Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/8/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Tax Legislation Would Help Chemical Industry, Kill Breaks For Students And Private Universities
Nov 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
Tax reform legislation proposed by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives would boost large chemical companies and other U.S.-based multinationals. But research universities, teaching assistants, and those with student loans would lose key benefits under the plan to enact the first major overhaul of the U.S. tax system in more than 30 years. -
(ACC Mentioned) Democrats Demand Hearing On EPA Program
Nov 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats yesterday renewed calls for the panel to closely scrutinize U.S. EPA's chemicals program. -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Safe Harbor’ Needed as Chemical Makers Use Fewer Lab Animals
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers have invested millions to develop new tests that don't rely on laboratory animals, but they need a “safe harbor” to share that data from those tests with the EPA and each other. -
Systematic Review: US EPA Adopts Concept For IRIS
Nov 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed protocols for its forthcoming hazard assessments of chloroform, ethylbenzene and the 'nitrates and nitrites' group of substances. -
Hedging On Toxics Nominee, Burr Urges Pruitt To Address PFC Concerns
Nov 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad and Jeremy Bernstein
Even as he hedges on whether he will support the Trump administration's nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is urging Administrator Scott Pruitt to determine whether to prioritize perfluorinated substances (PFCs) for future risk evaluations, suggesting a commitment on addressing his concerns could help secure his support for the nominee. -
Trump Administration Drops Call for New WTO Pesticide Standards
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
The Trump administration dropped its bid for a World Trade Organization accord to harmonize international pesticide residue standards for food imports. -
Wyeth Holdings Wins Reversal of Asbestos Jury Award
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Pfizer subsidiary Wyeth Holdings won reversal of a jury award in favor of the widow of a man who allegedly contracted cancer from workplace exposure to asbestos dust from a Wyeth product. -
Olive Oil, Quinoa Among Repeat Offenders on Pesticide Watch List
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The FDA is looking at more than two dozen imported foods that might warrant “special attention” from inspectors because they contain pesticide residues in excess of U.S. limits, many of which have drawn agency scrutiny before. -
ECHA, Member States Agree Measures To Speed Up Substance Evaluation
Nov 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa and EU member states have agreed on measures to speed up substance evaluation processes. -
Some Industry Groups Fear Bill To Move Energy Star To DOE
Nov 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
Several industry and efficiency groups are urging House lawmakers to reconsider or modify draft legislation that would transfer EPA's Energy Star program to the Department of Energy (DOE) and make other changes to the program, worrying that the proposal could create new burdens for industry and risk damaging the credibility of the program. -
Appellate Court Sets New Deadline in BLM Fracking Rule Fight
Nov 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
An appellate court panel in Denver said it wants to hear more arguments over an Obama-era rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands, and ordered the Trump administration and environmental groups to file responses over the matter by mid-November. -
Exxon Avoids Nearly Half of Safety Board Requests for Torrance Records
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Exxon Mobil Corp. will avoid turning over to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board about 45 percent of the board's specific document requests on chemical operations at its former refinery in Torrance, Calif., where an explosion injured two workers in February 2015. -
States With Ozone Problems Still Waiting on EPA to Act
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
States with significant ozone pollution problems are left hanging after the EPA released its list of regions that meet national air quality standards, but not the problem areas that don't. -
Syria Joining Paris Deal Highlights Climate's Security Effects
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Syria's announcement that the war-torn nation is formally joining the Paris climate pact highlighted concern among the agreement's backers that worsening climate impacts will aggravate global security and weaken U.S. diplomatic clout. -
What's Behind the UN's Green Climate Fund
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Climate finance is likely to be a hot topic at the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, which started yesterday and run until Nov. 17. -
EPA Reopens Comment On Ozone Information Request
Nov 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has reopened until Dec. 8 the recently closed public comment period on its information collection request (ICR) seeking input from states on the burdens their face in supplying the agency with data about their efforts to attain federal ozone standards, amid uncertainty about whether EPA will revoke the most recent ozone limit set in 2015. -
EPA Faces New Suit Aiming To Block GHG Rule Rollbacks
Nov 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Clean Air Council (CAC) is pursuing a new legal strategy against the Trump administration, seeking to broadly prevent EPA and other agencies' bids to roll back Obama-era greenhouse gas rules in a new complaint in federal court filed on behalf of two children who allege they are personally impacted by climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Nov 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
Rates for companies would get slashed, college endowments taxed
Tax reform legislation proposed by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives would boost large chemical companies and other U.S.-based multinationals. But research universities, teaching assistants, and those with student loans would lose key benefits under the plan to enact the first major overhaul of the U.S. tax system in more than 30 years.
The introduction of the bill (H.R. 1) on Nov. 2 is an “important step toward modernizing our nation’s tax code,” says the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s largest U.S. lobbying group.
The GOP blueprint includes numerous provisions sought by manufacturers, such as a sharp cut in the current corporate tax rate of 35%, one of the highest in the world, to 20%. The change is designed to make taxes on U.S.-based multinationals more competitive in global markets.
In addition, companies with worldwide operations would have a one-time opportunity to bring home trillions of dollars in foreign income currently sheltered in overseas subsidiaries at reduced tax rates.
Higher education groups, meanwhile, say several provisions in the bill, such as a new tax on wealthy college endowments, will harm students and their families.
To raise revenue to help fund the tax cuts, private colleges and universities would face a 1.4% excise tax on investment earnings from their endowments. The proposal would affect schools with assets of more than $100,000 per student and would raise an estimated $3 billion over a decade.
“Endowments support substantial student aid and student service programs, and provide funding for instruction, research, and for building and maintaining classrooms, labs, libraries, and other facilities,” says Mary Sue Coleman, president of the Association of American Universities, which represents 62 institutions.
The bill would also eliminate the interest deduction on student loans, which affects about a third of Americans with student debt. And it would tax the tuition waivers that graduate students often receive when they work as teaching assistants or researchers.
Supporters hope to send a final bill to President Donald J. Trump by the end of the year. The Senate is expected to follow up with its own proposal in the coming weeks.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i45/US-tax-legislation-help-chemical.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Democrats Demand Hearing On EPA Program
Nov 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats yesterday renewed calls for the panel to closely scrutinize U.S. EPA's chemicals program.
"Recent news reports have underscored the need for real, immediate and expansive oversight of EPA's activities related to toxic chemicals," said Democratic Reps. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, Diana DeGette of Colorado and Paul Tonko of New York.
Pallone is the full committee's ranking member. DeGette is the top Democrat on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and Tonko the top Democrat on the Environment Subcommittee.
"We therefore request that you exercise the Committee's oversight responsibility and hold hearings on these important issues," they wrote in a letter to committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.).
The Democratic lawmakers were referring to a New York Times investigation of EPA's work on chemicals published last month that found Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry trade group official, played a key role in revising rules to industry's liking (E&E News PM, Oct. 23).
Specifically, the members would like Walden to look into EPA's reversal on a draft rule to ban the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, Beck's ethics arrangements and the agency's work to interpret the recently passed overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act that the committee pushed through last year.
On the latter issue, the Democrats say "we were informed" that the committee would hold a hearing on TSCA in September.
"It is now November, and no hearing has been scheduled," they said. "This Committee played a central role in crafting that legislation, and we cannot abdicate our obligation to see it implemented effectively."
Yesterday's request was the latest in a pile of letters the minority has dropped on Walden and others about chemicals oversight. For instance, last week they asked EPA's inspector general to look into the agency's chemicals program and Beck's role in it (E&E Daily, Oct. 31).
The group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and four other environmental organizations are also raising concerns about Beck.
Senior officials from those groups yesterday asked Kevin Minoli, EPA's acting general counsel and top ethics officer, to prevent her from taking part in ongoing rulemakings that would "ban unsafe uses of three widely used chemicals — Trichloroethylene (TCE), Methylene Chloride (MC) and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP)."
Beck's involvement "poses threats to EPA's integrity and credibility" because she authored comments for the American Chemistry Council criticizing the EPA risk assessments on which the bans are based, they wrote.
The other groups represented on that recusal letter are Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Health Strategy Center and Toxic-Free Future.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060065937/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Safe Harbor’ Needed as Chemical Makers Use Fewer Lab Animals
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers have invested millions to develop new tests that don't rely on laboratory animals, but they need a “safe harbor” to share that data from those tests with the EPA and each other.
To make that happen, companies need to work among themselves to share that information while protecting valuable business secrets as the EPA develops its own procedures for manufacturers to share that data while determining what it means, Anna Lowit, a senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist said a Nov. 2 workshop.
Lowit summarized the points many participants made throughout the EPA's workshop on a chemicals office strategy to reduce its reliance on information from laboratory mice, rats, and other animals used to predict a chemical's health effects on people or the environment.Millions of Dollars in Tests
The BASF Corp., DowDupont, and Procter & Gamble Co. are among the chemical manufacturers that have spent tens of millions of dollars developing new, non-animal methods to evaluate chemicals they are researching for possible development to go to market. Some also use the same methods to examine the safety of their products. That makes the information from such tests economically valuable should it fall into the hands of a competitor.
Yet Dow, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever are among the companies that have shared cellular, genetic, and other non-animal data with federal and international research agencies to improve the predictive capacity of such tests, the EPA and other federal researchers told Bloomberg Environment.
“At P&G, we believe that eliminating animal testing is the right thing to do. We do not test our products or ingredients on animals anywhere in the world unless required by law,” spokesman Scott Heid told Bloomberg Environment.
For example, P&G has shared information and helped develop skin sensitivity tests that don't use experimental animals according to toxicity testing guidance from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
P&G has been working toward non-animal tests for 40 years, Heid said. “We will continue working with the world's top independent experts and partnering with leading animal protection groups such as the Humane Society of the U.S. to promote new alternatives, research, and regulatory acceptance of existing alternatives. This is the only way to eliminate all animal testing, globally,” he said.
Safe Harbor?
Something akin to a regulatory “safe harbor” is needed to enable the EPA's chemicals office to review techniques, methods, and findings to meet a statutory requirement to reduce reliance on toxicity information from animal tests, workshop participants said during group discussions at the EPA's Nov. 2 workshop in Bethesda, Md.
A safe harbor is needed because—with the exception of a few types of tests such as ones that detect skin sensitivity—neither scientists nor regulators are clear how well or poorly what the EPA calls “new approach methodologies” predict potential harms chemicals may cause to people or the environment, the participants said.
Yet the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act require the EPA by June 2018 to develop a strategy showing how it will reduce and replace animal tests. The reduction or replacement is contingent on criteria such as the new testing approaches being “practicable” and scientifically justified.
That means companies, the EPA, and other interested parties must work together to understand the health or environmental effects that one or more new types of testing methods could be used to flag or confirm toxicity, participants said.
Lowit, a senior science adviser with the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, urged her EPA colleagues in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to consult with the agency's general counsel to find a way to enable “industry consortia to feel they can trust and work with you.”
The pesticides office did that and developed a process that allowed pesticide manufacturers and the agency to identify non-animal tests that could be used for some regulatory decisions, she said.
Clarity Needed
Richard Becker, senior toxicologist with the American Chemistry Council, said the EPA will need to show how it will work with industry and other interested parties to figure out when a chemical evaluation method, or group of methods, can reliably be used and when they can't. A method might be “solid” for one use or type of decision, but not another, he said.
Reaching that goal will require the EPA to be very clear about what information it needs to make different types of chemical decisions, Louis “Gino” Scarano, a toxicologist in the EPA's chemicals office said.
There may be several ways to obtain that information, Becker said. “We tend to think of new approach methodologies as test methods,” he said. Yet the EPA's goal is to develop a strategy for developing information about chemical risks.
That means, whatever strategy the EPA develops, the agency also must show how it expects to work towards using new approaches to generate exposure information, Becker said.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development is exploring ways to combine publicly available information from many sources to identify chemicals more likely to be present in people's homes or in the environment.
Next Steps
Among the many other recommendations workshop participants made was for the EPA, trade associations, and other groups to identify ways small chemical manufacturers can learn about new chemical evaluation methods.
Small manufacturers are particularly active in the development of new chemicals, Kristie Sullivan, vice president of research policy for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, told Bloomberg Environment. The committee is among the animal-welfare groups that has hosted training for the EPA and industry to boost familiarity with non-animal chemical evaluation methods.
The EPA plans to hold meetings and seek advice about its strategy through the end of this year, Scarano said. Recommendations can be submitted through a docket the EPA established.
The agency will then develop a draft strategy that it plans to release for public comment before the end of April 2018, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414947&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414947&jd=123414947
-
Systematic Review: US EPA Adopts Concept For IRIS
Nov 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed protocols for its forthcoming hazard assessments of chloroform, ethylbenzene and the 'nitrates and nitrites' group of substances.
The protocols are the first to incorporate systematic review processes for the integration of multiple data sources.
Such processes have been the focus of recent work by government bodies in the US and the EU.
In July, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published systematic reviews of two groups of substances – phthalates and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). The reviews formed part of the organisation's strategy for evaluating low-dose toxicity from endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
Furthermore, the European Food Safety Authority’s (Efsa) proposed protocol for its reassessment of the hazards of bisphenol A is based on the approach.
The US EPA discussed the draft assessment protocols (IAPs) at a meeting in September. In a memo to attendees, Kris Thayer from the EPA's IRIS team said the draft IAPs represented recent efforts to "more formally integrate" systematic review into the existing IRIS scoping and problem formulation phase. "The IAPs will inform the subsequent development of chemical-specific systematic review protocols," she added.
The next stage of the process is a public meeting on the documents. According to its website, the agency has not yet set a date for this.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60919/systematic-review-us-epa-adopts-concept-for-iris
-
Hedging On Toxics Nominee, Burr Urges Pruitt To Address PFC Concerns
Nov 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad and Jeremy Bernstein
Even as he hedges on whether he will support the Trump administration's nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is urging Administrator Scott Pruitt to determine whether to prioritize perfluorinated substances (PFCs) for future risk evaluations, suggesting a commitment on addressing his concerns could help secure his support for the nominee.
EPA's research office is already prioritizing its risk assessment work on the broad range of PFCs chemicals but a more specific commitment that Burr is seeking to prioritize the substances for assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) could be crucial as the nominee, Michael Dourson, faces a wall of opposition from Democrats over his past support for industry, and Republicans cannot afford to lose many GOP senators.
Burr sent Pruitt an Oct. 31 letter asking EPA to “make a determination” under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) “as to whether GenX and other PFCs should be prioritized for future risk evaluations.”
He noted that EPA did not list PFCs in its 2014 update of the TSCA Workplan list of chemicals prioritized for risk assessment, but indicated it was concerned about the chemicals. At that time, EPA said it needed more information before deciding whether to prioritize the substances for evaluation and possible regulation.
Burr's letter also “requested that the EPA 'quickly complete' its review of the 2009 consent order allowing Chemours to manufacture GenX and hold the company accountable for violating any portion of the agreement.”
And Burr asked Pruitt to “fully review the issuance of, and ongoing oversight related to,” Clean Water Act discharge permits that North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued to a local Chemours facility that discharged GenX, a kind of PFC, into the Cape Fear River.
“The review should not only include actions taken by DEQ and Chemours, but also EPA's participation in the review of those permits. It is imperative that there is an understanding of the conditions that led to the discharge and what knowledge, if any, DEQ or EPA had about the GenX release,” Burr wrote.
Burr's letter comes amid uncertainty over the fate of Dourson's nomination. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sought a cloture vote to allow William Wehrum, the administration's nominee to lead EPA's air office, to proceed to the Senate floor. But McConnell did not act on Dourson, who cleared the environment committee at the same time as Wehrum, suggesting that McConnell may not yet have the votes to allow Dourson's nomination to advance.
Burr's office did not respond to requests for comment. But Bloomberg BNA reported that Burr, as well as Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), are still weighing whether to support Dourson.
Burr “is evaluating Mr. Dourson’s record and will make a determination based on the best interests of North Carolinians,” his spokesman told the publication.
Similarly, Tillis' spokespersons said the senator and his staff “are doing their due diligence to assess the record of the nominee.”
Local Contamination
Burr and Tillis' uncertainty over Dourson come amid significant concern in North Carolina over releases of GenX, a PFC compound that contaminated the Cape Fear River.
The state is also home to Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base that has long been a source of significant contamination concerns from a host of substances, among them trichloroethylene (TCE), that are believed to be a driver for a reported increase in cancer incidence.
Both Burr and Tillis have long supported local and EPA efforts to address such concerns. For example, both sponsored legislation to provide easier access to Veterans Affairs healthcare for marines and their families who have cancer.
Burr was also one of the few Republicans who supported the Obama administration's assessment of TCE, which listed the substance as carcinogenic to humans. Burr said it will help the estimated 750,000 military personnel and their families potentially exposed to the chemical in drinking water at the base.
"[EPA's cancer] designation . . . is of the utmost significance as it will further inform veterans and their family members, who may have contracted various forms of cancer as a result of exposure to this chemical, of the risk associated with it. I am hopeful additional awareness will spur them get the medical assessment and treatment they need," he said in a statement shortly after EPA released the TCE assessment in 2011.
Burr's concerns over Dourson appear to have been heightened by an Oct. 31 op-ed in the Raleigh News Observer by Jerry Ensminger, a retired Marine sergeant whose daughter died of leukemia after living at Camp Lejeune.
In it, he criticizes Dourson for backing industry efforts to weaken EPA's TCE assessment, one of a number of chemicals where the nominee has sought to undercut tougher regulatory standards.
“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,” Ensminger wrote.
Burr and Tillis are not the only GOP senators to have raised concerns with Dourson's nomination. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) raised concerns over the nominee's his role in developing safety standards for two high-profile chemical release events in West Virginia. But her concerns appear to have been addressed as she voted for the nominee in committee.
She also told Inside EPA Nov. 7 that she plans to vote for Dourson on the floor -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/hedging-toxics-nominee-burr-urges-pruitt-address-pfc-concerns
-
Trump Administration Drops Call for New WTO Pesticide Standards
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
The Trump administration dropped its bid for a World Trade Organization accord to harmonize international pesticide residue standards for food imports.
The U.S. said it was unfortunate that WTO members were unwilling to increase transparency and cooperation on the use of maximum pesticide residue levels, according to a participant at the Nov. 2-3 meetings in Geneva.
Advocates for such a deal said the current patchwork of maximum residue levels often acts as a barrier to international trade in agricultural products, particularly for developing countries.
India said it was unwilling to move forward with the U.S. proposal until members considered New Delhi's proposal to reduce the levels at which maximum residue levels are determined to be harmful to humans.
The lack of agreement on the matter will further reduce the list of potential trade agreements that can be forged at the WTO's 11th ministerial conference, scheduled for Dec. 10-13 in Buenos Aires.
EU Residue Requirements
A dozen members of the WTO's committee on sanitary and phytosanitary measures said they're concerned about the European Union's residue requirements for three pesticides: acrinathrin, matalaxyl, and thiabendazole.
Peru said the EU's strict restrictions on thiabendazole caused a decline in mango exports to the EU, and the U.S. said Europe's standards had a negative effect on American exports of sweet potatoes.
Peru, Columbia, and Costa Rica also criticized the EU's proposed restrictions on the maximum level of cadmium in food exports such as cocoa and said such limits could increase international prices.
The EU said its pesticide requirements were based on scientific studies and confirmed that it would defer the implementation of its maximum cadmium limits until 2019.
Endocrine Disruptors, Glyphosate
Nearly two dozen WTO members said they're concerned about the EU's proposed criteria to define chemicals that can interfere with hormone systems, known as endocrine disruptors.
The U.S. delegation said the prolonged uncertainty over how the EU will move forward with regulating endocrine disruptors was detrimental to WTO members and their domestic exporters.
The EU said it's considering the next steps for the classification of endocrine disruptors and was being transparent about its deliberations.
The U.S. also criticized the EU for delaying its decision to reauthorize the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and dozens of other herbicides.
The EU is scheduled to vote on the reauthorization of glyphosate on Nov. 9, and there is uncertainty as to whether EU member states will agree to extend the license due to fears that the substance is carcinogenic.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414956&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414956&jd=123414956
-
Wyeth Holdings Wins Reversal of Asbestos Jury Award
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Pfizer subsidiary Wyeth Holdings won reversal of a jury award in favor of the widow of a man who allegedly contracted cancer from workplace exposure to asbestos dust from a Wyeth product.
Marianne Bagley failed to present expert testimony showing that Wyeth's adhesive product emitted respirable asbestos fibers, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled (Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Grp., 2017 BL 398512, Conn., No. SC 19835, 11/7/17).
The court tossed a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor on her negligence, strict liability and loss of consortium claims, and vacated the $800,000 award.
Wayne Bagley worked at Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in Stratford, Conn., in an area where helicopter blades were manufactured.
After Wayne contracted mesothelioma, the Bagleys sued Wyeth, alleging his cancer was caused by his inhalation of asbestos dust at work emitted while sanding a Wyeth adhesive product known as FM-37.
The case proceeded to trial after Wayne died, and the jury ruled in favor of the Bagleys.
Reversing the verdict, the court said Bagley failed to present expert testimony to establish the product caused Wayne's illness.
Proof that FM-37 emitted respirable asbestos fibers required expert testimony “because the subject matter was technical in nature and beyond the field of ordinary knowledge of a lay juror,” the court said.
Judge Richard N. Palmer wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Dennis G. Eveleigh, Andrew J. McDonald, Carmen E. Espinosa and Richard A. Robinson.
Horton, Dowd, Bartschi & Levesque P.C. represented Bagley.
Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C. represented Wyeth.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414969&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414969&jd=123414969
-
Olive Oil, Quinoa Among Repeat Offenders on Pesticide Watch List
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The FDA is looking at more than two dozen imported foods that might warrant “special attention” from inspectors because they contain pesticide residues in excess of U.S. limits, many of which have drawn agency scrutiny before.
Chia seeds, hot peppers, and Mexican squash are among the 27 imported fruits, vegetables, and grains on a watch list for items that exceeded the limits, or tolerances, for pesticide residues set by the Environmental Protection Agency, a Nov. 6 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report covering 2015 finds.
The FDA identified on its list those commodities for which it found violations in at least 10 percent of samples tested.
Of the 27 items, 13 were on the list for the 2014 report: cilantro, mushrooms, olive oil, peas, hot peppers, pineapple, prickly pear, quinoa, processed and whole grain rice, Mexican squash, strawberries, and taro.
‘Domestic is Better’
The FDA “focuses on products that have a history of [pesticide] violations or are suspected of violations based on available intelligence,” the report said. “Historically, the violation rate for imported foods is much higher than for domestic foods; results from FY 2015 continue that trend.”
In 2015, imported foods were about five times more likely to violate EPA pesticide limits than domestic food—9.4 percent violated the limits compared with 1.8 percent—the report found. Nearly half of domestic foods and almost 57 percent of foreign foods had no presence of pesticides.
“That reinforces that buying domestic is better, if possible,” Bill Freese, science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, told Bloomberg Environment. “Eating produce as locally as possible is a good idea. “
More Pesticides Tested
Nearly 700 pesticides were detected in the 2015 samples. Newer procedures and more sensitive detection techniques allow scientists to test for a greater number of pesticides than before, the report authors said.
Imidacloprid—an insecticide that has been linked to declines in honeybees and other pollinators—was the most commonly-identified pesticide.
Chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic insecticide that was headed for a near-ban during the Obama administration, was the fourth-most-common pesticide found. Reversing that course, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declined to restrict chlorpyrifos in March.
About 80 percent of the fruits, vegetables, and grains on the list are in violation because no allowable limits exist, the FDA said. The higher violation rate for some crops “confirms the effectiveness of the regulatory program” in identifying the commodities where more violations are likely to be present, and the countries from which they are most likely to originate, the report authors wrote.
“The higher violation rate for imports also demonstrates the comprehensiveness of FDA's pesticide analytical protocols,” it said.
The methods of the FDA's pesticide monitoring program have raised questions. A 2014 Government Accountability Office report found that the agency was testing a tiny fraction of imported foods: less than one-tenth of 1 percent in 2012.
The GAO also criticized the agency for not measuring certain common pesticides, like the herbicide glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s commonly used weed-killer, Roundup.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414959&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414959&jd=123414959
-
ECHA, Member States Agree Measures To Speed Up Substance Evaluation
Nov 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa and EU member states have agreed on measures to speed up substance evaluation processes.
At an Echa workshop on substance evaluation last month, they proposed two specific measures: sequential testing as a way to avoid multiple decision-making rounds; and giving a broader mandate to the evaluating member state to finalise drafting upon Member State Committee (MSC) agreement.
Sequential testing could include applying the approach adopted for compliance check decisions addressing both extended one-generation reproductive toxicity tests (Eogrts) and related endpoints, to other type of requests under substance evaluation decisions, the workshop report says.
The second proposal suggests that the evaluating member state finalise drafting on the justification part of the decision upon MSC agreement. "This should not, however, delay the issuing of the final decision to the registrants," the report adds.
Four core challenges were also discussed at the workshop. These are:grouping approach for substances. This has already started, but there are questions on how to make it more efficient and transparent, with a need to invest more resources in the screening phase;collaborative approach with the registrants. Echa launched ‘Colla’ pilot projects this year to explore how to address groups of related substances in collaboration with member states and concerned registrants or industry groups. The first outcomes will be considered in 2018;lower than expected number of substances under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap). This is mainly due to the time and resources required for high tonnage substances. It was concluded, however, that "what matters is the overall impact, not the number of evaluations"; andthe need for a strategy for low tonnage substances and whether the prioritisation criteria for substance evaluation should be changed accordingly.
Three EU member states have recently suggested that European Commission agencies carry out independent tests on hazardous substances, to end "controversies" about evaluation methods and their robustness. Echa, Efsa evaluations should increase transparency, they said.
Meanwhile, in the summer, NGOs said poor REACH dossier quality is slowing substance evaluation.
And last month, Echa published its list of 107 substances to be evaluated under Corap for the period 2018-20. Almost half of the 16 new candidates are potential EDCs.
Participants from 21 member states attended the workshop, as well as Norway, observers from NGOs and industry associations and representatives from the European Commission and Echa. Members of Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) also participated in some of the sessions.
The report from the workshop will be discussed at the next meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 15-16 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60934/echa-member-states-agree-measures-to-speed-up-substance-evaluation
-
Some Industry Groups Fear Bill To Move Energy Star To DOE
Nov 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
Several industry and efficiency groups are urging House lawmakers to reconsider or modify draft legislation that would transfer EPA's Energy Star program to the Department of Energy (DOE) and make other changes to the program, worrying that the proposal could create new burdens for industry and risk damaging the credibility of the program.
The potential changes come amid broader budgetary threats to the popular program for recognizing energy efficient products, after the Trump administration proposed to eliminate funding for Energy Star and House lawmakers approved a spending bill that would cut such funding by at least 25 percent from current levels.
The groups aired their concerns at a Nov. 7 House Energy & Commerce energy subcommittee hearing on a discussion draft -- the Energy Star Reform Act of 2017 -- that responds to concerns from industry participants that the program can be too burdensome or lacks transparency in how standards are developed.
The draft bill would transfer the Energy Star program -- jointly administered by EPA and DOE -- solely to DOE; replace pre-market, third-party certification for products with an approach that would allow good-performing companies to self certify; bar class action lawsuits against non-compliant Energy Star products; and require officials to use Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements when crafting new standards.
But several groups at the hearing expressed varying degrees of concern with the proposal, without ruling out embracing changes to the program in some form.
“[We] would prefer to maintain the program as it currently stands under the Office of Atmospheric Programs at EPA, where it has been able to operate successfully for our products since 1992,” said the Air Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), whose members make commercial refrigeration products.
AHRI is one of several groups that EPA relied on to conduct third-party certification of Energy Star products in recent years, after earlier concerns -- including a 2010 Government Accountability Office report -- that it was too easy for manufacturers to claim their products comply with the program's standards. AHRI did not rule out supporting the proposed transfer of the program to DOE but argued that the draft bill would give DOE too much discretion in implementing the program.
The Alliance to Save Energy's Kateri Callahan testified that current law allows officials to address any stated concerns. She also questioned how it would be possible to transfer the program to DOE given that the House spending bill would cut DOE's efficiency office by 40 percent.
Further, she joined many of the groups at the hearing in arguing that full reliance on the APA's notice-and-comment process for setting standards would bog down the program.
“A slow and burdensome process likely would erode consumer confidence and serve as a disincentive to companies to participate and introduce new products,” Callahan said in her written testimony. “We do believe, however, that there should be adequate transparency and predictability to the specification-setting process for products under the . . . program and we would support changes made administratively or even by statute to insure that these tenets are achieved.”
However, the idea of moving Energy Star to DOE -- or at least the portion that covers home appliances -- garnered its strongest support from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. This group noted that Energy Star's home appliance program was housed at DOE prior to its transfer to EPA in 2009.
“Unfortunately, the lack of expertise within EPA led to complications with verification testing requirements and officials within EPA began to broaden the scope of the program beyond energy efficiency and into product performance and warranties. This expansion threatens to diminish the ENERGY STAR brand,” the group argues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/some-industry-groups-fear-bill-move-energy-star-doe
-
Appellate Court Sets New Deadline in BLM Fracking Rule Fight
Nov 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
An appellate court panel in Denver said it wants to hear more arguments over an Obama-era rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands, and ordered the Trump administration and environmental groups to file responses over the matter by mid-November.
In two separate orders Monday in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Court, Judges Mary Beck Briscoe, Harris Hartz and Jerome Holmes ordered the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a coalition of six environmental groups to file responses to rehearing requests by four Western states and two energy industry groups by Nov. 20.
Last September, the three judges split over a decision to dismiss litigation over the proposed rule, on the grounds that the Trump administration intends to rescind it. Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, as well as the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Western Energy Alliance (WEA), have since filed requests for a rehearing -- either by the panel or en banc. The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation has also requested a rehearing.
For the states and the industry groups, the issue is a matter of timing. They argue that a rehearing would give the appellate court's order that vacated a district court ruling time to coincide with the BLM's ongoing efforts to rescind the rule.
But vacating the rule through a mandate, which the appellate court was scheduled to issue next Monday, would "result in significant regulatory uncertainty that will prejudice BLM and the regulated community, and additional legal proceedings that will unnecessarily burden the resources of the federal courts and the parties.
"By coordinating the effective date of the vacatur to the conclusion of BLM's rulemaking, this court can prevent both of these results," wrote attorneys with Baker & Hostetler LLP, who are representing the IPAA and WEA.
The attorneys added that while it took the BLM five years to promulgate the embattled fracking rule, it was unlikely to take that long to ultimately rescind it.
Six environmental groups -- the Sierra Club, Earthworks, Western Resource Advocates, Conservation Colorado Education Fund, the Wilderness Society and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance -- are appellants in two lawsuits over the rule.
The BLM rule would require oil and gas operators to use the FracFocus registry to disclose the chemicals used in fracking and use above-ground tanks to temporarily store produced water, among other things. U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in June 2016 that the BLM does not have the authority to regulate fracking. The government subsequently filed an appeal.
Last March, the Tenth Circuit gave the Trump administration one week to decide whether it wanted to continue defending the rule in court. Attorneys for BLM said the Obama-era rule did not reflect the Trump administration's priorities and asked the court to postpone a pair of cases over the rule. The court granted the request, postponing oral arguments until late July.
The cases are State of Wyoming et al v. Zinke et al, No. 16-8068; and State of Wyoming et al v. DOI, No. 16-8069.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112368-appellate-court-sets-new-deadline-in-blm-fracking-rule-fight
-
Exxon Avoids Nearly Half of Safety Board Requests for Torrance Records
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Exxon Mobil Corp. will avoid turning over to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board about 45 percent of the board's specific document requests on chemical operations at its former refinery in Torrance, Calif., where an explosion injured two workers in February 2015.
U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of California ordered Exxon to comply with the agency's 29 document requests, but denied 24 other requests that she said weren't sufficiently connected to the explosion.
The written ruling issued Nov. 3 was the latest in Exxon's multiyear dispute with the CSB. It could have implications for companies seeking to avoid disclosure to CSB in the future if the agency is seeking records without an immediate connection to the initial focus of the investigation (United States v. ExxonMobil Corp., C.D. Cal., No. MC 17-00066, 11/3/17).
Exxon Mobil spokeswoman Charlotte Huffaker said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7 the ruling showed Exxon had tried to work with the CSB.
“The court has acknowledged our extensive cooperation with the agency and the decision recognizes that many of the CSB's requests were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction,” Huffaker said. “We stand on our record of good faith cooperation with the CSB and value our working relationship.”
Exxon sold the Torrance refinery to PBF Energy Inc. in July 2016 for $537.5 million.
Subpoenas
Justice Department attorneys argued Oct. 17 for the release of the documents through administrative subpoenas at a hearing in Los Angeles.
Exxon attorneys said the CSB exceeded its authority in expanding the probe to factors not at issue in the February 2015 explosion. That included the refinery's historic use of hydrofluoric acid, and two related incidents in March and September 2015.
Because of Exxon's failure to supply documents, the board said it “was unable to fully explore this topic in its final report.”
Marshall agreed with Exxon attorneys that the CSB's focus had strayed too far into areas “with such attenuated connections to the February 2015 release that they cannot reasonably be considered relevant even under the most liberal relevance standard.”
At the same time, Marshall took a broader view than Exxon of the board's investigative authority. The CSB could examine the “facts, conditions, and circumstances and the cause or probable cause” of the event, not just the cause and probable cause, she wrote.
Hydroflouric Acid's Narrow Miss
Marshall's decision blocked most documents related to the refinery's use of hydrofluoric acid, a chemical that can cause burns and one of concern to the surrounding community.
Shortly after the February 2015 explosion, CSB investigators found a large piece of debris from the explosion narrowly missed a tank containing tens of thousands of pounds of modified hydrofluoric acid, which could have put hundreds of thousands of people at risk if ignited.
The ruling said the records weren't of sufficient relevance to the CSB's inquiry about the chemical.
“They put up a good fight,” Sally Hayati, president of Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, a group of residents critical of the refinery's management, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
Hayati said she had doubts CSB and the Justice Department would appeal the ruling given the regulatory priorities of the Trump administration.
CSB spokeswoman Hillary Cohen said the board “is encouraged that the Court's decision upholds the CSB's authority to investigate the facts, conditions, and circumstances surrounding major chemical incidents.”
The board will need to confer with Justice Department officials to determine any next steps in the case, Cohen said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment.
Results of Probe
The CSB completed its investigation of the Torrance explosion in May, blaming the blast on lapses in a safety management system that allowed workers to operate the fluid catalytic cracking unit below a safe level, the use of outdated safeguards, and the failure of a valve that had eroded.
CSB Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland said in a statement when the report was released that the incident “should not have happened, and likely would not have happened had a more robust process safety management system been in place.”
However, the board previously said it might issue a second volume to identify additional deficiencies identified in the missing documents.
It's unclear if the CSB will have enough information from Exxon to complete the second volume. Cohen said the team that investigated the refinery will have to review the new files to determine if doing so is feasible.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414957&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414957&jd=123414957
-
States With Ozone Problems Still Waiting on EPA to Act
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
States with significant ozone pollution problems are left hanging after the EPA released its list of regions that meet national air quality standards, but not the problem areas that don't.
So far the Environmental Protection Agency has given no indication when it would officially designate areas that exceed federal ozone pollution standards set in 2015. The EPA said in in an email that it doesn't have a timeline for completing the designations.
The EPA on Nov. 6 designated 85 percent of the counties in the U.S. as meeting the updated ozone standards. The designations came more than a month late and the agency still hasn't listed the regions that exceed the standards.
Making those nonattainment designations could lead to new pollution control requirements for cars and large industrial facilities such as power plants.
The EPA's lack of information “wasn't unexpected,” Paul Miller, deputy director and chief scientist at the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, told Bloomberg Environment. The group represents air regulators in Northeastern states.
“They're now on EPA time, which could be whenever,” Miller said.
‘It Kind of Puts Us in Limbo’
Delaware had recommended a large nonattainment area that covered the state and parts of the Mid-Atlantic, Northeastern and Midwestern states, whose pollution blows into the First State, Mark Prettyman, an environmental scientist in the air division of Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, told Bloomberg Environment.
Without the official ozone nonattainment status from the EPA, states do not have to begin planning how to control ozone levels. Lacking the EPA nonattainment designations, “there is not much Delaware can say,” Prettyman said. “It kind of puts us in limbo.”
Having to wait for the nonattainment designations “pushes everything beyond the road,” he said.
California, which had only five of its 58 counties listed as in attainment with the new standards, is also awaiting further word from the EPA. The state recommended that the EPA classify 19 areas as not meeting the new ozone standards.
The California Air Resources Board as well as the air quality management districts for Southern California, Sacramento, and San Francisco and Oakland, all told Bloomberg Environment they have not heard anything about nonattainment area designations from the EPA.
Texas declined to comment on the lack of nonattainment areas, but said it was pleased the EPA had accepted its recommendations for regions meeting the ozone standards.
Several other states could not be reached for comment.
—With assistance from Carolyn Whetzel in Los Angeles.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414945&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414945&jd=123414945
-
Syria Joining Paris Deal Highlights Climate's Security Effects
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Syria's announcement that the war-torn nation is formally joining the Paris climate pact highlighted concern among the agreement's backers that worsening climate impacts will aggravate global security and weaken U.S. diplomatic clout.
A Senate Republican and key skeptic about human contributions to climate change, however, said Syria's decision is no big deal. But another Senate Republican expressed hope a U.S. renegotiation of the Paris pact remains possible.
Syria broke the news at the Bonn climate summit that it recently passed domestic legislation to formally join the 2015 Paris Agreement to address climate change, leaving the U.S. as the sole outlier to the global pact if it withdraws—as President Donald Trump has pledged to do.
Negotiators on Nov. 6 began two weeks of technical work in Bonn to implement the Paris deal.
War-ravaged Syria has been a poster child for fears that drought and other weather impacts are worsening refugee migration and contributing to civil strife.
The U.S. Defense Department and other national security agencies have warned that climate change will pose a significant future security threat for the U.S., from destabilizing regimes to causing sea level rise to fueling more severe weather that could impact U.S. bases both at home and overseas.
Senators Disagree on Impact
Democratic senators who are headed to the Bonn talks this weekend to undercut President Trump's efforts to withdraw from the climate deal said Syria's decision further isolates the U.S. as the world's only nation seeking to leave the pact. Only a few senators predict Trump—who complained the deal disadvantaged the U.S.—may yet to decide to stay in it.
But one of those is Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.“My sense is that [the Trump administration] will, at some point, try to negotiate something that's a little different than the benchmarks we agreed to” when the Obama administration signed on to the 2015 deal, Corker told Bloomberg Environment. Asked if that suggests Trump will find a way to stay in, Corker said: “My guess is they will attempt to do so, yes.”
Democrats said Syria joining the deal as the U.S. is moving out hurts American credibility.
‘Makes Us Look Ridiculous’
“It's embarrassing,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Bloomberg Environment.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) noted that the news means the last two holdouts—Nicaragua and Syria—have now joined the deal.
“This is a pretty strong marker that [what] we're doing is very unique, and very wrong,” Whitehouse told Bloomberg Environment. “And this certainly gives us less clout in other matters because it makes us look ridiculous” on the world stage, he said.
But Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who backs Trump's effort to withdraw from the Paris deal, said the Syria announcement will have little impact. Inhofe has argued that developing nations aren't required to take actions to address climate change, so their participation in the pact doesn't mean much.
“Syria has no intentions of doing anything,” Inhofe told Bloomberg Environment.
Worsening Syria Conflict
The Obama administration, which had signed the U.S. on to the Paris pact, saw Syria as perhaps the most worrisome example of how climate change is impacting the security of nations, Andrew Light, a State Department climate negotiator for President Barack Obama, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Obama administration was particularly unnerved, Light said, by a 2015 National Academies report that concluded that just before the 2011 Syrian uprising “the greater Fertile Crescent experienced the most severe drought in the instrumental record.”
For a nation “marked by poor governance and unsustainable agricultural and environmental policies, the drought had a catalytic effect, contributing to political unrest,” the study said.
“That suggested not that climate change caused the civil war but played an important role, and that the resulting drought meant they stopped producing food, and then people moved to the cities—and that became a powder keg,” Light said.
Syria Not Ready on Pledges
The Syrian representative in Bonn cautioned that the nation—which has been embroiled in civil war since 2011—isn't ready to pledge what actions it can take to address climate change or its emissions, according to several people attending the announcement in Bonn. Syria will need to focus on rebuilding at home and other priorities as a postwar country, said one delegate from the U.N. talks, which run until Nov. 17.
Syria must still deposit instruments of ratification with the U.N. before it can formally be a party to the Paris deal and has yet to do so, according to a U.N. spokesman.
While Syria can't technically have a formal role in implementing the Paris deal until its paperwork goes to the U.N., it already has a seat at the table to the broader U.N. climate talks as a party to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parent treaty to the Paris pact.
The U.S. retains such a seat as well. The earliest Trump can formally withdraw from the pact is in November 2020, after the next election.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414943&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414943&jd=123414943
-
What's Behind the UN's Green Climate Fund
Nov 8, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Climate finance is likely to be a hot topic at the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, which started yesterday and run until Nov. 17.
The Green Climate Fund is one of the most high-profile international climate funds. It invests in projects that help developing nations cut their greenhouse gas emissions and respond to the challenges of climate change. It was set up in 2010 by the countries that are parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, with strong support from the U.S. under President Barack Obama.
Of course, President Donald Trump has indicated that U.S. financial support to help countries deal with climate change will be scaled back, and that the U.S. will in fact withdraw from the global Paris Agreement, which was finalized two years ago at a precursor to the current talks in Bonn.
Here are answers to some questions about the Green Climate Fund.
What is the Green Climate Fund? It's an idea launched at the 2010 U.N. climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, and formalized as a U.N. financial mechanism at the 2015 Paris climate negotiations. It's to help small island nations, African nations, and a group of nearly 50 least-developed countries.
Will this year's Bonn summit focus on the Green Climate Fund? Not directly. The fund is up and running, so its policies are set by its board, which is based in Songdo, South Korea. But the debate over whether richer developed nations need to do more to finance climate efforts in vulnerable developing nations is always a hot topic at the U.N. climate summits.
How big is the fund? About $10.3 billion has been pledged, most of it from developed countries. Poorer developing nations such as Peru and Vietnam also have pledged smaller amounts—as did one city, Paris.
How does the Green Climate Fund approve projects? The fund sometimes awards money as a grant or loan or as a guarantee to reduce project risk. Meeting in South Korea, the fund's 24 member-board decides which projects to fund and will meet next in February 2018.
What kind of projects get Green Climate Fund Money? The fund tries to split monies evenly between projects that mitigate greenhouse emissions and those that help nations adapt to climate impacts. About half the adaptation portion is to go to the most vulnerable nations.
Did the U.S. pledge $3 billion? Yes, under President Obama, but he was able to fund only one-third of that amount before President Trump took office in January and ended U.S. support for international climate funding.
Didn't richer developed nations promise $100 billion a year to help developing nations with their climate needs? Yes, but the Green Climate Fund is essentially just a slice of that $100 billion pledge, which includes an array of international climate assistance.
What's next? The end is near for the initial round of pledged donations covering 2015 to 2018. Once 60 percent of contributions has been designated for projects or programs—something that will probably happen in 2018—the fund triggers a new “replenishment” round, ideas are to expand the donor pool to countries that haven't given money or increase support from those that have.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123414953&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123414953&jd=123414953
-
EPA Reopens Comment On Ozone Information Request
Nov 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has reopened until Dec. 8 the recently closed public comment period on its information collection request (ICR) seeking input from states on the burdens their face in supplying the agency with data about their efforts to attain federal ozone standards, amid uncertainty about whether EPA will revoke the most recent ozone limit set in 2015.
In a Federal Register notice slated for publication Nov. 8, EPA announces the reopening of the comment period that closed Nov. 1 but does not elaborate on the reason for granting more time. The existing ICR is due to expire Jan. 31, and the proposed extension would extend it from 2018 through 2021.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in its Nov. 1 comments on EPA's original Oct. 2 proposed ICR extension said the agency substantially underestimates the true burden on state regulators of supplying the requested information about their state implementation plans (SIPs) for air law compliance.
TCEQ noted that EPA is planning to revoke the 2008 NAAQS in the light of the agency's adoption of a tougher standard in 2015. However, EPA has yet to finalize the Obama-era proposed implementation rule that would achieve this, and the Trump administration is further reconsidering the 2015 standard. The Obama tightened the limit to 70 parts per billion (ppb), down from the weaker 2008 standard of 75 ppb.
EPA has said it is reconsidering the federal ozone standards. Should EPA revoke the 2008 NAAQS, that would moot the ICR in most respects, although there might be some ongoing reporting required on measures to ensure “backsliding” in air quality does not occur in the transition to a new standard.
However, if EPA either does not revoke the 2008 NAAQS or delays revoking it, TCEQ “disagrees with the methodology that the EPA used to account for the estimated agency burden in fulfilling the SIP activities.” TCEQ says EPA has underestimated the staff time and state agency funds required to comply with the ICR, and “recommends that a more realistic estimate of burden associated with continued implementation of the 2008 ozone standard be developed.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-reopens-comment-ozone-information-request
-
EPA Faces New Suit Aiming To Block GHG Rule Rollbacks
Nov 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Clean Air Council (CAC) is pursuing a new legal strategy against the Trump administration, seeking to broadly prevent EPA and other agencies' bids to roll back Obama-era greenhouse gas rules in a new complaint in federal court filed on behalf of two children who allege they are personally impacted by climate change.
The Nov. 6 suit, CAC v. United States of America, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, names President Donald Trump, EPA and Administrator Scott Pruitt, and the Department of Energy and Secretary Rick Perry as defendants.
The complaint says that the government's efforts to roll back regulations directed at minimizing the U.S. contribution to climate change “will increase the frequency and severity of these extreme weather events and the dangers to Plaintiffs' lives and a life-sustaining environment.”
It also says the government is “relying on junk science to wage a war on facts, data and reliable principles and methods arising out of scientific, technical and specialized knowledge. In doing so, Defendants have acted with reckless and deliberate indifference to the established clear and present dangers of climate change.”
The suit is brought under the Constitution and seeks a declaration that Trump's rollback program is in violation of the due process clause.
CAC said in a statement that it is pursuing the suit on behalf of two Pennsylvania children pro bono and that the regulatory rollbacks mean a potentially irreversible threat to humans and the planet.
The complaint lists a host of climate policies that the White House and EPA have targeted, including the United States' participation in the Paris Agreement, EPA's Clean Power Plan GHG rules for power plants, its vehicle GHG rules, and its plans to issue methane rules for existing oil and gas equipment.
Among other policies, it also cites Trump directives scrapping guidance for assessing climate impacts in environmental reviews, ordering agencies not to use the Obama-era “social cost of carbon” climate damage estimates and blocking a moratorium on new coal leasing.
“We will not stand idly by while President Trump and his agencies raze crucial environmental protections, ignore climate science, dispute well-documented facts and force future generations of Americans to suffer the consequences of this administration’s reckless choices and ignorant policies,” CAC executive director Joseph Minott said in the statement. “We must hold the federal government accountable for the long-term environmental harm that is propagating under its direction. It’s time to fight back.”
Our Children's Trust, which is pursuing similar constitutional litigation against the administration that seeks to force additional action to cut GHG emissions, responded to the new case by saying that CAC “is taking the legal theories pioneered” in its ongoing case, Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, “and applying them to a narrow set of facts related to specific rollbacks of the Trump administration. By contrast, the Juliana case challenges not just the Trump administration's ongoing illegal actions, but also the collective unconstitutional acts of prior administrations that have created the climate danger our youth plaintiffs face today.”
Additionally, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) noted in a statement that the suit comes days after the Trump administration released the first volume of the National Climate Assessment, which recognizes the imminent dangers of climate change and human's role, and as the United Nations climate talks get under way in Bonn, Germany, where the administration is expected to promote fossil fuels.
“[T]he defendants have demonstrated a reckless disregard for the lives, livelihoods, and rights of U.S. residents and people around the world,” CIEL says. “In doing so, they have created a clear violation of fundamental rights that can and should be urgently addressed by the courts.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-faces-new-suit-aiming-block-ghg-rule-rollbacks
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested