ACC PM 11/15/17

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Blog) A Dip in Plastics Recycling. Now What?

   Nov 15, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters

   By Steve Russell
   
   
   This year on America Recycles Day (November 15, #BeRecycled), there’s a lot of discussion about challenges facing the recycling industry.
2. (ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Recognizes Amcor, APR and P&G

   Nov 15, 2017 | Recycling Today

   The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has announced that Amcor, the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and Procter & Gamble (P&G) have been selected to receive Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards in 2017.
3. (ACC Mentioned) It's America Recycles Day, the Annual Celebration of a Culture of Disposability

   Nov 15, 2017 | Treehugger

   By Lloyd Alter
   
   
   Gather round and hear the tale of America Recycles Day, our annual rant about corporate greenwashing, but first a word about this year's sponsors...

LCSA News

4. Senate Democrats Float EPA Asbestos Ban Bill Due to Fears over Dourson

   Nov 15, 2017 | Inside EPA

   By Maria Hegstad
   
   
   Eight Senate Democrats have introduced a bill seeking to ban asbestos -- even as EPA is working on a precedential risk evaluation of the substance under new responsibilities in the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- in part because of concerns...

Chemical Management News

5. (ACC Mentioned) California's Famed Cancer Warnings Imperiled by Federal Push

   Nov 15, 2017 | Bloomberg

   By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
   
   
   Seizing on the Trump administration’s deregulation drive, corporate lobbyists are pushing to override state laws on ingredient-disclosure rules and warning labels, including landmark California legislation on potential cancer risks.
6. (ACC Mentioned) 'Dr. Evil' Comes to Defense of Beleaguered Dourson

   Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Kevin Bogardus and Corbin Hiar
   
   
   One of industry's best-known hired guns has joined the fight to confirm President Trump's nominee to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program.
7. With Lejeune, GenX Woes Fresh, EPA Chemical Choice Drawing Heat

   Nov 15, 2017 | Kinston Free Press

   By Adam Wagner
   
   
   The nomination of a man with strong industry ties to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) post overseeing chemicals is drawing heat in a state where the memory of the Camp Lejeune contamination looms large and residents are struggling to grasp the full implications of emerging contaminants in the Cape Fear River.
8. Historical Court Decision on Lead-Based Paint in California Court of Appeals

   Nov 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Tom Neltner
   
   
   Yesterday, after three years of deliberations, California’s Appellate Court for the Sixth District held that three defendant companies – Sherwin-Williams Company, NL Industries, and ConAgra Grocery Products[1]— created a public nuisance in ten plaintiff jurisdictions in the state...
9. Federal Study: Replacements for Hormone-Disrupting BPA May Be Just as Bad

   Nov 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group

   By Alexis Temkin
   
   
   Replacements for bisphenol A, a hormone-disrupting chemical in plastics and food containers, could be just as harmful or even worse than it, according to a new study by the National Toxicology Program.
10. Pruitt’s EPA Abandoning Duty to Protect Kids From Dangerous Pesticides

    Nov 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group

    Five years is a long time in the life of a child – and for the child’s parents. Five years can be a period of profound change, growth and development.
11. Cefic, CIA Spell Out ‘Hard’ Brexit Costs to Chemicals Industry

    Nov 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch

    Failure to secure a transition period and a new UK/EU trade agreement after Britain leaves the Union could cost the chemicals industry an extra €1.5bn a year, according to chemical bodies.
12. EU Commission Asks if Titanium Dioxide Classification Should Be Broader

    Nov 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch

    The European Commission is to ask member state competent authorities, whether the proposed carcinogenicity classification of titanium dioxide should be extended to other nanomaterials.

Energy News

13. Perry Expresses Hope For New, 'Fair' NAFTA

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Nathanial Gronewold
    
    
    Energy Secretary Rick Perry yesterday said he expects that Mexico, the United States and Canada will succeed in drafting a new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), one that incorporates energy trade.
14. Senate Energy Committee Approves ANWR Drilling Bill

    Nov 15, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Ben Lefebvre
    
    
    The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today advanced a bill that would open up a section of Arctic Natural Wilderness Refuge to oil and gas drilling.
15. Trump's 'Energy Dominance' Transforms Alaska's Future

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Margaret Kriz Hobson and Pamela King
    
    
    Nov. 8, 2016, was a time of triumph and hope for Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski as she watched election results with a crowd of supporters at 49th State Brewing Co.'s brewpub in downtown Anchorage.

Chemical Security News

16. Chemical Safety Board Warns Industry to Update Emergency Plans After Arkema Disaster

    Nov 15, 2017 | Houston Chronicle

    By Matt Dempsey
    
    
    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board is warning the chemical industry to rethink its emergency plans in light of the Arkema disaster in Crosby.
17. Arkema Documents: Planning, Mechanical Failures Led to Harvey Chemical Fires

    Nov 15, 2017 | Houston Chronicle

    By Matt Dempsey and Jacob Carpenter
    
    
    Prior to the chemical fire at its Crosby plant, Arkema underestimated the potential for storm damage and failed to keep essential backup power protected from rising floodwaters, documents obtained by the Houston Chronicle.

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

Environment News

18. Climate Civil War Brewing At ALEC

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Zack Colman
    
    
    Members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a heavyweight conservative policy organization, are feuding about their approach to climate change.
19. Emissions Drop Not Due To Cap And Trade — Study

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn
    
    
    As California Gov. Jerry Brown touts his state's economywide carbon cap-and-trade program at U.N. talks in Bonn, Germany, critics of the policy are taking the opportunity to launch jabs back at home.
20. Moore's Woes In Ala. An Unexpected Gift For Climate Hawks

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Josh Kurtz
    
    
    Dozens of Democrats and their allies in the environmental movement came together outside the Capitol yesterday to blast President Trump for isolating the United States in the global fight against climate change.
21. Top U.S. Officials Cancel Visits To Climate Talks

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    The United States won't have its top two negotiators at the international climate conference here as the talks enter a crucial period in their final days.
22. Panel Advances Bill to Roll Back Standards

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Nick Sobczyk and Sean Reilly
    
    
    A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee today advanced a package of partisan bills aimed at undercutting current air quality standards for a handful of industries.
23. Trump vs. Obama on the Social Cost of Carbon–and Why It Matters

    Nov 15, 2017 | Wall Street Journal

    By Jason Bordoff
    
    
    Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to repealthe centerpiece of President Obama’s climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, which regulates greenhouse-gas emissions from the power sector.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Blog) A Dip in Plastics Recycling. Now What?

   Nov 15, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters

   By Steve Russell

   This year on America Recycles Day (November 15, #BeRecycled), there’s a lot of discussion about challenges facing the recycling industry. A recent example: the 2016 dip (2.4%) in plastic bottle recycling, which reversed twenty-five years of growth and a five-year compounded annual growth rate of 2.1%.

   So, what happens when an enterprise that has seen two and a half decades of growth suddenly stalls, or even backslides? If it’s like other successful enterprises, it eventually adjusts to market forces. My guess is that will be the case with plastics recycling.

   In fact innovations are already underway to improve efficiency and help restore long-term growth. Before we examine these innovations, let’s take a look at some of the industry’s current challenges, starting with the decline in bottle recycling.

   So why the drop?  Contributors include a slight decrease in the weight of material collected, challenging export markets, and increased contamination.

   In fact, weight reduction isn’t surprising. Bottle makers are source reducing, and designing ever thinner and lighter products than in years past. But export markets and contamination present challenges to increasing overall plastics recycling rates in the U.S.

   Earlier this year, China—the major export market for recycled materials—announced its second major crackdown on the import of many types of materials, including plastics, which significantly exacerbates export markets.

   And in the U.S., the rapid expansion of single stream recycling—the use of a single curbside container for all recyclables—has led to a significant rise in materials collected. It has also increased collection of non-recycled items, which contaminate the recycling stream.

   Still, I’m optimistic.  Why?  As in any enterprise, challenges also create opportunities:

   Domestic Investments—China’s recent crackdown has led to new investments in U.S. plastics recycling facilities, which could help soak up a lot of the supply of used plastics previously headed to China. Long-term, these investments could provide a more stable domestic market for recycled materials and also increase the number of U.S. jobs in plastics recycling.

   Better Education—The unintentional mingling of non-recyclable materials (garden hoses, old video tapes, shoes and clothes) with recyclables is a stubborn problem, but it’s manageable. Communities, recyclers, NGOs, and others are addressing contamination by providing citizens with better information on what is and isn’t recyclable and developing a nationally accepted recycling label for consumer packaging.

   Technology Innovation—Advanced technologies (e.g., optical sorters) are helping to strengthen yields, improve quality, and increase efficiency. Some of these technologies can sort more types of plastics, which can create additional value streams. Other new technologies are being developed to chemically recycle plastics, meaning used plastics are converted back into their original feedstock (e.g., polystyrene back to styrene), helping to increase circularity.

   Demand—Corporate sustainability goals are helping to increase demand by calling for greater recycling and recycled content in products and packaging. A few examples:

   ·        The Association of Plastic Recyclers recently launched its Demand Champion Campaign, which seeks to increase the use of recycled polypropylene and polyethylene in items used in manufacturing (e.g., trash cans, pallets, and tote boxes). To date, APR’s Demand Champions include Campbell’s Soup Co., Coca-Cola North America, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Procter & Gamble, and Target Corp.

   ·        Amcor has introduced a flexible pouch that is recyclable with other plastic bags and wraps at more than 18,000 stores across the U.S. Plus, it contains 20% post-consumer recycled plastic, helping to increase demand for post-use plastics. Method uses these pouches for dishwasher detergent packs.

   ·        Procter & Gamble recently licensed technology to PureCycle that can remove virtually all contaminants and colors from used polypropylene. This should allow more companies to use more recycled polypropylene in more applications.

   Changing market conditions are common in any enterprise, and progress isn’t always linear. I think a compelling case can be made that recent corporate goals and technological innovation will continue to drive recycling on a course for growth.

   https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/11/a-dip-in-plastics-recycling-now-what/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Recognizes Amcor, APR and P&G

   Nov 15, 2017 | Recycling Today

   The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has announced that Amcor, the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and Procter & Gamble (P&G) have been selected to receive Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards in 2017.
   

   The awards recognize companies, nonprofits and government bodies that successfully bring new technologies, products and initiatives to communities and the marketplace that demonstrate significant innovations in plastics recycling. ACC announced the awards Nov. 15 in celebration of America Recycles Day.

   The ACC says it is recognizing the 2017 winners for supporting end markets for recycled plastics. Since China’s National Sword took effect, more recycled material is staying in the United States, and there is an opportunity to grow domestic end markets for recycled plastics, the association says.

   “This year’s award recipients are doing critical work to help support and grow domestic end markets for recycled plastics,” says Craig Cookson, senior director of recycling and energy recovery for ACC. “The honorees are leaders in innovation, helping to ensure that valuable recycled plastics are being kept out of landfills and used in new products.”

   Amcor, with corporate offices in Zurich, created a monomaterial plastic pouch that contains 20 percent postconsumer recycled (PCR) plastic. In addition, Amcor notes that the pouch itself can be recycled along with other monomaterial plastic bags and product overwraps at drop-off locations across the U.S. The pouch features the How2Recycle Label, which educates consumers about how to recycle various packaging materials. Method is the latest company to use Amcor’s pouch.

   APR, based in Washington, launched its Recycling Demand Champions Campaign to encourage the use of recycled plastics in durable products. Demand Champions voluntarily commit to purchase “Work in Progress” items, such as crates, totes and pallets, that contain postconsumer recycled resin produced from mixed residential plastics. Since the campaign’s launch in fall 2017, more than 10 companies have taken the Recycling Demand Champion Pledge.

   Cincinnati-based P&G worked with PureCycle Technologies to develop a recycling technology that produces high-quality recycled polypropylene (PP), increasing the variety of end-market applications for the material. P&G plans to use the recycled PP in more of its packaging and says the recycled plastic will be available for other companies to purchase through PureCycle. (Read a Recycling Today article on the technology here.) 

   http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/acc-2017-plastics-recycling-awards-amcor-apr-pg/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) It's America Recycles Day, the Annual Celebration of a Culture of Disposability

   Nov 15, 2017 | Treehugger

   By Lloyd Alter

   Gather round and hear the tale of America Recycles Day, our annual rant about corporate greenwashing, but first a word about this year's sponsors:

   This year the sponsors list is shorter than usual, but includes such stalwarts of sustainability as Keurig Green Mountain, responsible for millions upon millions of marginally recyclable coffee pods that eat up resources and fill up dumps. They pretend to support recycling but nobody does it because it is not worth the trouble. Yet here they are, a sponsor of America Recycles Day. I have noted:

   What does “recyclable” actually mean? Generally, it means that some poor schlepper has to separate the aluminum foil lid from the plastic bottom and scrape out the coffee grounds so that the materials can be reprocessed. The owner of the machine, who bought it for the convenience, is not likely to do it and get grounds under their fingernails. Seriously, if people don’t care enough to make coffee, they are going to care enough to go through that? So they get thrown out.

   And then there is H&M, purveyor of fast fashion that, as Katherine has described it, will never be sustainable, no matter what companies say.

   Fast fashion and sustainability are an oxymoron. The whole idea behind fast fashion is to churn out cheap new collections and stimulate consumption, and there’s nothing sustainable about that. It’s impossible to produce ethical, eco-friendly clothing at the quantity and rate that fast fashion demands while maintaining genuinely high and environmentally sustainable standards.

   Waste Management is no surprise; they get paid either way, to haul the garbage or the recycling. Municipalities pay them billions to cart it all away, the more the merrier for them.

   Indorama Ventures is a new sponsor; I had to look them up. They are now one of the largest manufacturers of PET resins, the stuff that water and other disposable bottles are made of. They also make PTA and other feedstocks that are used to make PET.

   Through organic growth, strategic acquisitions, and expansions we have grown today to operate 27 production facilities across 16 countries with a combined capacity to produce 4.4 million tons of PET polymers. After the start up of AlphaPet facility at Decatur, U.S.A. Now we are the largest PET producer in the world.

   But the most egregious of all is the American Chemistry Council, that spends much time and money fighting every effort to eliminate plastic bag laws and any attempt to minimize the use of bottled water, which does not want to be a bench. Even they admit in their latest press release that recycling rates are actually down: "Following more than 20 consecutive years of growth, factors that contributed to the recent decline included a slight drop in material collected for recycling, changing export markets, and increased contamination of recyclables." There are only so many benches needed, but more importantly, China has stopped importing American waste. Nobody wants the stuff, which is why 70 percent of it is going to the dump. But if you feel that it is OK to drink bottled water because hey, you recycle, it is fine with them, have another!

   All these companies are not sponsoring America Recycles Day because they are suddenly feeling guilty. If you look at the history of recycling in America, it was invented as a way to keep the wheels of the plastics industry turning as dumps filled up across America and municipalities started considering deposit and return rules. It is all about making more stuff.

   Here is the background, from a previous year:

   Gather round, here is the whole story about the people who are patting you on the head for picking up their crap and and sorting it into neat little piles so that you can then pay your city or town to take away and ship across the country so somebody can melt it and make another bench. But only a little more than a quarter of those bottles do make it that far, because the economics aren't there and many towns find it cheaper to just dump it in a hole in the ground. And that's exactly what happens to 30 million tons of the stuff every year, which is the real story behind America Recycles Day.

   © America Recycles Day

   Gather round and hear the tale of America Recycles Day, our annual rant about corporate greenwashing, but first a word about this year's sponsors:

   America Recycles Day sponsors/Screen capture

   This year the sponsors list is shorter than usual, but includes such stalwarts of sustainability as Keurig Green Mountain, responsible for millions upon millions of marginally recyclable coffee pods that eat up resources and fill up dumps. They pretend to support recycling but nobody does it because it is not worth the trouble. Yet here they are, a sponsor of America Recycles Day. I have noted:

   What does “recyclable” actually mean? Generally, it means that some poor schlepper has to separate the aluminum foil lid from the plastic bottom and scrape out the coffee grounds so that the materials can be reprocessed. The owner of the machine, who bought it for the convenience, is not likely to do it and get grounds under their fingernails. Seriously, if people don’t care enough to make coffee, they are going to care enough to go through that? So they get thrown out.

   And then there is H&M, purveyor of fast fashion that, as Katherine has described it, will never be sustainable, no matter what companies say.

   Fast fashion and sustainability are an oxymoron. The whole idea behind fast fashion is to churn out cheap new collections and stimulate consumption, and there’s nothing sustainable about that. It’s impossible to produce ethical, eco-friendly clothing at the quantity and rate that fast fashion demands while maintaining genuinely high and environmentally sustainable standards.

   Waste Management is no surprise; they get paid either way, to haul the garbage or the recycling. Municipalities pay them billions to cart it all away, the more the merrier for them.

   Indorama Ventures is a new sponsor; I had to look them up. They are now one of the largest manufacturers of PET resins, the stuff that water and other disposable bottles are made of. They also make PTA and other feedstocks that are used to make PET.

   Through organic growth, strategic acquisitions, and expansions we have grown today to operate 27 production facilities across 16 countries with a combined capacity to produce 4.4 million tons of PET polymers. After the start up of AlphaPet facility at Decatur, U.S.A. Now we are the largest PET producer in the world.

   But the most egregious of all is the American Chemistry Council, that spends much time and money fighting every effort to eliminate plastic bag laws and any attempt to minimize the use of bottled water, which does not want to be a bench. Even they admit in their latest press release that recycling rates are actually down: "Following more than 20 consecutive years of growth, factors that contributed to the recent decline included a slight drop in material collected for recycling, changing export markets, and increased contamination of recyclables." There are only so many benches needed, but more importantly, China has stopped importing American waste. Nobody wants the stuff, which is why 70 percent of it is going to the dump. But if you feel that it is OK to drink bottled water because hey, you recycle, it is fine with them, have another!

   All these companies are not sponsoring America Recycles Day because they are suddenly feeling guilty. If you look at the history of recycling in America, it was invented as a way to keep the wheels of the plastics industry turning as dumps filled up across America and municipalities started considering deposit and return rules. It is all about making more stuff.

   I want to be recycled/Screen capture

   Here is the background, from a previous year:

   Gather round, here is the whole story about the people who are patting you on the head for picking up their crap and and sorting it into neat little piles so that you can then pay your city or town to take away and ship across the country so somebody can melt it and make another bench. But only a little more than a quarter of those bottles do make it that far, because the economics aren't there and many towns find it cheaper to just dump it in a hole in the ground. And that's exactly what happens to 30 million tons of the stuff every year, which is the real story behind America Recycles Day.

   Our grandparents didn't have this problem; in their day, you took your bottles back to the store and you got your deposit returned. It wasn't that big a deal, and the bottlers of Coke and brewers of beer were all local so they weren't travelling that far. As recently as Earth Day in 1970, Recycling had a different meaning. Coke was acknowledging the environmental superiority of returnable, refillable bottles, saying " What the world needs today are containers that recycle… So buy Coca-Cola in returnable bottles. It’s best for the environment and your best value."

   But it was already too late; ever since Miss Concrete and Miss Blacktop opened the interstate highway system, the brewers and bottlers found it was a lot cheaper to centralize production in giant facilities, and shipping heavy glass bottles back for refilling was too expensive, so they switched to cans and disposable bottles.

   But since there weren't takeout foods in paper trays and disposable bottles, there weren't any garbage cans and people didn't really know what to do, so they were throwing them out their car windows and into gutters. So American Can, Owens-Illinois and the big bottlers founded Keep America Beautiful, hired an Italian known as Iron Eyes Cody, all to train us in picking up their garbage. And it worked. This created a new problem, as Heather Roberts described in Message in a Bottle:

   All this eco-friendly activity put business and manufacturers on the defensive. With landfill space shrinking, new incinerators ruled out, water dumping long ago outlawed and the public becoming more environmentally aware by the hour, the solutions to the garbage disposal problem were narrowing. Looking forward, manufacturers must have perceived their range of options as truly horrifying: bans on certain materials and industrial processes; production controls; minimum standards for product durability.

   And that's why we have the American Chemistry Council, Nestle Water and Alcoa being such big fans of recycling. First they have trained us to pick up their garbage, to even dress up on orange vests and walk down the sides of highways picking up their empties. Then they taught us that melting it all down is actually environmentally correct, when they know that refilling is a whole lot better. But there is a lot of money to be made making bottles and filling them and letting the customer pay for getting rid of them. As Heather Rogers noted in an interview:

   Recycling deals with the problem of waste after it's been created. It enables a mass production system that's reliant on wasting to continue essentially unaltered. But in the way that it allows that, the key ways, recycling is something that happens after production, but also it works at a cultural level to convince people that, wasting as much as they do, if they recycle it, everything is going to be ok. It's not. It obscures the reality of the situation.

   Recycling is good to do. I recycle. But if you imagine that somehow it will address the deeper larger environmental problems that we face is bordering on delusional.

   There is really no reason not to have a system where people refill their bottles instead of recycling them; just north of the border in Ontario, 88% of bottles are returned and refilled an average of 17 times. And the really crazy thing about it is that the distribution system is owned by the big international brewers, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Molson Coors and Sapporo, so they can't say it doesn't work. They make a lot of money washing and refilling bottles; there is a real business case that can be made for zero waste in beer.Practice the 7 Rs instead

   There is a lot of money to be saved by consumers in alternatives to recycling; thats why we push the Seven Rs:

   Reduce: Just use less.
   Return: Producers should take back what they sell.
   Reuse: Almost boring, but we throw too much stuff out too soon.
   Repair: Fix and mend things rather than replacing them.
   Refill: In Ontario Canada, 88% of beer bottles are returned to the beer store, washed and refilled; just south of the border in the USA, the number drops to under 5%.
   Rot: Compost what is left over, turning it into valuable nutrients.
   Refuse: Simply refuse to accept this crap from the manufacturers any more.

   Recycling isn't on the list, because we aren't going to reinforce a culture of disposability.

   https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/its-america-recycles-day-annual-celebration-culture-disposability.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

4. Senate Democrats Float EPA Asbestos Ban Bill Due to Fears over Dourson

   Nov 15, 2017 | Inside EPA

   By Maria Hegstad

   Eight Senate Democrats have introduced a bill seeking to ban asbestos -- even as EPA is working on a precedential risk evaluation of the substance under new responsibilities in the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- in part because of concerns that President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the agency's toxics office wouldn't ban its use.

   "The main context is the [Michael] Dourson nomination" to be the assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, "the way that's impacting our view of the situation," a Democratic Senate staffer tells Inside EPA. "When we passed the bipartisan [TSCA reform] bill last year, there was the feeling that any potential EPA official working in good faith would ban asbestos as part of the first 10 high priority cases" that EPA elected for risk evaluation as directed in the reformed statute.

   As expected, EPA shortly before the end of the Obama administration selected asbestos among the first 10 existing chemicals -- those on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976 and largely grandfathered under the original law -- to be prioritized for risk evaluation and potentially regulation. EPA has a statutory deadline of three years to complete evaluations of the 10 chemicals, after which any uses of the chemicals deemed not to meet TSCA's unreasonable risk standard must be regulated.

   "But there's really a high degree of alarm about Dourson," the staffer says. "And in a wide variety of instances he may recommend controls on chemicals that are much weaker than we would like to see and those could get locked in for a long period of time.”

   As a result, Democrats recently introduced their legislation to require EPA to ban asbestos in case Dourson opts against pursuing any prohibition on the substance.

   Democrats, environmentalists and some public health advocates have stridently opposed Dourson's nomination, arguing the former EPA toxicologist's non-profit risk assessment consulting group is too close with myriad chemical industry clients. They have pointed to numerous chemicals where Dourson proposed risk standards that are weaker than those EPA or state agencies ultimately adopted. Senate Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee vowed to oppose Dourson's confirmation, even as the committee voted along party lines to advance his nomination to the floor.

   Dourson's nomination seems to have stalled, however. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) moved a Nov. 9 party-line confirmation vote of another controversial EPA appointment, that of William Wehrum to lead the air office. But McConnell did not advance Dourson's nomination, signaling that there may by dissension in the Republican ranks.

   With the GOP holding a slim three-vote majority, Republicans cannot lose more than two votes if Democrats vote as a block. The two Republican senators from North Carolina have recently told reporters that they have concerns about Dourson, linked to his past work on perfluorinated chemicals -- which are currently contaminating North Carolina's Cape Fear near a Fayetteville facility -- and his past work on trichloroethylene, a solvent that contaminated the drinking water supply at Camp Lejeune, NC.

   "I think the real question is if McConnell is willing to burn floor time on [Dourson]. But he did today with Wehrum," the staffer says. "If they actually have a tax thing to move, that's going to take up a lot of their floor time. But if they get stalled on that they may move to nominees."

   Asbestos Legislation

   Eight Democrats, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), introduced S. 2072 Nov. 2. The bill reintroduces legislation proposed in the last Congress by former California Sen. Barbara Boxer (D), as she was negotiating reform of TSCA with Republicans and more moderate Democrats. Merkley is joined by cosponsoring Sens. Cory Booker (NJ), Richard Durbin (IL), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Edward Markey (MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jon Tester (MT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).

   If signed into law, the bill would require EPA within 18 months of enactment to "impose, by rule, prohibitions, restrictions, and other conditions, including prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of asbestos and mixtures and articles containing asbestos, that the Administrator determines to be necessary to eliminate human or environmental exposure to asbestos."

   The bill seeks to amend TSCA Title VII and revise TSCA's definition of asbestos, which generally refers to various types of mineral fibers that are harmful to the lungs. TSCA strictly defines "asbestos" as consisting of six fiber types, but the bill would expand the definition to include "all forms of asbestos."

   EPA, however, is restricting its ongoing risk evaluation to the existing TSCA definition of those six fiber types. This application of the narrow definition of asbestos and other changes further restricting the ongoing risk evaluation is another driver for the introduction of the new asbestos bill, says Linda Reinstein, CEO and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. The new bill and its predecessor are named for Reinstein's husband Alan, who died of asbestos-related mesothelioma.

   Reinstein pointed to changes the Trump EPA made to the final rules implementing TSCA reform, and in particular changes to how conditions of use will be evaluated in TSCA risk evaluations as a major concern -- particularly as applied in the scoping document that EPA released describing how it plans to evaluate asbestos.

   "The conditions of use being changed in the scoping document was for me alarming and deeply concerning," Reinstein told Inside EPA in a Nov. 9 interview. "To change the conditions of use, to exclude legacy uses and [some types of asbestos, such as] Libby amphibole -- by altering the conditions of use to strongly favor the chlor alkali industry equals no ban."

   Reinstein remains concerned that the chlor alkali industry, the major remaining ongoing use of asbestos, will successfully lobby EPA to exempt the industry from any ban that EPA might propose for asbestos upon completion of the risk evaluation. Reinstein notes that the chlor alkali industry successfully lobbied for an exemption when EPA last proposed banning many uses of asbestos in 1989, and that the industry has made similar arguments in comments to EPA on its ongoing risk evaluation.

   Reinstein said that after reviewing the asbestos evaluation scoping document that the Trump EPA released last June, "it was abundantly clear to me that we would never have a ban if we relied on the existing EPA to evaluate the risk."

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-democrats-float-epa-asbestos-ban-bill-due-fears-over-dourson
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

5. (ACC Mentioned) California's Famed Cancer Warnings Imperiled by Federal Push

   Nov 15, 2017 | Bloomberg

   By Lauren Coleman-Lochner

   Seizing on the Trump administration’s deregulation drive, corporate lobbyists are pushing to override state laws on ingredient-disclosure rules and warning labels, including landmark California legislation on potential cancer risks.

   The goal is to set a single federal law that could replace a barrage of state label requirements, making it easier for industries ranging from chemical manufacturing to food production. 

   The effort could challenge laws like Proposition 65, a set of rules that’s been immortalized in warning signs and labels across California -- and frequently outside the state as well. The Golden State has long acted as a de facto regulator for the rest of the country, with its mandates on everything from auto emissions to marijuana having a broad impact.

   The Grocery Manufacturers Association is one of some 50 trade organizations backing an effort for a national labeling law, saying a unified rule is needed instead of a patchwork of differing state requirements. They contend that the chaos of state legislation has become too much for businesses to bear.

   “We ask for your support for a national solution to this growing list of state labeling and disclosure requirements,” according to a letter seeking lawmakers as sponsors and signed by organizations such as the American Chemistry Council and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. “The time to establish a federal, science-based solution is now.”

   The trade groups, whose members include 3M Co., General Mills Inc. and other top companies, argue that states “do not uniformly have the scientific capacity and robust infrastructure to ensure adherence to the highest standards of scientific integrity and risk analysis,” according to the letter, which was viewed by Bloomberg.

   Grandfathered Law

   The ACC circulated a document earlier this year to other trade groups laying out its case and seeking support for a national labeling law. It suggested amending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to include what it called “minimum scientific standards” for listing warnings or benefits. The document also discussed a “reform” of Proposition 65 to “require sound scientific basis for the listing of substances.”

   Protecting that law was part of the agreement to update the 40-year-old federal Toxic Substances Control Act last year, which grandfathered in Proposition 65 and some regulations in other states, said Ansje Miller, director of policy and partnerships at the Center for Environmental Health. “Now, with this attempt, the chemical lobby is clearly breaking that promise,” she said.

   The California proposition, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, took effect in 1986. It requires the state to maintain an updated list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm and for businesses to give “clear and reasonable” notice of exposure to those chemicals. That’s usually in the form of signs and labels. 

   Beyond California

   Critics say such warnings can be excessive. They point to a current lawsuitthat seeks to add warnings about a chemical in coffee. But proponents say the law has been successful in alerting consumers to hazards like lead.

   Proposition 65 has served as a template for other states. In recent years, a number have enacted or weighed legislation regulating the use of certain chemicals in products. About 35 states have passed 173 measures, and more than 100 other bills are under consideration in two dozen states, according to environmental health coalition Safer States.

   California recently passed a law that contains the strictest disclosure requirements in the country for listing ingredients in cleaning products, a measure opposed by the chemistry council and grocery association. New York is hammering out a similar measure.

   Monsanto Sues California Over Forced Herbicide Warning

   Such actions can stymie consumers, said Claire Parker, a spokeswoman for a group of businesses that is forming called the Coalition for Accurate Product Labels​.

   “The criteria and rationale for these initiatives is not consistent, threatening to leave consumers and retailers even more confused about what is and is not safe,” Parker said in an emailed statement. “Several groups have had discussions to explore the need for federal legislation establishing science-based, uniform, national standards for government-mandated ingredient disclosure and warning label programs.”

   She cited a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision blocking a San Francisco law that required health warnings on soda advertisements, as well as an editorial in the Los Angeles Times warning that Prop 65 labels that aren’t supported by research can be counterproductive and dangerous.

   Federal Standards

   The passage last year of the Environmental Protection Agency’s updated toxics law limits states’ abilities to enact new regulations, and instead promotes a unified federal system.

   Efforts to override state disclosure requirements for consumer products come on the heels of a battle last year over whether to require labels of genetically modified ingredients in food. Industry groups sought a national law that would supersede individual state mandates such as Vermont’s.

   The final law signed last year makes the information available via QR codes or 800 numbers but doesn’t require on-package labels.

   This new push for a federal standard fits right in with the Trump administration’s agenda, according to Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

   “The chemical manufacturers have already taken control of the EPA,” Rosenberg said. “Now they want to take away the public’s right to know about dangerous chemicals in products by preventing states from informing citizens.”

   https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-15/california-s-famed-cancer-warnings-threatened-by-federal-push
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. (ACC Mentioned) 'Dr. Evil' Comes to Defense of Beleaguered Dourson

   Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Kevin Bogardus and Corbin Hiar

   One of industry's best-known hired guns has joined the fight to confirm President Trump's nominee to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program.

   The Center for Accountability in Science (CAS), a group tied to public affairs executive Rick Berman, is using online advertising and opinion pieces in support of making toxicologist Michael Dourson the next chief of the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

   Dourson's confirmation bid has stalled in the face of united opposition by Senate Democrats and concerns expressed by some Republicans after constituents say they have been harmed by chemicals whose risks Dourson has downplayed for chemical industry clients.

   A CAS-sponsored Facebook ad running this week says Dourson has "forty years experience" and is "a strong choice for the job" of leading the EPA chemicals office.

   Facebook says the ad targets people interested in EPA. In addition, CAS wants to reach people 18 and older who live in or were recently near Washington.

   That description fits Gretchen Goldman, a research director at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists.

   "I saw the ad when I was on Facebook and thought, 'Oh, wow, they must be getting nervous,'" she said. "We don't know who funded this ad, but it would indicate that someone is paying Rick Berman to promote Dourson, and the people who would benefit most are the chemical industry."

   CAS also posted a video on YouTube on Monday with a similar message.

   "Dr. Dourson is a strong candidate with all the experience and expertise necessary to be an effective public servant at the EPA," says the ad, which pulled quotes directly from EPA's press release announcing Dourson's nomination.

   Also Monday, a CAS blog post extolled Dourson's qualifications, calling him a "seasoned toxicologist" and asking why environmental organizations don't support his nomination.

   "This is Berman's typical playbook of cherry-picking information and painting a different picture of people and products that isn't consistent with the scientific consensus," Goldman said, pointing to campaigns supporting the tobacco and sugar industries.

   CAS describes itself as "a project" of the Center for Organizational Research and Education, a group organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Classified as a charitable group, CORE doesn't have to reveal its supporters but works on "exposing the funding, agenda and tactics of a variety of activist groups," according to its 2015 tax form, its latest.

   Berman is listed as the group's president and executive director. CORE shares the same Washington address as Berman's public affairs firm, Berman and Co.

   On its tax form, CORE says it maintained CAS's website to help debunk "junk science" and examine organizations that release reports "to scare consumers." It listed the CAS program's expenses at $502,408 in 2015. The form also shows CORE compensated Berman and Co. more than $1.75 million for management, advertising, research and accounting fees that year.

   Berman has long used his network of nonprofit groups to lobby against environmental and public health protections, often by targeting consumer and green organizations.

   Dubbed "Dr. Evil" in a 2007 CBS News "60 Minutes" profile, Berman prides himself on his aggressive advocacy on behalf of his undisclosed clients. Before setting up his PR shop, he was a Pillsbury Restaurant Group executive and labor lawyer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bethlehem Steel Corp.

   "We don't just change the debate. If necessary, we start the debate. Get in touch and find out what we can do for you," his firm's website says.

   In response to written questions from E&E News, Joseph Perrone, CAS's chief science officer, defended research Dourson did that was supported by groups like R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the American Petroleum Institute and Dow AgroSciences.

   "Though agenda-driven activist groups pretend otherwise, the vast majority of professional toxicologists work for the private sector in some capacity," Perrone said in a statement. "Contributions to the body of sound scientific knowledge should be celebrated regardless of whether they originate in private industry, academia, or government bodies."

   He didn't share who was paying the group or how much to campaign for Dourson's nomination.

   "The Center for Accountability in Science does not disclose its donors, but is supported by individuals, foundations, and businesses," Perrone said.

   Meanwhile, Dourson has left his position at the University of Cincinnati to join EPA. He is currently serving as an adviser to Administrator Scott Pruitt (E&E Daily, Oct. 18).

   Who's paying?

   Although the campaign could be funded by a new client of Berman's, some groups that have contributed to CORE have also funded Dourson's past research.

   Conservative charities that the London Independent newspaper reported are bankrolled by the oil magnates Charles and David Koch have directed money to CORE.

   In 2015, for example, Donors Capital Fund Inc. gave CORE $12,500 "for general operations," its tax returns show. The same year, DonorsTrust's IRS filings show it donated $49,501.21 to CORE for "for the Green Decoys project," an effort that targeted sportsmen's groups in favor of limiting energy development on public lands.

   Koch Industries has also paid Dourson to study the health impacts of petroleum coke operations on the South Side of Chicago. That research found no risk of adverse health impacts from exposure to the oil refining byproduct in the air or on surfaces in neighborhoods around the storage and transfer and storage facilities.

   Dourson has also done studies funded by Monsanto that minimized the risks of the agribusiness giant's herbicides. Monsanto was listed as a donor to CORE's predecessor organization in a leaked 2002 document.

   Berman claimed the document was just a prospective donor list. But last year, he suggested he'd previously done consulting work for Monsanto.

   "I've moved people to different points of view over time just by changing the language," he said in an interview with the Cato Institute think tank. "I often told Monsanto they made a very big mistake when they called ... genetically modified organisms exactly that."

   In Berman's talk with Cato, he suggested GMOs should be instead referred to as "genetically improved foods," a phrase that CORE's predecessor organizations often used, the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington noted in a blog post.

   Berman has ties to the chemical industry's top lobby group, as well. Anastasia Swearingen, one of his former employees, is now the director of chemical products and technology for the American Chemistry Council, which has paid for Dourson's research in the past and applauded his nomination.

   DonorsTrust, Donors Capital Fund, Monsanto and the American Chemistry Council didn't immediately respond to questions about Berman's Dourson campaign.

   Wavering GOP support for Dourson

   Trump nominated Dourson for EPA's chemicals chief in July. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced his nomination on a party-line vote last month.

   But since then, Dourson has failed to move forward. One other EPA nominee, Bill Wehrum, has even jumped ahead of him, winning confirmation as air chief from the full Senate last week.

   Some GOP senators have worries about Dourson, given his past work for industry.

   "Yeah," Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told E&E News when asked whether he had concerns about Dourson's nomination to lead EPA's chemicals office.

   Asked to elaborate on those concerns, Burr replied, "No."

   The North Carolina senator has taken an interest in chemical issues. Earlier this year, he introduced S. 758, known as the "Janey Ensminger Act of 2017." The bill would expand health care for Camp Lejeune's military veterans who were exposed to toxic chemicals.

   The bill is named after Jerry Ensminger's daughter, who died from cancer after being exposed to trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, vinyl chloride, benzene and other dangerous compounds when her dad served at the North Carolina base. In an Oct. 31 Raleigh News & Observer op-ed, Ensminger, a now retired Marine, urged senators to vote down Dourson's nomination.

   "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," he wrote.

   Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is also a co-sponsor of Burr's bill. His spokesman didn't respond to messages from E&E News asking for comment for this story.

   If Burr were to vote against Dourson's nomination, that alone would not be enough to stop his confirmation. At least three GOP senators would have to join every Democrat in voting nay on the chemicals nominee to block his approval, but Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has frequently broken with her party on controversial Trump picks.

   Democrats are hoping to gin up Republican opposition to Dourson.

   "I think there will be concerns certainly about Dourson," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the EPW panel, told reporters when asked which of Trump's EPA nominees could be opposed by Republicans. Carper also said his side of the aisle "will do our level best to make sure that he is never confirmed to a position at EPA."

   Some GOP senators are frustrated by Dourson's nomination stalling in the upper chamber. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a former EPW chairman who still sits on the committee, said he has pushed for a vote on the EPA chemicals nominee.

   "It is going to be a partisan vote, but we can get it," Inhofe said about Dourson's nomination.

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066631
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. With Lejeune, GenX Woes Fresh, EPA Chemical Choice Drawing Heat

   Nov 15, 2017 | Kinston Free Press

   By Adam Wagner

   The nomination of a man with strong industry ties to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) post overseeing chemicals is drawing heat in a state where the memory of the Camp Lejeune contamination looms large and residents are struggling to grasp the full implications of emerging contaminants in the Cape Fear River.

   Michael Dourson, a professor in the University of Cincinnati’s Risk Science Center, has been nominated to the EPA’s assistant administrator for toxic substances position, a role in which he would oversee the Toxic Substances Control Act and regulations on a variety of chemicals.

   “We’ve never had an industry scientist for hire in this role. In the 40-year history of this job, we’ve only hired public health regulators, not industry hired guns,” said Scott Faber, the vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group.

   N.C. Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis have not yet announced how they will vote on Dourson’s nomination. Dourson’s confirmation has passed through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but has not yet been scheduled for a vote by the full body.

   Wednesday, a Burr spokesman said, “Senator Burr has serious concerns about Mr. Dourson’s record and will make a determination based on the best interests of North Carolinians.”

   Lejeune’s shadow

   Jerry Ensminger, a retired Marine Corps master sergeant whose daughter died of leukemia connected to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, has vocally opposed Dourson’s nomination.

   Last month, he joined Democratic Senators Tom Udall and Richard Blumenthal at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and he has also met personally with Tillis and representatives of Burr’s staff to discuss the nomination.

   “We don’t deal with somebody that is dangerous,” Ensminger said. “This guy is dangerous. This guy is just like somebody with an assault weapon, a fully loaded assault weapon with umpteen million magazines. That’s how I view this guy, that’s the damage this guy could do to future generations.”

   Prior to joining the University of Cincinnati, Dourson founded and ran the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment Center, a nonprofit whose research was often funded by industry.

   Any vote for Dourson would, Ensminger added, be “a slap in the face” to the victims of the contamination at Camp Lejeune.

   “Reason to be concerned”

   Ansje Miller, the Center for Environmental Health’s director of policy and partnerships, has also pushed back against Dourson’s nomination. The group delivered a petition with more than 145,000 signatures and a letter representing more than 100 organizations -- including Cape Fear River Watch -- to senators before the committee vote.

   If he is approved, Dourson would oversee the implementation of 2016′s Lautenberg Act, the first overhaul of TSCA since it was implemented in 1976.

   “He’s got this long history of being hired by companies to basically bless these chemicals, which in many cases are really dangerous chemicals and in many cases are chemicals that the EPA is either considering for regulation or will be soon,” said Miller, who is based in Hillsborough.

   Among the reforms to the chemical safety laws was a mandate to review the safety of chemicals already used in commerce, with the first set of prioritized risk evaluations including 1,4 dioxane; perchloroethylene (PCE); and trichloroethylene (TCE). Dourson would ultimately be in charge of deciding what risk levels are appropriate and which chemicals should next be considered.

   There are no health standards for GenX, the chemical researchers have found in drinking and raw water throughout the Lower Cape Fear region. Using the research available to them, the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services has set a health goal of 140 parts per trillion.

   Environmental groups have pointed to Dourson’s work on 1,4 dioxane -- a likely carcinogen that has been found in drinking water throughout the state -- as a key example of their opposition to his appointment. In 2014, Dourson, working with PPG Industries, published a paper arguing for safe levels of the chemical 1,000 times higher than the EPA’s suggested standard.

   Speaking in front of the Senate committee last month, according to NBC News, Dourson said, “I have been objective in my work and applied sound science to come to my conclusions.”

   Dourson and other TERA researchers worked with West Virginia in 2002 to assess the toxicity of C8, the chemical that eventually proven toxic enough that DuPont was compelled to replace it with GenX.

   The team recommended a standard of 150,000 ppt -- a level 375 times higher than the EPA’s 2009 health advisory level in drinking water and more than 2,000 times higher than the revised advisory level.

   “I have reason to be concerned about what he may do on GenX because of what he did on GenX’s chemical cousins like PFOA,” Miller said. “That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence for the health of the people of the Cape Fear region drinking the water.”

   Reporter Adam Wagner can be reached at 910-343-2389 or Adam.Wagner@GateHouseMedia.com.

   http://www.kinston.com/news/20171115/with-lejeune-genx-woes-fresh-epa-chemical-choice-drawing-heat
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Historical Court Decision on Lead-Based Paint in California Court of Appeals

   Nov 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Tom Neltner

   Yesterday, after three years of deliberations, California’s Appellate Court for the Sixth District held that three defendant companies – Sherwin-Williams Company, NL Industries, and ConAgra Grocery Products[1]— created a public nuisance in ten plaintiff jurisdictions in the state by promoting the use of lead-based paint in the interior of residences built before 1951 even though they had actual knowledge of the harm the paint would pose to children. The case now goes back to the trial court to determine the amount that defendants must pay into a fund to remediate pre-1951 homes with lead-based paint in those jurisdictions and to appoint a suitable receiver to manage the fund.

   The Court of Appeals’ decision requires remediation of the lead-based paint, but not its complete removal, in the ten California jurisdictions that were plaintiffs in the case. The jurisdictions are: seven counties, Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano, and Ventura; two cities, Oakland and San Diego; and the city and county of San Francisco.

   The case, which began in 2000, rests on public nuisance law in California. While all states prohibit public nuisances to protect the public from threats to their health and safety, the requirements vary significantly among the states and rely heavily on precedent set in prior state court decisions. In California, a public nuisance action requires proof that a defendant knowingly created or assisted in the creation of a substantial and unreasonable interference with a public right. The defendants must have actual knowledge of the public health hazard.

   In 2010, the California Supreme Court overruled a previous decision by the trial court and provided key interpretations of public nuisance law that shaped yesterday’s court decision. While the paint companies are expected to appeal this decision to the California Supreme Court, the decision is likely to stand because the Appellate Court hewed closely that court’s 2010 decision.

   The Appellate Court for the Sixth District was reviewing a 2014 trial court’s decision that the Sherwin-Williams Company, NL Industries, and ConAgra Grocery Products must pay $1.15 billion to remediate homes built before 1978 with lead-based paint in the plaintiff’s jurisdiction. The three judge panel of the Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of the trial court’s decision from homes built before 1978 to those built before 1951. The panel found that there was insufficient evidence that the three companies had promoted lead-based paint for interior residential use after 1950, even though they may have sold the paint after that date.

   Similar cases had been brought in other states including Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island. In 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned a trial court decision finding paint companies liable for the state’s public nuisance law. The California court found its case was different because it involved an extensive assessment of voluminous evidence presented at trial. The other cases were decided on pleading and did not get to the merits of the evidence.

   While lead-based paint is not the only source of lead exposure to children, it is the most significant for those children living in homes with lead-based paint, especially when the paint is deteriorated. Thousands of children still live in homes with lead-based paint hazards – with poor and minority children at greatest risk. This court decision is a first step that will hold companies responsible and result in the removal of toxic lead paint in homes across California and may serve as a roadmap for other states.

   [1] ConAgra was a defendant because it had owned Fuller Paint Company’s liabilities through a series of mergers.

   http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/11/15/california-court-decision-on-lead-based-paint/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Federal Study: Replacements for Hormone-Disrupting BPA May Be Just as Bad

   Nov 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group

   By Alexis Temkin

   Replacements for bisphenol A, a hormone-disrupting chemical in plastics and food containers, could be just as harmful or even worse than it, according to a new study by the National Toxicology Program. The study of 24 replacement chemicals found that many already in use are structurally and functionally similar to BPA, and, just like BPA, may harm the endocrine system.

   Biomonitoring studies show that over 90 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies. In 2009, lab tests commissioned by EWG and Rachel’s Networkwere the first to detect BPA in the umbilical cord blood of American infants. In animal and human studies, exposure to BPA, especially during sensitive windows of development such as pregnancy and childhood, has been linked to harm to the reproductive system, cancer, changes in behavior, and obesity.

   As shoppers turned away from plastics, food containers and other products that leach BPA, manufacturers put forth a variety of replacements, most with very little publicly available information on their health effects. The National Toxicology Program’s report  points out the risk of introducing poorly studied chemicals to the marketplace, saying the new chemicals should be reconsidered for use in consumer products.

   In some cases, the replacements were more potent than BPA in tests of hormone-disrupting potential, indicating even greater health risks than those from BPA itself. The researchers also said their analyses suggest that many of the chemicals could disrupt the hormones of fetuses in the womb.

   Another recent study, led by University of Massachusetts-Amherst scientist Laura Vandenberg, tested the effects of exposure during pregnancy to bisphenol S, a commonly used BPA alternative that has been detected in human samples and food products. Researchers found that low doses of BPS in mice negatively affected lactation, nursing behavior and maternal care.

   BPS-dosed mouse pups were less likely to initiate nursing, and BPS-treated mothers had to spend more time actively nursing, likely due to BPS-induced poorly functioning mammary glands. BPS also caused stunted pup growth and development.

   In a parallel study, the same researchers showed that BPS can also disrupt the normal development of the female reproductive tract in lab animals. The types of changes that researchers observed could alter the function of the uterus and ovaries and harm fertility, further highlighting the need for thorough safety testing.

   It can be difficult to know exactly where BPA replacement chemicals are used. But following EWG’s Tips to Avoid BPA Exposure will likely also reduce exposure to the replacements.

   https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/11/federal-study-replacements-hormone-disrupting-bpa-may-be-just-bad#.WgyP0vmWY2w
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Pruitt’s EPA Abandoning Duty to Protect Kids From Dangerous Pesticides

    Nov 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group

    Five years is a long time in the life of a child – and for the child’s parents. Five years can be a period of profound change, growth and development. But if Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt has his way, millions of American kids will continue to eat harmful amounts of at least two dangerous pesticides for at least that long.

    Those pesticides are chlorpyrifos and phosmet, two chemically related insect killers that can permanently damage a child’s developing brain, according to analyses by the EPA’s own scientists. These pesticides persist as residues on some of the most popular foods in kids’ diets. Yet both will likely be used on agricultural crops until at least 2022.

    One of Pruitt’s very first moves as EPA administrator was an eleventh-hour cancellation of a ban on chlorpyrifos, which had been ordered during the Obama administration. Pruitt overturned a multi-year effort by the agency to address new and troubling evidence that organophosphate pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos and phosmet, are highly toxic to kids.

    Beginning in the late 1990s, the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funded several long-term studies of the effects of pesticide exposure on children. By 2011, three studies clearly showed remarkably similar effects of organophosphate exposure during pregnancy, including lowered cognitive abilities of 6- to 9-year-old children born to exposed mothers. The children who participated in those studies are now attending or graduating from high school, but organophosphates are still contaminating fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and oils.

    The EPA’s recent health risk assessment for phosmet concluded that children’s health is threatened by current exposures from food. Infants and children ages 5 and younger have the greatest exposures of any age group. The most significant sources of phosmet exposure in children’s diets are peaches, peas, apples, blueberries, milk and contaminated drinking water.

    But don’t count on any quick action from Pruitt to protect kids from phosmet exposure. Phosmet was last re-registered in 2006, and as with chlorpyrifos, the EPA is required to update its safety assessment by 2022. A lawsuit by advocacy groups compelled the Obama-era EPA to prioritize a quicker review of chlorpyrifos’ toxicity. But as Deputy Administrator Nancy Beck confirmed in a letter to EWG President Ken Cook, the Trump EPA will allow these harmful chemicals on food crops for at least five more years.

    Another crucial decision on pesticides and kids is looming. When pyrethroid insecticides were developed, they were touted as a safer alternative for controlling insects. But six recent studies find that pyrethroids may pose risks to children’s brain and behavioral development similar to those of organophosphates. This includes permethrin, which the Department of Agriculture has detected on three-fourths of samples of conventionally grown spinach, and which is also used in lice shampoos, mosquito-repellent clothing and other household pest treatments.

    In one study of more than 600 American children 8 to 15 years old, those with detectable pyrethroid residues in their urine were twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD as other children. Biomonitoring by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that children 6 to 11 years old have greater exposures than teens and adults. Exposures to one key pyrethroid metabolite – a chemical formed by the breakdown of the pesticide in the human body – increased by 50 percent in children between 2000 and 2010.

    This week EWG submitted formal comments urging Pruitt to halt the pyrethroid safety assessment until the EPA has fully considered risks to childhood brain and behavioral development. We implored the EPA to assess the results of the six recent studies linking children’s pyrethroid exposures to brain and behavioral changes.

    Ultimate responsibility for protecting children from brain-damaging pesticides rests with one person: Scott Pruitt. So far, he has used his immense power not to protect kids, but to protect the interests of chemical agribusiness. If the EPA continues on this path, it would effectively derail the agency’s pesticide program.

    We hope we’re wrong. Pruitt could change course and begin taking seriously his job as chief advocate for environmental health and the safety of American children, before more kids are harmed for life by pesticides on their food. With nearly 4 million children born every year in the U.S., the stakes couldn’t be higher.

    https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/11/pruitt-s-epa-abandoning-duty-protect-kids-dangerous-pesticides#.Wgx_xvmWY2x
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Cefic, CIA Spell Out ‘Hard’ Brexit Costs to Chemicals Industry

    Nov 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch

    Failure to secure a transition period and a new UK/EU trade agreement after Britain leaves the Union could cost the chemicals industry an extra €1.5bn a year, according to chemical bodies.

    The warning from a new Cefic and Chemical Industries Association (CIA) joint Brexit statement comes as EU negotiator Michel Barnier said contingency plans are being prepared for the potential crash of departure talks.

    A ‘hard’ Brexit scenario, Cefic and CIA say, would see the UK assume WTO ‘most-favoured-nation’ status and face the reintroduction of import duties on chemicals trade between the EU27 and the UK.

    Assuming the UK would take over the same WTO commitments as the EU, they add, this would mean a maximum tariff level of 5.5% or 6.5% on chemicals trade – amounting to roughly €40bn a year.

    "An average import duty of 3-4% results in about €1.5bn additional input costs for the chemical industry per year," the statement says. "In a globally competitive industry, it will be difficult to pass on these costs to customers and most of the burden will fall on industry."

    Another important concern is retaining duty-free access for chemicals across the future UK border with the EU27, along with terms of trade between the country and the rest of the world being "no worse" than those for the EU27. "Placing additional burden on supply chains will increase production costs, impact negatively on consumers and cause disruption that will put jobs of industrial workers at risk," the statement says.

    In addition, new and divergent customs procedures and requirements – such as documentation obligations, customs clearance procedures, or REACH-related verification standards – will add administrative "burden and costs" on companies.

    "Considering that cross-channel chemical trade amounts to over €40bn and given the close interconnection of supply chains, we are very concerned about Brexit causing disruption of chemical markets," Marco Mensink, Cefic’s director general, says.

    Any agreement on the future EU-UK relationship "must be the least disruptive possible", the chemical bodies say. And they emphasise the need for an "appropriate" and "well-managed" transition that addresses the necessity of commercial reassurance and legal certainty over market access, jurisdiction and dispute resolution.

    CIA head Steve Elliott says negotiators on both sides need to make "rapid progress" so discussions can move to a future relationship that delivers growth for all of Europe. This could be best achieved by the development of a "forward looking" industrial policy that ensures Europe is an "attractive place to invest, where the chemical industry can thrive and continue to deliver societal solutions ".

    Regulatory consistency

    Both bodies have also repeated calls to ensure duplication of regulation and its associated cost are avoided, by securing regulatory consistency and continued collaboration with the relevant EU agencies, such as Echa. Social, safety, health, environment standards should remain at equally high levels, they say.

    Cefic and CIA also support the grandfathering of substances that have already obtained a registration or authorisation under EU legislations. The free trade of these products should be guaranteed under the same conditions as is the case now, they say, and this should apply after March 2019 until the REACH authorisation has to be renewed or the registration updated.

    Another high priority, they add, is the continued free movement of skilled labour between the EU27.

    CIA is hosting a conference, entitled Brexit and Growth of the UK Chemical Industry, on Thursday in London.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/61074/cefic-cia-spell-out-hard-brexit-costs-to-chemicals-industry
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. EU Commission Asks if Titanium Dioxide Classification Should Be Broader

    Nov 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch

    The European Commission is to ask member state competent authorities, whether the proposed carcinogenicity classification of titanium dioxide should be extended to other nanomaterials.

    "Is it appropriate to limit harmonised classification to titanium dioxide?" the Commission asks in a background paper for the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) meeting, later this week.

    "Would it not be preferable to also classify poorly soluble low toxicity particles (PSLTs), or a well-defined group of PSLTs, in the same way, in a grouping approach?"

    Echa's risk assessment committee (Rac) decided in July that titanium dioxide should be classified under EU CLP as a category 2 inhalation carcinogen. But in its Opinion, the committee said that the carcinogenicity profile identified was "not exclusively characteristic" of the substance but applied to other PSLTs.

    The toxic effect identified by the Rac is not a result of the chemistry of titanium dioxide but rather the physical characteristics, namely the size of the particles and the poor solubility.

    In a statement for the Caracal meeting, a group of 16 trade associations warn that approval of the Rac Opinion could give rise to a 'domino effect' for PSLTs. They suggest that the affected substances could include: carbon black, barium sulphate, cerium oxide, zinc oxide, iron oxide, aluminium oxide and other inorganic colour pigments.

    The group argues that the nature of the toxic effect – which it labels a "dust effect" – is grounds for rejecting the classification entirely. It would make "no contribution to the protection of workers or the general public" and "seriously harm" the European coatings industry, worth €17.7bn a year.

    The group calls for a "political" decision on whether such effects should be within the scope of CLP.

    Substance-specific toxicity data for PSLTs is scarce but projects are addressing this problem. There are high expectations, in particular, for a long-term inhalation study of cerium oxide and barium sulphate, part-funded by the EU and conducted by German chemical company BASF.

    Lan Ma-Hock presented preliminary findings at EuroTox in Bratislava in September but BASF has since declined to comment. "Once the study has been completed, a complete and comprehensive picture will emerge," Birgit Lau from the company's media relations department told Chemical Watch.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/61077/eu-commission-asks-if-titanium-dioxide-classification-should-be-broader
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

13. Perry Expresses Hope For New, 'Fair' NAFTA

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Nathanial Gronewold

    HOUSTON — Energy Secretary Rick Perry yesterday said he expects that Mexico, the United States and Canada will succeed in drafting a new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), one that incorporates energy trade.

    The North American Energy Ministerial was held here yesterday on the heels of the annual ministerial meeting at the International Energy Agency. The gatherings brought together top government energy policy leaders to discuss cross-border energy issues.

    Perry, Mexican Secretary of Energy Pedro Joaquín Coldwell and Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr gathered with industry executives at the University of Houston campus to discuss North America's energy network. The continent is becoming even more interconnected by pipelines and cables as Mexico's historic energy sector reforms continue to roll on.

    Perry once again defended the ongoing renegotiations of NAFTA. He said given the momentous changes in oil and gas in the United States and Mexico, it made sense to revisit the trade treaty with energy more prominently in mind this time around.

    "My position is the renegotiation of NAFTA is a good process. It's a healthy process," Perry said. "I'm quite comfortable that our friends in Mexico and our friends in Canada are pretty good negotiators, and at the end of all this process, we will not only have a good agreement, it will be a fair agreement."

    The energy minister and secretaries said they had given assurances to private-sector oil, natural gas and power executives that energy trade would not be hurt or move in reverse. The leaders spoke with industry for just over three hours.

    Though Mexico has enjoyed several years of very large trade surpluses with the United States, recent constitutional reforms are now leading to Mexico to import increasing quantities of U.S. natural gas. Mexico is also a top destination of U.S. refined fuels, and that trade could deepen as that nation presses ahead with a new, more liberalized fuel market that accepts foreign competition.

    Foreign-branded pumping stations are now sprouting up across Mexico, breaking a near-70-year monopoly by the government-owned oil and gas company there.

    Coldwell said through an interpreter that fuel market reforms will proceed next year and that the government will put measures in place to ensure that Mexican consumers are not hit by spiking fuel prices.

    "Mexico is currently importing 67 percent of gasoline that it consumes internally," partly due to downtime at Mexican refineries for maintenance work, Coldwell explained. "I don't know how much the fuel prices will be for next year, but I can assure you that the Ministry of Finance in Mexico has designed a mechanism for softening these prices," he said.

    Though the U.S. federal government under President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, Carr of Canada pressed the need for North America to cooperate on developing low-carbon energy sources. "We are moving towards a lower-carbon energy economy," he said. "This is not about partisan politics."

    No new policy agreements or directions were announced yesterday. The three leaders simply promised to help keep the momentum moving forward.

    "North America is truly positioned to be a global energy powerhouse," Perry said. "I look to the future with growing confidence."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066577
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Senate Energy Committee Approves ANWR Drilling Bill

    Nov 15, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

    By Ben Lefebvre

    The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today advanced a bill that would open up a section of Arctic Natural Wilderness Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

    The 13-10 vote represented a major win for committee Chairman Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has advocated opening ANWR to drilling for years. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin was the only Democrat to cross over on an otherwise party-line vote.

    The bill directs the Interior Department to offer two ANWR leases of at least 400,000 acres each within 10 years of the bill passing. It now goes to the Senate Budget Committee to be included in the wider budget reconciliation package.

    Critics have charged that opening ANWR will damage a pristine environment, including an area important for porcupine caribou calving. They also contend that it won’t come close to raising the $1 billion over 10 years that Murkowski said it will.

    Murkowski disputed those criticisms, saying that the land being offered up for drilling would only be a small sliver of the greater 19.3 million-acre refuge.

    The committee added an amendment offered by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that would increase the share of money coastal states receive as part of revenue sharing with the federal government and use some funding to rebuild Louisiana’s coastal wetlands.

    WHAT'S NEXT: The ANWR bill was drafted under budget reconciliation instructions, which would allow it to pass the Senate without overcoming a filibuster. Its fate is tied to the tax bill that Republicans also are planning to pass using reconciliation.

    https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Trump's 'Energy Dominance' Transforms Alaska's Future

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By Margaret Kriz Hobson and Pamela King

    Nov. 8, 2016, was a time of triumph and hope for Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski as she watched election results with a crowd of supporters at 49th State Brewing Co.'s brewpub in downtown Anchorage.

    Murkowski easily won re-election. Then the GOP held control of the U.S. Senate, giving Murkowski another chance to help shape federal policy as chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

    But the final coup came well into the evening when the networks flashed news alerts reporting the results of the presidential race: Republican Donald Trump had won.

    Murkowski hadn't supported Trump. But that didn't matter on election night as the Alaska Republican confidently asserted that the new president would pave the way for oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    Now, a year later, the Republicans are closer than ever to opening ANWR to drilling.

    Today, Murkowski's committee is due to mark up her bill allowing exploration in the Arctic refuge's coastal plain. If the measure is approved by Congress, it would almost certainly be signed into law by the president (E&E Daily, Nov. 9).

    In the year since Trump's election, the federal government has begun a radical reversal of President Obama's ambitious wildlife preservation policies for Alaska.

    During his eight years in the White House, Obama blocked seismic studies on ANWR's coastal plain. He outlawed oil and gas development in most of the Arctic Ocean and in Bristol Bay along Alaska's southwestern coast. And he placed almost half of the 22.8-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) off-limits to development.

    In total, Obama preserved at least 170 million acres of federal lands in Alaska.

    But all that is changing under Trump. As Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke declared in May, today Alaska "is open for business."

    While Congress considers the ANWR legislation, Trump administration geologists are beginning a new analysis of the amount of oil and gas available in the Arctic reserve.

    At the same time, Zinke is taking steps to expand hydrocarbon development in the NPR-A. And he's paving the way for oil and gas leasing in the U.S. Arctic Ocean.

    Trump's pro-development agenda for Alaska has shifted the balance of power from environmental advocates, who helped orchestrate Obama's land preservation policies, to Alaska state leaders and business interests eager to clear the road for more resource extraction.

    But environmental organizations are fighting back, vowing to use the courts to thwart Trump's extraction plans for Alaska.

    Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said environmental activists are prepared to "fight every step of the way" against Trump's plan to expand industry activity in the Last Frontier.

    "The administration is turning over some of the most pristine lands we have left to the oil companies so that they can suck the dirty fossil fuels out of the far reaches of our country," she argued. "That's just unacceptable."

    According to Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director for the Wilderness Society, "[t]he question really is: Do we have a desire as a nation to protect certain parts of the Arctic? Or should Alaska's entire North Slope be open to oil and gas development?

    "Because that's what we're looking at with the Trump administration," she said. "That's really what's at play right now."Many questions about ANWR

    ANWR has been the first big Alaska issue to attract the public attention since Trump's election.

    For more than 20 years, the Alaska congressional delegation has repeatedly introduced legislation to open the reserve's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain to oil development. Each time they were undercut by Washington Democrats and conservationists who consider ANWR to be the Holy Grail of the environmental movement.

    Murkowski's new ANWR legislation has the best chance yet of winning congressional approval, primarily because it's being advanced through the budget reconciliation process. As a result, the Republican-controlled Senate can adopt the measure by a simple majority vote, making it difficult for opponents to block oil drilling in the refuge.

    However, oil companies may not be interested in bidding on oil and gas leases on the coastal plain until they have a better understanding of the region's potential hydrocarbon reserves.

    Currently there is scant information on how much recoverable oil and gas are available in those lands. In 1986, a consortium of oil companies drilled a single well in northeastern ANWR, 15 miles from the village of Kaktovik. But the results of that probe are among Alaska's best-kept secrets.

    In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey calculated that ANWR's coastal plain, together with nearby Native lands and adjacent state waters, could hold between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

    Now Zinke has ordered USGS researchers to reassess the coastal plain, also known as the 1002 area, by reprocessing decades-old 2-D seismic data and examining data collected on wells sunk just outside of the Arctic reserve. That analysis is due for release late next year.

    Even if Murkowski's ANWR bill becomes law, some industry analysts doubt that the coastal plain will attract industry investment due to continued low oil prices and the high cost of operating in the remote, frigid Arctic.

    Raymond James & Associates analyst Pavel Molchanov predicted that "even if ANWR were to go through in Congress, which is very debatable on political grounds, the practical impact would be negligible."

    "There has been no drilling historically in ANWR, which means all the infrastructure has to be built from scratch, making it a high-cost area that is high-risk to drill," Molchanov said.

    But not everyone agrees. Former USGS Director Mark Myers noted that oil industry infrastructure is already in place a few miles west of the Arctic refuge at Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Point Thomson oil and gas facility.

    The Exxon operation includes an oil processing facility and a pipeline with the capacity to move 70,000 barrels of oil per day. Right now, the company is shipping less than 10,000 barrels of liquid natural gas condensate each day to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

    Meyers, who also served as the state of Alaska's natural resources commissioner, predicted that passage of Murkowski's ANWR bill would spur oil companies to conduct a new round of 3-D seismic studies in the coastal plain.

    "I think if companies have confidence in the administration actually holding a lease sale, there would be enough interest in the industry certainly to shoot the seismic," he predicted.

    However, continued fierce environmental opposition to ANWR development could result in expensive lawsuits and delays for potential developers, noted Alison Wolters, upstream researcher for Wood Mackenzie's Canada/Alaska group.

    "I think that any operator that's interested in ANWR would come up against some pretty serious roadblocks," Wolters suggested. "Those might be able to be overcome, but it would definitely require some commitment."Oil discoveries spur interest in NPR-A

    Even before Trump's election, the oil industry was taking a harder look at the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska thanks to three massive new oil discoveries in and around federal lands in the northwestern corner of the state.

    Two years ago, Armstrong Energy LLC discovered 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil at its Nanushuk leases east of NPR-A. Armstrong recently sold a significant stake in that field to Oil Search Ltd., an oil and gas company operating in Papua New Guinea.

    Early this year, ConocoPhillips Alaska announced a 300-million-barrel oil find at its leases within NPR-A. In addition, Caelus Energy LLC reported the discovery of roughly 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil at its state leases just north of the petroleum reserve. However, due to financial issues, the company has suspended plans to drill an appraisal well at the Smith Bay site this winter.

    Now USGS is conducting a new geological assessment of the oil and gas potential of NPR-A and the surrounding regions. That report is due to be released in the coming weeks.

    Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management has scheduled a Dec. 6 lease sale for all NPR-A lands available for oil and gas development under the existing federal management plan.

    However, this year's NPR-A lease sale isn't likely to attract aggressive bidding because ConocoPhillips scooped up much of the petroleum reserve's most promising lands at last year's BLM auction, Wood MacKenzie's Wolters observed.

    Bidding would mushroom if more petroleum reserve lands were available for oil and gas leasing. But no additional territory can be offered until Interior rewrites the Obama-era integrated activity plan for NPR-A, which will take years to complete.

    ConocoPhillips and other companies are particularly interested in exploring lands near Teshekpuk Lake, which are now protected as critical habitat. That 3.65-million-acre special area is located directly west of ConocoPhillips' latest oil discovery.Long path to 'energy dominance'

    Trump's drive to increase oil and gas development in Alaska is part of his "energy dominance" campaign for the nation. In most cases, rolling back Obama's land preservation initiatives will require the administration to rewrite existing federal regulations, a process that can take years to complete.

    But three months after his inauguration, Trump took direct action by issuing an executive order that reversed Obama's ban on oil drilling in much of the Arctic Ocean and part of the Atlantic Ocean.

    That step was immediately challenged by a coalition of environmental groups. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, the environmentalists charged that the president doesn't have the legal authority to reverse Obama's protections for the Arctic and Atlantic offshore areas (Energywire, Nov. 9).

    Even if the Trump administration prevails in that lawsuit, however, the oil industry isn't likely to bid for leases in the Chukchi Sea because of the long shadow of Royal Dutch Shell PLC's disastrous Arctic drilling program.

    Shell invested seven years and more than $7 billion in hopes of finding a mother lode of oil in the Chukchi. But in 2015, the company announced that it had found insufficient oil and gas at its leases. Shell shuttered its Arctic exploration program and left Alaska.

    Today, the Chukchi Sea remains an anathema to the oil industry. "I think that it's just so expensive, it's just so remote," Wood MacKenzie's Wolters said. "I don't see any action there in the foreseeable future, even with a supportive administration."

    But the Beaufort Sea might be a different story. Oil companies are already pumping crude from state and federal Beaufort Sea leases that are located close to Alaska's northern coast. In addition, two more offshore petroleum development projects are already on the drawing board for the area.

    The Trump administration is fast-tracking regulatory review of Hilcorp Alaska LLC's oil development project at its Liberty leases and Italian company Eni SpA's proposal to explore for oil at its Nikaitchuq North unit.

    Those ventures are located in a 2.8-million-acre sliver of Beaufort Sea waters that was excluded from Obama's sweeping executive order protecting the American Arctic.

    But Interior cannot auction new leases in the Chukchi or Beaufort seas until regulators rewrite the government's five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan, which now excludes all Arctic leasing. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has already begun developing a new leasing plan for 2019-2024.

    Wolters predicted that with oil prices not expected to go over $70 per barrel through 2020, "explorers are going to take another look at mature basins and what has been passed over in the past that would be a lower-cost target that they could go after now."

    In Alaska, that's likely to mean more oil and gas development in NPR-A and on state lands.

    But although Trump is moving quickly to open more of Alaska's hydrocarbon-rich lands to development, the final industry drilling decisions will be based on each company's long-term investment strategies.

    "People like to have the conversation about oil prices, but that lacks any strategic understanding of what any company is looking at," noted Chris Guith, senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute.

    "These are multibillion-dollar investments with multidecade timelines."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066507
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

16. Chemical Safety Board Warns Industry to Update Emergency Plans After Arkema Disaster

    Nov 15, 2017 | Houston Chronicle

    By Matt Dempsey

    The U.S. Chemical Safety Board is warning the chemical industry to rethink its emergency plans in light of the Arkema disaster in Crosby.

    Hurricane Harvey dumped more than six feet of water on the Crosby plant. Floodwaters caused the site to lose the ability to keep volatile organic peroxides cool, leading to massive fires over multiple days.

    Arkema asserts in documents provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Houston Chronicle that the level of flooding from Harvey could not have been predicted. The Crosby location had not received more than 20 inches of flooding in its history, according to the company.

    CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland warned companies to not use the past to predict the impact of future storm events.

    "No one has a crystal ball, but we don't want people to be lulled into a false sense that the plan they may have done two or three years ago is still going to be adequate," Sutherland said.

    She cautioned that storms are going to increase in frequency and intensity and companies need to be prepared for that new reality.

    "We're hoping our investigation will have broad national impact," Sutherland said.

    The CSB is hoping to publish its full investigation into the Arkema fires before the next hurricane season starts in June.

    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Chemical-Safety-Board-warns-industry-to-update-12359527.php
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Arkema Documents: Planning, Mechanical Failures Led to Harvey Chemical Fires

    Nov 15, 2017 | Houston Chronicle

    By Matt Dempsey and Jacob Carpenter

    Prior to the chemical fire at its Crosby plant, Arkema underestimated the potential for storm damage and failed to keep essential backup power protected from rising floodwaters, documents obtained by the Houston Chronicle.

    Poor planning and a series of cascading equipment failures led to dangerous chemicals erupting into flames in late August during the height of Hurricane Harvey. The miscalculations indicate the company's lack of preparation for more than 3 feet of flooding, reflected by an emergency management plan that barely addressed how to handle such a storm.

    Those judgments led to the burning of nine trailers containing the company's stockpile of organic peroxides. The resulting inferno exposed first responders and local residents to dangerous fumes and pulled emergency staffers away from hurricane recovery at a critical time.

    Arkema officials argue that unprecedented floods made it impossible to prevent its chemicals from catching fire. The site had only seen up to 2 feet of flooding in the past, company officials said.

    The Chronicle obtained Arkema's internal records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conducted interviews with government employees with knowledge of ongoing investigations of the events at the plant. The emerging picture reveals nine days of chaos, culminating with the decision to intentionally burn chemicals that posed a danger to the public.

    The records, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, and interviews show that:

    * Arkema's emergency response plan provided employees with little direction for how to handle major flooding events. It contained one paragraph about flooding but a page and a half on handling bomb threats, records show.

    * Arkema's main power transformers and its powerful backup generators were not high enough off the ground, causing them to become submerged with floodwaters, Arkema records show. Without power, the company could not keep its stash of organic peroxides at a safe temperature inside its refrigerated buildings.

    * The company's last resort for keeping organic peroxides cool - refrigerated trailers - also was destined to fail. The diesel-powered trailers had fuel tanks that ran along the bottom of the vehicle. More than 3 feet of water compromised the fuel tanks, causing the freezers to die.

    * Arkema had a tank of an extremely dangerous chemical, isobutylene, located about 40 yards from six trailers that had been relocated during the storm, according to interviews and satellite images. Government officials were concerned about a chain reaction with that chemical that could have led to catastrophic results.

    Arkema officials said again Tuesday that no amount of planning could have protected its site from the storm.

    "Many of your conclusions fail to recognize that Hurricane Harvey was unlike any rain event Houston ever experienced," company spokeswoman Janet Smith said in an email. "FEMA's 500-year flood map doesn't address the situation that occurred during Hurricane Harvey."

    Four days after Harvey made landfall in Texas, the Arkema plant was under 7 feet of water. The last employees to evacuate the site left by boat, floating over a 6-foot chain-link fence topped by barbed wire, the records show.

    "Flooding in Houston is a perfectly foreseeable event," said Paul Orum, an independent Washington, D.C., consultant and longtime chemical safety advocate. "Facilities should be prepared when it comes to several different layers of flooding."

    Lines laid low

    Arkema, a French multinational company, manufactures chemicals used to create plastic products. Many of its proprietary compounds are classified as organic peroxides, which must be kept at temperatures well below freezing to prevent the chemicals from catching fire.

    With Hurricane Harvey bearing down on Southeast Texas and the National Hurricane Center warning of potentially "catastrophic" or "life-threatening" flooding, the company's plans for protecting its product were simple: keep the chemicals cold on-site.

    The company had multiple freezer buildings, six backup generators, and, as a last resort, refrigerated trucks. Documents provided to the Chronicle did not indicate any plans to drive the organic peroxides away from Harvey's impact.

    But Arkema's plan for Harvey was based on one flawed assumption: that the site would never experience floods higher than 3 feet. By the end of the weekend, the rain had exceeded that total.

    On the afternoon of Aug. 27, two days after the storm made landfall, Arkema employees riding out the storm became concerned that floodwaters would seep into the primary power transformers, according to the crew's logs. If that happened, the plan was to start the backup generators; one of them was connected to refrigerated buildings keeping the organic peroxides cold.

    At the same time, employees were already aware that a backup liquid nitrogen system was useless after floodwaters reached the pipes that would pump freezing nitrogen into buildings.

    Within 24 hours, the primary transformers and two generators powering the refrigerated buildings were inundated with floodwaters, records show.

    In planning for catastrophic flooding, Arkema could have elevated its backup generators on platforms or placed them on roofs, said Rick Laine, a salesman for Cay Power Products Co. of Houston. Laine noted that it's rare, but not impossible, for generators to be placed on platforms several feet above the ground.

    "We sometimes see them elevated that high in Galveston with the storm surge, but not in a place that's way out there like Crosby," Laine said.

    By the night of Aug. 27, the 12 employees riding out the storm at Arkema were in a precarious position. Only one freezer building still had power. Their land lines were out. The internet was out. Water was about a foot away from the main transformers. They had already moved some of the peroxides into freezer trucks and used heavy equipment to relocate the trailers farther from the workers.

    "This effort of our ride out crew has been nothing short of heroic," the crew's log reads.

    But the crew's circumstances were only going to get worse.

    A toxic cloud?

    With the liquid nitrogen system down and backup generators inundated, the team spent most of Aug. 28 wading through floodwaters to move the remaining peroxides into refrigerated trailers, the documents show.

    It was the last line of defense – and one that was already failing.

    As employees stuffed 48 pallets of organic peroxides into a trailer, two other freezer trailers died, crew logs show. Arkema told employees to move to the front of the site so they wouldn't be near the trailers if they caught fire, according to a family member of one of the workers.

    The next day, Aug. 29, the workers were ordered to evacuate. Local government officials ordered everyone within 1.5 miles of the plant to leave, affecting about 300 homes. During the next two days, three refrigerated trailers lost the ability to cool the chemicals, causing the first fires that burned over Crosby.

    The first fire started in the middle of the night of Aug. 31. Fumes from one trailer swept over the evacuation zone, where sheriff's deputies were patrolling. Law enforcement officers manning the perimeter and medical staff responding to the scene doubled over, vomiting and gasping for breath, according to a civil lawsuit filed against Arkema by the first responders. In all, 23 people were briefly hospitalized.

    "The scene was nothing less than chaos," the lawsuit states.

    Two more trailers caught fire on Sept. 1. Two days later, members of the Houston Police Department's bomb squad entered the site and placed charges on the side of the remaining six trailers. Officers remotely detonated the charges, creating enough heat to trigger the runaway reactions and burn out the remaining chemicals.

    No public warning

    It's not clear whether Houston police offered to do the mission or were asked to participate by other agencies overseeing the crisis.

    The entire police operation was conducted without warning the public. Until the documents were released earlier this month by the EPA, the public didn't know who performed the controlled burn, or how it was done.

    Ultimately, the bomb squad was successful. The evacuation zone was lifted that evening. First responders returned to helping with Harvey recovery and Crosby residents returned to their homes.

    Throughout the blazes, Arkema and local officials said the fumes were not toxic. And Arkema downplayed the odds of other chemicals being affected by the flames.

    Some government officials worried that a tank containing isobutylene, an extremely hazardous chemical, could fail when the organic peroxides burned, according to a source close to the investigation. An isobutylene tank failure could have triggered a chain reaction, taking out the company's sulfur dioxide tank and creating a toxic cloud. Arkema's risk-management plan said such a reaction could affect more than a million Houston-area residents.

    The concern was so great that the bomb squad set fire to the remaining trailers farthest from the isobutylene first, just to be sure. The tank was not damaged and did not catch fire.

    Multiple investigations continue into the Arkema fires. On Wednesday, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board will discuss its progress during a news conference.

    Emily Mahoney contributed to this story.

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Arkema-documents-show-planning-mechanical-12358188.php
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

Environment News

18. Climate Civil War Brewing At ALEC

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Zack Colman

    Members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a heavyweight conservative policy organization, are feuding about their approach to climate change.

    ALEC's conservative wing says the organization — which convenes corporations, think tanks and legislators — is capitulating to left-of-center interests to regain funders after an exodus of corporate titans like Google LLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC over the organization's climate change positions. Others, however, contend that the conversation on climate has shifted away from hard-liners, with a growing number of Republicans and conservatives embracing clean technology and climate science, according to several of the group's members.

    "I think the attention they got on energy and environmental issues was so intense that that's where they focused on their outreach with the center-left," said Paul Blair, director of strategic initiatives with Americans for Tax Reform and a member of ALEC. "You can't pass the laugh test with going center-left on tax issues. To me, you can't pass the laugh test with me by going center-left on energy and environment issues. But they apparently think they can."

    It's a fight that reflects the broader conservative debate over climate change and the direction of the Republican Party during the Trump administration.

    And it will soon come to a head, as ALEC members prepare to vote on a measure that takes aim at U.S. EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. The Obama-era finding is a compilation of scientific evidence that forms the legal basis for EPA greenhouse gas regulations. It's despised by many conservatives.

    ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force is slated to vote on a draft resolutionat a meeting in Nashville, Tenn., next month that calls "upon the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw the 2009 endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and conduct a new rulemaking on this issue."

    If ALEC ultimately adopts the resolution, it will serve as a model resolution for state and federal lawmakers to express their disdain for the EPA finding. The vote will put big businesses and trade groups that sit on the ALEC task force on the spot regarding whether the endangerment finding is worth investigating.

    "Robust debate comes from stakeholders engaging from a variety of perspectives. And that is precisely what's happening here," said ALEC spokesman Bill Meierling. He noted that the draft resolution could be amended or changed when the task force meets in Nashville.

    The tug of war at ALEC mirrors the fight between voices skeptical of mainstream climate science — like the nonprofit Heartland Institute — and groups that are more moderate on climate change, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    Heartland is rumored to be behind the endangerment resolution, with former North Dakota state Rep. Bette Grande (R) — who now freelances for Heartland and participates in ALEC matters — thought to have drafted it and handed off the language to a state lawmaker and ALEC member.

    Heartland did not respond to a request for comment.

    Heartland and its allies have pushed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to take on the endangerment finding, which the EPA chief has been reluctant to pursue. Corporate America, meanwhile, largely supported staying in the Paris climate agreement and retaining the Clean Power Plan — an Obama administration rule to curb power plant emissions — but ultimately lost those battles to far-right groups, though some hope Trump will ultimately remain in the global climate pact.Bellwether moment?

    The endangerment finding vote may serve as a bellwether for where ALEC stands on climate change.

    Is ALEC part and parcel of a conservative movement that has questioned climate change and the policy responses to it? Or does it operate among the wider atmosphere of reputation-conscious corporations and even some moderates who have opposed the Trump administration on climate change?

    But that calculation also belies a more fundamental point about ALEC — while it has a reputation as a far-right group advancing industry interests, it's also a member-driven organization. If ALEC is shifting on climate and energy, it's largely because its members have, too.

    "If there were some grand conspiracy, I'd know about it, and there isn't," said Eli Lehrer, president of the free-market think tank R Street Institute, which supports a carbon tax. "To the extent things have changed, it's because opinions have changed."

    At its core, ALEC is an organization about free markets and limited government. Thus, its members also have railed against and helped craft bills to roll back President Obama's climate and environmental measures, many of which were federal regulations, and local incentives for clean energy. At the same time, though, the group has come under fire for taking cash from fossil fuel companies threatened by the advance of clean energy while often neglecting to mention subsidies and incentives that legacy energy sources enjoy.

    Longtime ALEC watchdogs view the endangerment finding draft resolution as an attempt by its conservative members to reorient the organization to its roots after several rudderless years on energy and environment matters. Part of that is a response to the Trump administration, said Nick Surgey, director of Documented, an organization that tracks the influence of corporations on public policy.

    "This is a reflection of an organization that has shifted itself more into the mainstream of climate change in terms of rhetoric in the last three to four years," Surgey said. "Now they've got almost everything they want from Scott Pruitt and the EPA, and they have to justify their existence to their funders. And it seems like they're allying themselves with the more radical of the funders."

    The cohesion between ALEC and the Trump administration is evident to ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson. She sent a congratulatory email to its members on Jan. 30 to celebrate the new administration, saying, "This administration does have the potential to be an ALEC administration. It is full of the people and ideas we've advanced since 1973."

    But conservatives familiar with ALEC said they're concerned that the organization has gravitated to satisfying interests that aren't committed to the free-market principles upon which the group was created. They said that dynamic is most apparent in the energy and environment space.

    "When it comes to the policies of the organization, ALEC does have strong positions on issues that are consistent with the free market," Blair said. "The issue is if they are planning to upend those principles to fundraise in the future."

    They worry that ALEC is trying to plug a funding gap following the high-profile exits of Google, BP PLC, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and others, all of which blamed the organization's stance on climate change for their departure. Those companies left largely over pressure from shareholders who were spurred into action after activist groups harped on ALEC funding streams. The conservative billionaire industrialist Koch brothers are big donors; Exxon Mobil Corp., a member of the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, is also a major funder.Conservatives revolt

    ALEC's conservative members saw warning signs recently when feathers were ruffled over what they said in the past would have been a fairly easy decision.

    The energy task force couldn't agree to move on a resolution that opposed property assessed clean energy, or PACE — a financing mechanism to fund clean energy or energy efficiency upgrades. Conservatives were worried about exposing taxpayers to losses, since municipal bonds underwrote many of the projects.

    But many of ALEC's members also have PACE interests. One conservative source said those groups backing PACE angled to kill the resolution and criticized ALEC for trying to appease such funders. Rockwood Group CEO Scott Zajac, whose investment firm operates in the PACE world, was particularly vocal in opposing the resolution within ALEC, the source said.

    Others, though, noted that's just how the energy space is these days — corporations are on board with clean energy. Rejecting mainstream climate science or trying to stymie growth of energy sources that compete with ALEC's old guard of coal, natural gas and oil companies doesn't fly anymore.

    The PACE resolution foundered over much acrimony in ALEC's July meeting and was forbidden to ever return as a discussion point. That result has generated revolt from some of the more dogmatic conservatives.

    "I'm concerned that there has been an effort more recently to try and table what in the past would have been considered straightforward proposals based on free-market principles," said Tom Pyle, president of the conservative energy think tank Institute for Energy Research. "That's what ALEC is supposed to be advancing."

    That effort, though, is minor compared with the endangerment finding, which is a lightning rod in climate policy circles.

    Publicly traded companies on the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force are getting calls about the upcoming vote on the draft endangerment finding resolution, according to a source familiar with the situation. Companies on that task force include Exxon Mobil, Pfizer Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc.

    "We have not received calls on it to my knowledge, but either way it is not an issue we would support," UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross said in an email. "As one of the leaders in sustainable and transparent logistics, our position on climate change is clear."

    Aside from Exxon Mobil, Pfizer and UPS, the task force also includes lobby group heavyweights such as the Edison Electric Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and American Gas Association.

    E&E News contacted all those members. EEI, AGA, AFPM, Pfizer and Exxon Mobil did not respond to requests for comment. NRECA said it didn't want to challenge the endangerment finding because it supports "inside the fence" carbon emissions regulations on power plants to replace the Clean Power Plan, which Pruitt formally moved to repeal last month.

    "Challenging the endangerment finding would lead to a different result, which we think would be unwise," spokesman Dan Riedinger said in an email.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066527
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Emissions Drop Not Due To Cap And Trade — Study

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn

    As California Gov. Jerry Brown touts his state's economywide carbon cap-and-trade program at U.N. talks in Bonn, Germany, critics of the policy are taking the opportunity to launch jabs back at home.

    The Democratic governor has been advocating for the expansion of cap and trade, suggesting last week that the state should link its market with the European Union's Emissions Trading System. Emissions covered by the California program fell 5 percent last year, according to data released by the California Air Resources Board last week, putting the state well on track to meet its 2020 goal of reaching 1990 emissions levels (Climatewire, Nov. 7).

    Yet a study by Near Zero, a think tank affiliated with the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University, finds that the reductions aren't likely attributable to cap and trade itself. Rather, the paper says, the drop was largely due to other policies, like the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electricity.

    Consumer Watchdog, a group that criticized this year's bill to extend cap and trade through 2030 for containing too many industry-friendly provisions, held up the paper as proof of its stance.

    "While Gov. Brown pushes market-based solutions in Europe that clearly aren't working at home, the results back home show those solutions aren't working because the approach is too lax," said consumer advocate Liza Tucker.

    The biggest drop in greenhouse gas emissions last year came from electricity, which saw a shift from natural gas to hydropower. Much of that was likely due to the increased supplies of hydropower available after the state's five-year drought ended. Other increases in renewable generation were due to the state's RPS and incentives that promote rooftop solar. Meanwhile, emissions from transportation fuels and refining saw a slight uptick.

    The reductions are "coming in the sector where, frankly, a lot of the other policies are doing the work," said Near Zero research associate Danny Cullenward, who was named by state Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León in September to a committee that tracks the economic and environmental performance of the cap-and-trade market. No other members have yet been named to the five-person committee, which was created by A.B. 398, the bill that extended the market to 2030 earlier this year.

    Cullenward also pointed out that a chronic oversupply of allowances, as well as the legal uncertainty that plagued the cap-and-trade program until this year, meant that companies should logically not have been expected to make financial decisions based on the program's stringency.

    California regulators are currently mapping out their emissions reduction route to 2030, when they are aiming to reach 40 percent below 1990 levels. The Air Resources Board needs to design its post-2020 cap-and-trade program to achieve roughly 43 percent of the reductions as envisioned, Cullenward warned.

    "Anyone who's serious about the markets has to address this issue," he said.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066583
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Moore's Woes In Ala. An Unexpected Gift For Climate Hawks

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Josh Kurtz

    Dozens of Democrats and their allies in the environmental movement came together outside the Capitol yesterday to blast President Trump for isolating the United States in the global fight against climate change.

    The question is whether they can carry that enthusiasm into Congress.

    It was one of 38 events that the groups had organized in 17 states yesterday, part of a campaign they called #StillInDayofAction.

    "To put it simply, the American people are still in," said Neera Tanden, CEO of the Center for American Progress and CAP Action Fund. "The American people reject Donald Trump's anti-climate policies."

    For all the dramatic crowds the climate issue is able to generate, more prosaic numbers are just as important: the number of seats Democrats need to regain majorities in the Senate and House. If lawmakers in favor of climate action do not control the legislative agenda, very little is going to get done at the federal level.

    Simply put, Democrats need to flip three seats this election cycle to take control of the Senate. They need a 24-seat pickup to seize the majority in the House. Illogical as it may sound, the task is harder in the Senate.

    That's why some of the people gathered outside the Capitol yesterday are watching the special Alabama Senate election scheduled for Dec. 12. It's suddenly up for grabs with the sexual assault scandals swirling around the Republican nominee, former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. Now the Democrat, former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones, could win.

    A Jones victory would be an unanticipated gift for both Democrats and environmentalists. On his campaign website, he says, "I want to be perfectly clear: I believe in science.

    "The consequences of our unchecked use of fossil fuels for our planet and our health have been clear for decades. Period," he continues. "Clean air and clean water are not controversial. They are essential to our health, our prosperity, and our quality of life. We should be encouraging investment in renewable energy and conservation as ways to create new jobs and make ourselves energy independent."

    Jones goes on to hit Trump for wrapping the United States "in our own cocoon" when it comes to the Paris accord.

    "He's so good on these issues," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said in an interview. "He's good on so many issues. He'd be great for Alabama."

    Republicans are becoming increasingly alarmed about Moore's prospects; many GOP senators have publicly called him unfit to serve and have urged him to withdraw from the race.

    But it's too late to remove Moore from the ballot, and he has so far been defiant about the allegations and the call from Republican leaders to go away. The website Talking Points Memo reported yesterday that the Alabama Republican Party is expected to meet later this week to discuss standing by Moore or consider backing a write-in candidate.'Little hard evidence' for warming

    If Moore defeats Jones, there is very little the Senate can do to prevent him from being sworn in. But the Senate might subsequently be able to expel him, if 67 senators agree.

    All the uncertainty prompted The Cook Political Report yesterday to change its rating on the special election to "tossup," from "likely Republican."

    "This race is a hot mess that is likely to get messier between now and December 12," the nonpartisan political tipsheet wrote.

    Moore — famous for being removed twice as Alabama's top judge, first for keeping a display of the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse, later for failing to enforce federal same-sex marriage laws — is a climate denier.

    "Not only is there no constitutional authority for Congress to regulate carbon emissions, but the premise of 'global warming' and 'climate change' upon which such environmental theories are based does not have the support of a scientific consensus," Moore wrote in a 2009 op-ed on the conservative website WorldNetDaily as a cap-and-trade bill was being debated in Congress.

    "Not only do scientists disagree on 'global warming,' but there is little hard evidence that carbon emissions cause changes to the global climate. But it appears that Obama and his liberal administration are not really interested in what the Constitution or the scientific community have to say when it interferes with their radical agenda."

    On his campaign website, Moore writes, "To gain independence from foreign oil, we need to foster development of our own natural resources involving nuclear, solar, wind, and fossil fuels. Coal mining and oil drilling should be encouraged, subject only to reasonable regulations."

    The League of Conservation Voters Action Fund endorsed Jones a month ago and put him on its "GiveGreen" website along with 19 other Democratic Senate candidates.

    "The support and enthusiasm for Jones from LCV and others in the environmental community have been consistently strong since the get-go, but there is certainly the sense that this is now a winnable race," Stefanie Francisco, a spokeswoman for Conservation Alabama, an LCV affiliate, said in an email yesterday.

    GiveGreen has yielded just shy of $19,000 for Jones' campaign so far. That pales in comparison with the $237,000 that a potentially vulnerable Democrat, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, has raised through the green group's website, or the $139,000 that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is not vulnerable, has pulled in.

    Democratic senators are following the Alabama developments very closely — but are careful not to say or do too much, content to let Republicans grapple with the ongoing crisis. Asked yesterday what the posture of the Senate Democratic Caucus was on the Alabama race, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told E&E News: "We're watching it and listening to our Republican colleagues. ... I hope that ultimately the people of Alabama make the decision before the Senate has to."A math challenge

    At a news conference Monday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took pains to show that the national party — which is toxic in conservative Alabama — is not closely involved in Jones' race.

    "It's being run in Alabama by Alabamans," Schumer said. "He's raising a tremendous amount of money without any help from the Democratic organizations."

    Yet in the same breath, Schumer touted Democratic candidates recruited for Senate races in two states that the party is targeting next year — Nevada and Arizona — and in Texas, where Democrats are long shots.

    "We've gotten our choice in every race so far," Schumer said. "We wanted [Rep.] Jacky Rosen [D-Nev.] in the race. We wanted [Rep.] Kyrsten Sinema [D-Ariz.] in the race. We wanted [Rep.] Beto O'Rourke [D-Texas] in the race."

    Here again, the numbers get tricky for the Democrats.

    If Jones pulls an upset and wins next month, Democrats will need two seats to retake the majority. But they still have very few pickup opportunities on the 2018 Senate map.

    Arizona, where Sen. Jeff Flake (R) is retiring, and Nevada, where Rosen is bidding to take on embattled Sen. Dean Heller (R), are the Democrats' two major targets. Every other Republican seat is a long shot for the Democrats or out of reach — unless former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) jumps into the race to replace retiring Sen. Bob Corker (R). Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Trump ally, is the leading GOP candidate so far.

    Even if Democrats win Arizona — where they haven't won a Senate seat since 1988 — and Nevada, they may not get to the majority.

    That's because they must defend 25 seats compared with the nine seats Republicans are defending. And 10 of those seats are in states Trump won last year — some of them handily. The Cook Political Report currently considers Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri the most vulnerable Democrats this cycle.

    The path to picking up 24 seats in the House may be easier for Democrats. The Cook Political Report projects that there are 82 competitive House races this cycle — though another nonpartisan handicapper, Inside Elections, puts the number at 64.

    Democrats are targeting some of the members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus — many of whom are moderate Republicans who represent swing suburban districts (E&E Daily, Oct. 17).

    Democratic and environmental strategists are looking at last week's election results in New Jersey and Virginia — where green groups were a potent part of winning Democratic coalitions, especially in the suburbs — as an inspiration for 2018.

    "The environment won [last] Tuesday in Virginia," Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) said yesterday. "The same effort, the same energy, is available to us to take it to the nation in 2018."

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066525
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Top U.S. Officials Cancel Visits To Climate Talks

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick

    BONN, Germany — The United States won't have its top two negotiators at the international climate conference here as the talks enter a crucial period in their final days.

    State Department Office of Global Change Director Trigg Talley had to leave the talks early this week due to a family emergency, and yesterday, the State Department announced that Undersecretary for Political Affairs Tom Shannon would also miss the talks due to a family emergency.

    Judith Garber, a career official who is now State's acting assistant secretary for oceans, environment and science, will arrive in Bonn today to lead the U.S. delegation into its final stretch.

    Garber, an experienced diplomat who lacks a direct background in climate negotiations, will be aided by an unusually small U.S. delegation. The official count for the delegation is 48, but that includes a group of senators who visited the talks earlier this week to criticize President Trump for not doing more to address rising temperatures.

    The staffing situation would be more consequential if this year's talks were more intense, but Bonn was always intended to be a process Conference of the Parties devoted to writing the rulebook for the Paris Agreement. And Trump's announced departure from the deal renders the U.S. delegation less powerful and less essential than it usually is.

    Experts here applauded the news that Garber would be leading the delegation. She was the State Department staff's initial choice for that task.

    Andrew Light, a former senior State negotiator who is now at the World Resources Institute, commended the move.

    "She ran the Oceans, Environment and Science bureau at State for most of Secretary [John] Kerry's tenure, and knows these issues inside and out," he said. "I expect her to protect the ability of the U.S. negotiators to dig in for the home stretch, continuing to complete and refine the agreement that most of them had a hand in crafting."

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066579
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Panel Advances Bill to Roll Back Standards

    Nov 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Nick Sobczyk and Sean Reilly

    A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee today advanced a package of partisan bills aimed at undercutting current air quality standards for a handful of industries.

    Lawmakers on the Environment Subcommittee went back and forth, squabbling over whether the four bills would bolster small businesses and support jobs or begin the process of ripping apart the Clean Air Act.

    "This committee strives to make our nation's environmental regulations smarter, and that is exactly what these four bills do," said subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.). "Smarter regulations protect public health while also encouraging economic growth and job creation."

    Democrats on the panel, unsurprisingly, were inclined to disagree. Three out of the four bills passed in partisan fashion, with all 10 Democrats voting no.

    "Broadly speaking, each bill seeks to give a carve-out under the Clean Air Act," said subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.).

    First on the docket was Rep. Bill Johnson's (R-Ohio) H.R. 1917, the "Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act," which would indefinitely extend next year's deadline for brick and ceramic tile manufacturers to meet 2015 emission standards until all legal challenges are resolved.

    Democrats claimed the measure could spark frivolous lawsuits at U.S. EPA, but Johnson said the bill would provide certainty for brick manufacturers.

    "We don't want a repeat of the last time EPA issued a rule for there industries, where the industry was forced to comply, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, only to have the rule vacated by the courts soon thereafter," Johnson said today.

    Next up was H.R. 453, from Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), which would push back the deadline for makers of wood stoves and other wood-fired heaters to comply with the second and final phase of EPA's 2015 emissions standards for the industry from May 2020 to May 2023.

    Full committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) called the bill a "common-sense adjustment" that would help small businesses while leaving intact most of EPA's environmental protections.

    The panel also voted on H.R. 1119 the "Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act," introduced by Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.).

    The original bill would relax standards resulting from two major EPA regulations — the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards — for power plants that burn waste coal for fuel. Most of those plants are located in Pennsylvania.

    Shimkus offered an amendment today at the request of Democrats on the panel that would strike any mention of CSAPR from the bill. The panel approved the amendment by voice vote, but Democrats still had reservations about the full measure.

    "This is a positive development, but the harmful changes to the Mercury and Air Toxics rule remain in place, and so I continue to oppose this bill," said full committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).

    The one glimmer of bipartisanship at the markup came when the subcommittee took up H.R. 350, the "Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports (RPM) Act."

    The bill, sponsored by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), is intended to clarify that the Clean Air Act's ban on tampering with vehicle emissions systems does not apply to cars souped up for racing purposes.

    Though most Democrats on the panel voted against on the measure today, they said they hope to work with Republicans on the full committee to close loopholes in the bill.

    "My no vote today on this bill is not a vote against amateur racing," said Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas). "Right now, the bill is lacking language that would prohibit the driving of these vehicles on public roads after they're converted into race cars."

    Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell, who hails from the car-heavy state of Michigan, took a similar line, requesting a commitment from Shimkus to work with Democrats on the measure.

    "I'm a car girl," she said. "But I'm afraid the bill goes too far and could have unintended consequences for EPA's ability to target the bad actors."

    Shimkus wavered on making any specific commitments. But he indicated that he would be willing to come to the table to get bipartisan support for the bill.

    The panel advanced H.R. 350 on a 13-9 vote, with one Democrat — Rep. Raul Ruiz of California — voting in the affirmative. The full committee has yet to set a vote on the bills.

    Both Rothfus' and Johnson's bills had passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. While the Obama administration threatened to veto both, current EPA chief Scott Pruitt expressed general support for all four of the measures (E&E Daily, Sept. 14).

    And this year, the legislation appears poised to advance in the upper chamber, as well. The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety held a hearing yesterday on companion versions of the motor sports, brick kiln and wood stove bills; a markup has not yet been scheduled (E&E Daily, Nov. 15).

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/15/stories/1060066623
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Trump vs. Obama on the Social Cost of Carbon–and Why It Matters

    Nov 15, 2017 | Wall Street Journal

    By Jason Bordoff

    Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to repealthe centerpiece of President Obama’s climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, which regulates greenhouse-gas emissions from the power sector.

    Among other rationales given, the EPA explained that the costs of the rule exceed the benefits. EPA’s new analysis found the benefits of avoided climate change damages from the Clean Power Plan totaled less than $3 billion per year in 2030, and perhaps as low as $500 million. By contrast, President Obama’s EPA originally estimated the climate benefits to be $20 billion per year. What explains such a stark difference?

    The answer is found in a relatively arcane, but critically important, metric known as the “social cost of carbon” (SCC). The SCC is an estimate in dollars of how much damage is caused over the long run by a ton of CO2 emissions in a given year. It monetizes the cost of climate change from impacts like reduced agricultural productivity, increased flood damage or worsened health and mortality.

    Such an estimate, albeit imperfect, is necessary to assess whether a proposed regulation is worth the costs. In setting fuel-economy standards, for example, regulators must weigh costs, such as more expensive cars, reduced size and safety, and increased miles driven, against benefits like reduced air pollution, oil use and—using the SCC—avoided climate impacts.

    According to the Obama administration, the cost to society of putting a ton of CO2 in the air in 2020 is $45 (there’s a range, but that’s the central estimate). According to the Trump administration, it is somewhere between $1 and $6.

    The dramatic downward revision results from two key disagreements. First, in estimating the SCC, the Obama administration accounted for global damages from a ton of CO2. Traditionally, the federal government looks only at domestic impacts in its cost-benefit analysis. The argument for a global value, however, is that climate change is a unique sort of problem. Unlike other regulated pollutants that have almost entirely domestic consequences, CO2 impacts are global, and climate change is a “tragedy of the commons” problem. A ton of CO2 contributes equally to climate change regardless of where it comes from. If all nations looked only at the impact of a ton of CO2 on their own nations, the collective response would be vastly inadequate to address the true damages from climate change.

    The second disagreement the Trump administration has with Obama is how to value the future damages of climate change in today’s dollars. In other words, how much is it worth to us today to prevent a dollar of climate change damage decades from now?

    The choice of discount rate may sound technical, but it makes an enormous difference. Suppose the damages from climate change were $1 trillion in the year 2100. Using a 3% discount rate (the Obama administration’s central value, and Trump administration’s low value), it would be worth $86 billion to us today to prevent it. Using 7%, the upper bound chosen by the Trump administration, it would be worth only $4 billion. In short, discount rates matter. A lot.  The use of a high discount rate effectively means that the impact of our actions today on future generations is given very little weight in assessing costs and benefits.

    The Trump administration’s choice of 3% and 7% is consistent with longstanding White House guidance. Yet few economists use 7% in modeling the costs of climate change. As the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) has explained, 7% was intended to represent the average before-tax return on private capital. The 3% rate reflects how much the average saver is able to earn. Over long horizons, such as those relevant for climate change, the 3% value is more consistent with the models used to generate the SCC estimates.  CEA recently recommended even 3% is too high given decline in long-term interest rates.

    White House guidance notes discount rates even lower than 3% can be used when there are important intergenerational impacts. Moreover, a number of leading economists recommend using declining discount rates because of uncertainty about future returns to investment and growth.

    Additionally, the distribution of climate change risk has a “fat tail,” meaning there’s a larger probability of truly catastrophic impacts. A willingness to pay extra for insurance against those risks suggests erring on the side of lower discount rates.

    How best to calculate the SCC is not yet settled, and work continuesto improve and refine existing approaches. While many reasonable researchers may disagree, there needs to be more bipartisan agreement on key questions about climate change costs and benefits. Consumers, businesses and policy makers cannot plan and make long-term investments if the U.S. government’s estimates rise or fall 10-fold every time the party in the White House changes hands.

    Jason Bordoff (@JasonBordoff), a former special assistant to President Obama, is a professor of professional practice in international and public affairs and founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
    

    https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/11/15/trump-vs-obama-on-the-social-cost-of-carbon-and-why-it-matters/

    Return to headline | Return to top