physicians, stakeholders, and others in the polyurethanes value chain.

"The chemical industry is committed to safety, and this partnership supports our continuing efforts to enhance worker protection," said Sahar Osman-Sypher, director of DII and ADI. "The partnership will work toward further educating workers and employers on how to use diisocyanates safely in their everyday working environment."
ACC's announcement indicated the two-year alliance has three primary goals: raising awareness of OSHA’s rulemaking and enforcement initiatives; conducting training to educate employers, workers, and OSHA officials on safety issues; and developing effective outreach and communication efforts to increase the visibility of the partnership and its goals.
Goals Include Promoting Industry-wide Use of Medical Surveillance
The OSHA page explaining the alliance1 says it will provide information, guidance, and access to training resources that will help stakeholders protect the health and safety of workers, "particularly by: 1) illustrating methods for reducing and preventing exposure to aliphatic and aromatic diisocyanates (MDI, TDI, HDI, HMDI, and IPDI); 2) providing a better understanding of the health issues, routes of exposure, and medical surveillance/clinical evaluation techniques related to diisocyanates; and 3) understanding the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)."
It explains that the goals of the alliance include:
·         sharing information on OSHA’s National Emphasis Programs, regulatory agenda, and opportunities to participate in the rulemaking process
·         promoting, through seminars and workshops, industry-wide use of medical surveillance programs
·         encouraging employers to develop new programs or enhance existing ones, including Safety and Health Management Systems.
·         speaking, exhibiting, or appearing at OSHA or ACC conferences, local meetings, or other regional events

Also, OSHA offers a fact sheet2 about work-related asthma from isocyanate exposure. It says these chemicals "are one of the most common chemical causes of work-related asthma," which can cause long-term lung damage, disability, or death.
The fact sheet points out that work-related asthma can develop over any period of time, from days to years; that it is possible to develop work-related asthma even in a workplace equipped with protective equipment such as exhaust ventilation and respirators; and that, before working with isocyanates or any other asthma-causing substances, workers should ask their employer for training as required by OSHA’s Hazard Communication standard.
It says typical jobs and tasks where exposures to isocyanates can occur include:
·         car manufacture and repair
·         building construction (plaster, insulation)
·         foam blowing and cutting
·         painting
·         truck bed liner application
·         foundry work (casting)
·         textile, rubber, and plastic manufacturing
·         printing
·         furniture manufacturing
·         electric cable insulation
The fact sheet recommends that clinicians obtain a patient's detailed medical history, document a history of occupational exposures, perform pulmonary function testing in accord with American Thoracic Society standards, and consider referring the patient to an occupational medicine, pulmonary, or allergy specialist for supplemental testing.
For More Information
ACC's Center for the Polyurethanes Industry offers information about the potential health effects of diisocyanate exposure and worker protections, including respiratory PPE and the use of engineering controls, at https://polyurethane.americanchemistry.com/Health-Safety-and-Product-Stewardship/.

https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/11/01/new-alliance-focused-on-diisocyanates.aspx?admgarea=news

Return to headline | Return to top
Exxon to Pay $300 Million to Resolve Chemical Pollution Cases

Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and David McLaughlin

Exxon Mobil Corp. agreed to pay more than $300 million to resolve air pollution violations tied to eight chemical plants in Texas and Louisiana, one of a pair of environmental settlements with oil companies announced by the Trump administration Oct. 31.
Separately, Denver-based PDC Energy Inc. agreed to pay $22.2 million after storage tanks were found to be leaking smog-forming compounds.
The cases are among the most notable environmental enforcement actions by the Trump administration, with at least one target that hits close to home. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was chief executive officer at Exxon until late last year.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has vowed to get tough on corporate polluters.
The Exxon case involved thousands of tons of toxic air pollutants such as benzene that streamed from 26 industrial flares at five Texas facilities and three in Louisiana, according to a Justice Department statement released Oct. 31. Under the settlement, Exxon will spend $300 million in new anti-pollution and monitoring gear, pay a $2.5 million fine and spend $1 million to plant trees around its Baytown, Texas, plant.
In June, the Trump administration filed a civil lawsuit alleging that PDC repeatedly violated the Clean Air Act and Colorado air pollution rules by allowing volatile organic compounds to escape from more than 80 groupings, or batteries, of condensate storage tanks near Denver.
The EPA alleged that PDC failed to adequately design, operate and maintain control systems on those tanks, resulting in the leaks and contributing to a smog problem in the area, where ozone levels exceed federal limits. The case was brought at the request of the EPA and Colorado authorities, following state inspections from 2013 through 2015.
PDC owns and operates hundreds of oil and gas production facilities in Colorado's Denver-Julesburg Basin.
—With assistance from Andrew Harris and Joe Carroll.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123229076&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123229076&jd=123229076

Return to headline | Return to top
Explosion occurs at Marathon's Texas City refinery

Oct 31, 2017 | Houston Chronicle

By Jordan Blum

Marathon Petroleum reported an explosion early Tuesday at its Texas City oil refinery.
The Ohio-based refining giant said no one was injured and surrounding communities weren't affected. Local emergency responders were notified only as a precaution, Marathon spokesman Chuck Rice said.
He said an investigation into the cause of the explosion is underway.
Marathon's Texas City refinery is much smaller than the company's adjacent Galveston Bay refinery, although the company is planning to eventually combine the into one massive refining complex.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Explosion-occurs-at-Marathon-s-Texas-City-refinery-12319777.php

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Environment News

Meet The 'Eco Right' Pushing For A Carbon Fee

Nov 1, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Arianna Skibell

Over the summer, Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii introduced legislation to instate a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and said they were looking for a Republican co-sponsor.
A glimmer of hope for them emerged when Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina publicly endorsed the plan in September.
But after a spate of hurricanes, a dozen wildfires and mass flooding, many weeks later there has been virtually no public progress on carbon legislation.
"Let's see, let's see, let's see," Whitehouse told E&E News yesterday. "Well, what I can say is what Lindsey Graham has said publicly, which is that he is working with me and looking at that bill. He has announced nothing further, and I have nothing to announce."
Jerry Taylor, a prominent libertarian in favor of a carbon fee, said the lack of movement on the Hill could mean a carbon tax window is opening.
"The main evidence for that read of the law of the land is the opponents of carbon taxation are mobilized and engaged, and they wouldn't be if this were not a live issue," he said. "When you see opponents to a proposed idea mobilized and actively engaged in the fight, it tells you the fight is farther along than you think."
For the last couple of months, grass-roots conservative groups opposed to a carbon fee — the Club for Growth and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example — have been on high alert, Taylor said.
Whitehouse said that indeed contrary to popular opinion, there are a growing number of Republicans, conservatives and libertarians who openly support pricing carbon. They're just not on the Hill, yet.
"There is considerable Republican support for a revenue-neutral border adjustable carbon fee outside of the political crucible of Congress, and indeed, it's really the only solution that has generated any significant Republican support," said Whitehouse.
Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who famously reversed his climate skeptic stance, agreed there is growing movement on the right to address global warming.
"This space has been dominated by folks on the environmental left," he said. "They think they have an open door to Republicans, but they really don't. So we're developing what we call the 'eco right.' It's a balance to the environmental left."Think tanks
Niskanen Center
The Niskanen Center was founded in 2014 by Taylor and is predominantly focused on Capitol Hill outreach.
Prior to founding the center, Taylor spent 23 years to advance the Cato Institute's libertarian agenda. His job was to change hearts and minds on issues like free markets, limited government and climate change.
He worked to demonstrate that the economic toll of reducing carbon emissions would not outweigh the potential benefits. But as he spent more time with climate science and economics, his views began to shift (Greenwire, June 16).
Taylor, a vocal proponent of a carbon tax, said he is seeing movement on that front.
"We're meeting not only with the usual suspects, like members of [Florida Republican Rep.] Carlos Curbelo's Climate Solutions Caucus, but also with Republican members outside that coalition, and what we're finding is there is a great deal of sympathy towards action on climate change and a lot of interest in carbon taxation," he said. "But there is uncertainty about the political road from here to there."
Taylor said Republican members are not worried about the merits of the carbon fee structure but rather what is often called "safe passage" politically.
Taylor's preferred legislation would levy carbon taxes at the point of production, use proceeds to offset revenue losses from tax cuts, rebate a portion of the revenue to poor households, eliminate U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and eliminate green energy subsidies, among other measures.
Taylor said he believes his ideas have merit not only because they allow the market to work but also because climate change is real and imposes risk.
"And it's not conservative to act as if risk does not exist and play dice with the planet," he said.
R Street Institute
In 2012, the Heartland Institute, one of the leading groups questioning global warming science, launched a digital billboard campaign featuring Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber."
The ad read, "I still believe in global warming, do you?"
Following the campaign, some Heartland members working on insurance issues decided it was time to break off and start their own outfit that took climate change seriously.
"We still have a friendly relationship with [Heartland]," said Josiah Neeley, senior fellow, energy policy director and Southwest region chief for the R Street Institute. But as insurance brokers, R Street employees understood risk, he said.
"If you're dealing in insurance, you need to be able to take climate change seriously. Because it's not realistic if you're talking about sea-level rise, storms, droughts, floods, you name it," Neeley said.
R Street, founded in June 2012, is a think tank that promotes free markets and limited government. The group supports a carbon tax. Neeley said R Street applies conservative values and principles to address the warming planet.
"The most common or strongest objection that we get from folks when we talk about this stuff is the idea that it's not politically realistic in one way or another," he said.
"Being skeptical about government implementation I think is a fair point," Neeley said, "but there are a lot of things that we advocate for that would be pretty major changes to policy, and knowing politicians are flawed vessels I don't think that means that we should just give up."Thought leaders
Climate Leadership Council
The Climate Leadership Council, founded earlier this year by Washington, D.C., think tank veteran Ted Halstead, is known around town for its high-profile members, including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, scientist Stephen Hawking, famed economist Larry Summers and others.
The council also includes corporate entities like Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and nongovernmental organizations like the Nature Conservancy and Conservation International.
In February, the council formally launched with the publication of its manifesto: "The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends," authored by eight GOP statesmen.
They included Republican heavyweights James Baker III, who served under both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Reagan, and George Shultz, who served under both Reagan and President Nixon.
The proposal, which they presented to the White House, includes four main policy goals: a gradually increasing carbon tax, border carbon adjustments, carbon dividends for all taxpayers and significant regulatory rollbacks (Greenwire, Feb. 8).
Jill Sigal, the executive vice president who served in President George W. Bush's administration as assistant secretary of Energy for congressional and intergovernmental affairs, said the plan is free market, pro-growth, pro-environment and pro-jobs.
"We think that our proposal is a conservative solution to reducing emissions, while not negatively impacting the U.S. economy," she said. "We believe that the U.S. needs to take action on a federal level to reduce climate emissions."
At the Yale Climate Conference this year, Baker said that the proposal should appeal to people regardless of their stance on warming. He called the measure an insurance policy, saying the risk is too great to not do something.
Sigal said she senses climate engagement on a variety of Republican fronts, from the business community to the House Climate Solutions Caucus.
She said council members have frequented the Hill in recent months to take meetings with both House and Senate members about their proposal.
"We've had some interesting and great meetings these last few months," she said. "We're getting very good reception on the Hill."
Alliance for Market Solutions
The Alliance for Market Solutions is led by Alex Flint, a former member of President Trump's transition team who previously worked as senior vice president of governmental affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, and by fellow NEI alumnus Chris Carter.
The board of advisers for AMS brings together Republicans with experience in private equity, investment banking and energy consulting.
They include Vicky Bailey, who served as an assistant secretary at the Department of Energy under the second Bush administration and as a Republican member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; John Rowe, chairman emeritus of Exelon Corp.; and former Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.).
"We think there are a significant number of Republican members of Congress who agree that Republicans need to engage on climate change, and we've been quite pleased with their willingness to talk with us about what a Republican position should be," Flint said.
He stressed his group is "just" Republican. He's not interested in being bipartisan.
The alliance aims to "educate conservative policymakers on the benefits of market-oriented solutions to one of America's most pressing economic challenges: advancing clean energy and reducing carbon pollution," a mission statement said.
Unlike the Climate Leadership Council, AMS is not pushing a dividend model. "Using the proceeds of a carbon tax to pay a rebate or dividend would produce no additional economic growth or jobs," AMS states on its website.
The group advocates using the revenue to cut corporate or individual income taxes, estimating each American family would benefit by nearly $3,000 annually.Targeting the public
RepublicEn
RepublicEn Executive Director Inglis launched the Energy and Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University in July 2012. The group works to educate conservatives, libertarians and pragmatists about climate change and a carbon fee.
"We're engaging with conservatives in the heartland and presenting broad solutions to climate change. The most immediate solution is a revenue-neutral border adjustable carbon tax," Inglis said.
"Mostly what needs to happen is conservative members of Congress need to hear from their constituents a readiness to engage in the competition of ideas of how to solve climate change," he said. "We're out gathering that constituency so elected officials will feel comfortable leading."
For six years, Inglis said he thought climate change was nonsense. "I didn't know anything about it, but I knew Al Gore was for it," he said.
When he ran for Congress again in 2004, his son approached him. "He said, 'Dad, I'll vote for you, but you're going to clean up your act on the environment,'" Inglis recounted.
Inglis said it was a three-step process, the final of which was an encounter with a scientist named Scott Heron on a trip to look at the Great Barrier Reef.
"We shared a worldview because he was worshiping God in what he was showing me. Told me about conservation changes he's making in his life," Inglis said.
When he returned to Congress, he introduced a revenue-neutral border adjustment tax as an alternative to cap and trade, both of which went nowhere.
"When I got tossed out of Congress, I started working on this effort," Inglis said in reference to RepublicEn. He said his group, made up of over 3,800 members, is finding success with young conservatives and conservatives of faith.
"It's harder with their parents, and it's really pretty hard with their grandparents," he said. "The challenge is the grandparents vote more often. The thing I'm supremely confident of is we are going to win, but will we win soon enough to head off the worst consequences of climate change?"
Citizens' Climate Lobby conservative caucus
While the Citizens' Climate Lobby is a nonpartisan group, its member are mostly left-leaning volunteers. Still, the group contains a conservative caucus, which is growing.
CCL targets Republican members of Congress and urges them to join the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus (E&E Daily, Sept. 6).
Since the caucus's inception in 2016, CCL and others have had unprecedented success pushing GOP politicians to join. The grass-roots advocacy organization is angling for the caucus to take up a carbon fee and dividend approach to curb emissions.
While members of the House "Noah's Ark" group, which adds Republicans and Democrats in pairs, have co-sponsored a number of climate-related bills, like renewable energy tax credits, they have yet to broach a carbon tax. Still, activists are encouraged by the growing membership, which reached 60 this year.
Also notable is Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, which is a grass-roots campaign engaging with Republican policymakers for cleaner power.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/11/01/stories/1060065267

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Support Sought on Deal to Limit Climate-Warming Coolants

Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The refrigeration industry is hoping the Trump administration keeps intact the Obama-era commitment to phasing down refrigerant chemicals that are potent greenhouse gases.
For the most part, the refrigeration industry strongly backs the 2016 Kigali agreement as the preferred way to gradually reduce the refrigerants with high global warming potential known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The industry also argues U.S. participation is critical to maintaining global competitiveness for refrigerant gas makers as well as appliance manufacturers.
But it is unclear whether the Trump administration will back the agreement, which the White House would have to submit to the Senate for ratification.
Lobbying records show a quiet push by refrigeration industry trade groups and individual companies, including Ingersoll Rand Inc. and Rheem Manufacturing Co., in support of the global deal. Part of that effort has included providing “educational briefings” on the agreement to the White House and to senators, according to a Bloomberg Environment review of Senate data.
Joe Trauger, senior vice president of policy and government relations for the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, told Bloomberg Environment industry is having more conversations with Trump officials and lawmakers about the deal—though he said discussions are largely still at the initial stages.
Trauger has been part of the group's team lobbying lawmakers, the White House, and federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency on the issue. Administration officials didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment.
First Indications
At stake is an amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, the 1987 treaty created to eliminate chemicals that harm the ozone layer high in the atmosphere, and the only treaty to which every country in the world is a signatory. About 200 countries including the U.S. agreed to the Kigali Amendment in October 2016 at a meeting in Kigali, Rwanda. It would require the U.S. and other developed countries to begin limiting HFCs in 2019.
“The market momentum is unstoppable,” Durwood Zaelke, founder and president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, told Bloomberg Environment. He said the U.S. industry is the leading supplier of alternatives to HFCs and that U.S. companies “know how to use the treaty to their advantage, including to support jobs in the industry.”
A first indication of the Trump administration's leanings could come next month when countries hold their latest formal meeting of the parties of the Montreal Protocol. On the agenda for the Nov. 20-24 meeting is the so-called “replenishment” by developed countries of the Multilateral Fund that provides money to developing nations to help meet the treaty's requirements.
The actions of U.S. negotiators will be closely watched. Small U.S. delegations have attended interim meetings, including a working group meeting in July, but the upcoming meeting in Montreal would be the most high-profile gathering on the issue since the Kigali Amendment was agreed to last year.
Avipsa Mahapatra, climate change lead at the nonprofit Environmental Investigations Agency, told Bloomberg Environment that overall, a “robust” replenishment is “essential to show developing countries they will have adequate resources for the Kigali Amendment implementation.”
Though the upcoming replenishment will mostly provide money for developing countries to complete the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, the protocol's technology panel has estimated about 5 percent to 10 percent of the new funds could help enable activities to meet HFC limits.
Court's Roadblock
But the U.S. may lack a regulatory plan to implement the Kigali deal after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in August vacated the Obama-era EPA rules banning certain HFC refrigerants.
Arkema, one of the chemical companies that brought the lawsuit, has also been lobbying lawmakers, the White House, and federal agencies on issues related to domestic HFC regulation and the Kigali Amendment, according to Senate data. Despite its opposition to the EPA's prior rules, Arkema has publicly supported the Kigali deal.
Major U.S. chemical companies Honeywell Inc. and Chemours Co. that backed the EPA rules, as well as environmental groups, are seeking a rehearing of the case. But if the ruling ultimately stands, the EPA may have lost a tool to phase down the global warming chemicals.
Trauger said his group is exploring other regulatory options to limit HFCs, including other Clean Air Act programs. But he said it is a “methodical” process, with “a lot of questions out there that have yet to be answered.”
Stephen Andersen, director of research at the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, suggested the U.S. industry might begin to set its own pace on HFC reductions consistent with the Kigali deal, both to ensure a clear future needed for long-term investment and to stay competitive with China, Japan, and European nations. But he told Bloomberg Environment that the “worst outcome” of the court's ruling would be “an unorganized sector that just doesn't get around to the conversation.”
Andersen, who worked on ozone and climate issues at the EPA for more than 20 years, said the agency already has the authority to take some steps to aid industry's transition, including a quicker approval of climate-friendly substitutes for HFCs.
State Action On the Radar
Leadership could also come at the state level. California regulators are already working on a rule to adopt limits equivalent to the court-vacated Obama EPA rules, with plans to pursue stricter limits in a second phase of regulation.
Mahapatra said it is possible other states could put in place equal or more stringent limits, which she called “low-hanging fruit” to help states meet their climate goals.
But Trauger, though acknowledging states such as California are “anxious to move” on HFC reductions, said industry believes the phase-down is “more appropriately handled at the federal level.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123229067&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123229067&jd=123229067

Return to headline | Return to top
Efforts to Meet Paris Accord Goals Slipping from Reach, UN Says

Nov 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Joe Ryan

The goals set under the Paris climate accord to limit global warming are slipping further from reach as emissions rise and political will falters.
Even if every nation meets its targets, carbon dioxide emission levels will be as much as 19 billion tons higher than the levels scientists say are needed to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to a study released Oct. 31 by the UN Environment Program. That's higher than last year's estimate of a shortfall of 15 billion tons to 17 billion tons.
The study, released in advance of the United Nations conference on climate change beginning Nov. 6 in Bonn, found that national pledges amount to just one third of the total needed to meet 2030 targets. Efforts by cities, states and businesses aren't increasing fast enough to make up the difference. And if U.S. President Donald Trump makes good on his pledge to exit the climate pact, the situation will grow even more dire, according to the report.
“Momentum is clearly faltering,” said Edgar E. Gutierrez-Espeleta, Costa Rica's environment and energy minister and president of the 2017 UN Environment Assembly. “We face a stark choice: up our ambition, or suffer the consequences.”
High Stakes
The landmark 2015 agreement calls for countries to reduce fossil-fuel emissions enough to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above temperatures at the start of the industrial revolution and, if possible, to just 1.5 degrees Celsius. Failure could be catastrophic. If left unchecked, advancing global temperatures are likely to melt ice caps and shift weather patterns, scientists say, leading to increased flooding, droughts and violent storms.
To succeed, nations must agree to make deeper emissions cuts when they revise their targets in 2020, the report concluded. It also lays out steps to cut emissions from sectors including agriculture, energy, logging and transportation.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123229081&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123229081&jd=123229081

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Sees GHG Cuts From Oil & Gas Settlements But Declines To Quantify

Oct 31, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA officials say they expect that settlement agreements announced Oct. 31 with oil company Exxon Mobil and oil and gas producer PCD Energy requiring cuts in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions will have a “co-benefit” of reducing sector greenhouse gases, though agency officials are declining to quantify the exact benefit.
In the first proposed agreement, EPA is settling a Clean Air Act case it brought against Exxon Mobil Corp. and subsidiary ExxonMobil Oil Corp. alleging excess air emissions from poorly-functioning flares at eight of the firm's petrochemical facilities, located in Texas and Louisiana. In the second, EPA settles an air law enforcement case against PCD Energy over excess emissions of ozone-forming VOCs from tanks at facilities containing condensate in Colorado.
EPA and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials on an Oct. 31 call to announce the agreements said they show the Trump administration's commitment to enforcing environmental laws, though focused on VOCs.
The air pollution controls that the companies will install to reduce VOCs will have the co-benefit of also reducing GHGs, agency officials said, but they would not quantify the GHG reduction. The agency has moved to reconsider an Obama-era new source performance standards rule setting first-time limits on the GHG methane from oil and gas operations, a rule that remains in effect even while EPA weighs possible revisions.
But EPA's focus on the settlements is to tout the expected air pollution reductions from the steps that the companies will take to resolve the alleged air law violations -- thousands of tons of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), VOCs and other pollutants, despite taking air control measures very similar to those pioneered by the Obama administration. The agreements come as environmentalists are accusing the agency of a reduced commitment to enforcement, with much lower sums levied in civil penalties so far than at the same point in prior administrations.
Hailing the Exxon agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a press release that the deal “reinforces EPA’s commitment to enforce the law and hold those who violate it accountable. As this agreement shows, EPA is dedicated to partnering with states to address critical environmental issues and improving compliance.”
On the conference call with reporters to make the “significant announcement” of the deals, DOJ and EPA officials echoed that message. Patrick Traylor, deputy assistant administrator at EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said, “we will be enforcing environmental laws in this administration.” EPA leadership is “absolutely committed” to enforcement, he added. “These companies have co-operated with us,” Traylor said, and now that they have addressed their violations they can get back to “driving economic growth.”
Settlement Agreements
The Exxon Mobil agreement requires the firm to spend some $300 million to improve the efficiency of the flares, used to burn off hazardous waste chemicals and excess gases, including installing flare gas recovery systems. These were favored by the Obama administration in its settlements with oil refineries to reduce not only conventional pollutants but also GHGs. On the press call, Traylor noted the ability of flare gas recovery to reduce costs for industry.
Exxon Mobil will further install fenceline monitoring for benzene at four of the plants, a measure already required for refineries under Obama-era air rules.
EPA is also imposing a $2.5 million civil penalty, with shares of that sum payable to both the federal government and Louisiana, and the company will further purchase a $1.5 million air monitoring vehicle for the state's use.
Meanwhile, the PCD settlement requires the company “to evaluate the design and capacity of its vapor control systems, modify those vapor control systems as necessary to ensure that that they are adequately designed and sized to collect and convey emissions to a control device, implement an enhanced inspection and maintenance program, and undertake periodic infrared camera inspections to identify any emissions and take prompt corrective action to address those emissions,” according to a DOJ statement.
Toward the end of the Obama administration, EPA enforcement officials in Clean Air Act settlements placed considerable emphasis on remote-sensing technology such as infrared cameras as a smart and cost-effective way to detect excess emissions from industrial facilities. In the PDC settlement the company itself, rather than regulators, will use the technology to ensure air law compliance.
The company will further take “proactive measures” to identify the cause of recurring issues that it finds resulting in emissions, sometimes referred to as root-cause analysis.
Both the settlement agreements include “supplemental environmental agreements,” or SEPs -- requiring, for example, that Exxon plant trees in Baytown, Texas, and that PCD conduct two additional projects that would require loading of condensate from PDC storage tanks into tanker truckers in a “closed system” to prevent vapor leaks, and also installation and operation of an emissions control package on some natural gas-fueled compressor engines.
Trump administration policy under Attorney General Jeff Sessions bars DOJ from entering into settlements that include SEPs that include payments to third parties. But on the press call, a DOJ official confirmed that in these settlements, there are no such third-party payments and so the SEPs are allowed.
Greenhouse Gases
With respect to GHGs, an EPA official on the call said that EPA has not quantified the “co-benefits” of reduced emissions of methane under both settlements. Yet both deals have distinct GHG advantages -- for example routing refinery gas through a flare-gas recovery mechanism allows productive reuse of the gas, which would otherwise be flared or vented to the atmosphere, reducing GHG emissions as a result.
And the steps taken to reduce VOCs, HAPs and nitrogen oxides also result in some reduction of methane from oil and gas operations, said Jeffrey Wood, acting assistant attorney general of DOJ's environmental enforcement division.
A New York Times reporter pressed EPA and DOJ officials on the call on why the Trump administration appears to have imposed environmental civil penalties only around half the total imposed by this point during the previous three administrations, echoing environmentalists' concerns. To this, a DOJ official said, “we are continuing to vigorously enforce” the law.
The consent decrees will be available for public comment for 30 days prior to their entry in federal district courts in Texas and Colorado. --

Return to headline | Return to top
Rep. Smith Slams GAO's Warning On Climate Costs

Nov 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

House science committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) is strongly criticizing the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recent warning that the federal government is not doing enough to limit the financial costs of climate change, charging the watchdog's report relies on a study that has not been peer reviewed and is politically motivated.
GAO’s “heavy reliance on this study raises concerns considering that it is a non-peer reviewed document that has not received the same scrutiny as many other scientific documents used in similar reports,” Smith said in an Oct. 31 letter.
In addition, Smith charges the study is biased because it was “connected to political advocacy” as it was commissioned by the Risky Business Project, a group that includes climate policy advocates, including Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, the billionaire philanthropists who fund environmental groups, as well as former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
“Their funding of the study blurs the line between science and advocacy and taints the conclusions of the GAO study,” Smith writes, adding that his committee has “many questions about why this particular study was chosen as the basis for many of GAO's conclusions.”
GAO's report, issued Oct. 24, found that the federal government is incurring billions of dollars annually in climate change-related damages, and warned that the Trump administration has not taken adequate steps to manage or reduce such risks.
“The federal government has not undertaken strategic government-wide planning to manage climate risks by using information on the potential economic effects of climate change to identify significant risks and craft appropriate federal responses,” GAO said. “By using such information, the federal government could take the initial step in establishing government-wide priorities to manage such risks.”
The report found that over the last decade, extreme weather and fire has cost the government $350 billion, and those costs “will likely rise as the climate changes.”
But Smith is concerned that GAO relied on a study by the Rhodium Group, American Climate Prospectus, that sought to quantify a range of potential adverse effects due to rising temperatures caused by climate change.
For example, the study, first published in 2014, found that under one scenario, the “average American” will likely experience a “near doubling to more than tripling” the average 15 days per year when temperatures exceed 95 degrees Fahrenheit. By late century, the range would increase to 46-96 days per year over that temperature, or around 1.5-3 months out of the year, the report said.
But Smith says the Rhodium study, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also relied on for its 2016 study on the potential costs of climate change, fails to provide the same levels of confidence as peer-reviewed studies, such as those conducted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found lower risks of adverse effects of climate change.
“Instead of utilizing other academic literature or international climate organizations, such as the IPCC, CBO and GAO both chose to use information that often contradicts information from other peer-reviewed science. For instance, the CBO report disregards the confidence levels of the IPCC in its latest Assessment Report, as well as historical data that hurricanes have not increased in intensity or frequency,” he says.
Smith requests data from GAO on its study by Nov. 14 and seeks a briefing from GAO by Nov. 21.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/rep-smith-slams-gaos-warning-climate-costs

Return to headline | Return to top
Alaska Governor Signs Order On Climate Change Strategy

Oct 31, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) has signed an order establishing a climate change strategy for the state and appointing a board to investigate ways to limit its effects.
Walker’s order calls on a team of experts to recommend “statuary and regulatory changes” in the state to help it deal with climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The group is directed to focus on adapting for, and responding to, the effects of climate change within Alaska, including rising sea levels and its impact on communities there.
But the order aims to support the Paris climate agreement as well, seeking ways to reduce Alaska’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The order calls for recommendations by Sept. 1, 2018. Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott (D) will spearhead the effort.
Alaska’s proximity to the Arctic Circle and its long coastline make it especially susceptible to climate change. President Obama visited the state in 2015 to highlight the impact of rising sea levels on Arctic communities.
“Alaska is on the front lines of climate change,” Walker told reporters on Tuesday, highlighting rural Alaska communities that will need to relocate because of rising seas.
“It’s something that affects Alaska in ways that no other state has to deal with.”
Walker acknowledged that Alaska’s economy is based on fossil fuel production, and he said that will continue into the future. Walker is due to testify before a Senate committee on potential oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge on Thursday.
But he said the state will have to find a way to “balance” climate change and the state’s economy.
“You have to balance the two, that’s the way it has to be in Alaska,” he said.
“We will continue to responsibly develop our non-renewable resources and use that as some of the bridge funding to do what we need to do as a result of climate change on Alaska.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/358085-alaska-governor-signs-climate-change-order

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested