Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/27/17
-
Hearing on TVA Nominees
Nov 27, 2017 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on NEPA
Nov 29, 2017 | Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth / 10:00 AM -
Hearing On Regulatory Reform Task Forces
Nov 29, 2017 | Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittees on Interior, Energy and Environment, and Intergovernme
Location: 2154 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Swaps Top Science Advisers With Industry Allies
Nov 27, 2017 | Salon
By Elizabeth Grossman, Lindsey Konkel, Liza Gross
Eleven new members of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board have a history of downplaying the health risks of secondhand smoke, air pollution and other hazards, including two who have spun science for tobacco companies, according to an investigation by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. -
Exclusive: Exxon Mobil Chief Revamps Refining, Chemical Operations-Spokeswoman
Nov 27, 2017 | Reuters (In the New York Times)
Exxon Mobil Corp Chief Executive Darren Woods is reorganizing the company's refining and chemical operations, part of a push to boost profits amid volatile oil and natural gas prices, a spokeswoman said. -
Committee To Vote On CEQ, EPA Picks
Nov 27, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Two of President Trump's top environmental nominees will likely take a step closer to Senate confirmation this week. -
U.S. Companies Split Over Global Chemical Classifications
Nov 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A United Nations proposal for a single, global classification list for chemicals used in trade is getting support—and some skeptical looks—from U.S. companies navigating the conflicting standards. -
California Hazardous Waste Violations Cost DirecTV $9.5 Million
Nov 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
AT&T Inc. subsidiary DirecTV will pay $9.5 million for violating California's electronic waste disposal and other hazardous waste rules under a deal with state and local prosecutors. -
Monsanto Can't Shake San Diego's PCB Nuisance Claims
Nov 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Monsanto must once again defend public nuisance claims brought by the City of San Diego over PCB contamination of its municipal stormwater system, the Southern District of California ruled. -
Chemical Company's Response to Water Worries: Silence
Nov 25, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Emery P. Dalesio
Americans have grown accustomed to hearing apologies from everyone from cheating car-makers to cheating presidents, but a Fortune 500 chemical company with a pollution problem in North Carolina is following a different model: don't apologize, don't explain. -
France to Vote Against EU Licence Extension for Weed-Killer Glyphosate
Nov 27, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Dominique Vidalon
France will vote against a five-year extension of the licence for weed-killer glyphosate that the European Commission will propose on Monday, a junior French environment minister said. -
Glyphosate Or Nuclear: What To Do beyond Scaring
Nov 27, 2017 | Euractiv
By Cécile Philippe
France should show political courage, embrace another vision and stop opposing the renewal of glyphosate’s authorisation in the EU, argues Cécile Philippe. -
Oil And Gas Industry Is Causing Texas Earthquakes, A ‘Landmark’ Study Suggests
Nov 24, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Ben Guarino
An unnatural number of earthquakes hit Texas in the past decade, and the region's seismic activity is increasing. In 2008, two earthquakes stronger than magnitude 3 struck the state. Eight years later, 12 did. -
44K Gallons Recovered So Far From Keystone Pipeline Spill
Nov 25, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline that leaked last week, spilling more than 200,000 gallons of oil into the South Dakota countryside, says it is making progress with cleanup efforts. -
Editorial: Industrial Safety Is A Community Concern
Nov 26, 2017 | SFGate
By Editorial Board
Two Bay Area counties are home to oil refineries, but only one has an industrial safety ordinance directed at preventing accidents that could harm workers and pollute the air — Contra Costa County. -
Committee To Weigh NEPA Reforms
Nov 27, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow and Kellie Lunney
The House Natural Resources Committee is set to consider revising National Environmental Policy Act guidelines during a hearing this week.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Nov 27, 2017 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
-
Nov 29, 2017 | Natural Resources
-
Hearing On Regulatory Reform Task Forces
Nov 29, 2017 | Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittees on Interior, Energy and Environment, and Intergovernme
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Swaps Top Science Advisers With Industry Allies
Nov 27, 2017 | Salon
By Elizabeth Grossman, Lindsey Konkel, Liza Gross
Pruitt removed 21 members of the advisory board and replaced them with industry-funded scientists
Eleven new members of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board have a history of downplaying the health risks of secondhand smoke, air pollution and other hazards, including two who have spun science for tobacco companies, according to an investigation by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting.
Earlier this month, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt fired all board members who currently receive EPA grants for their research, saying they cannot remain objective if they accept agency money. In replacing them, Pruitt transformed the board from a panel of the nation’s top environmental experts to one dominated by industry-funded scientists and state government officials who have fought federal regulations.
Pruitt removed 21 members of the advisory board, mostly academics, and replaced them with 16 experts with ties to industries regulated by the agency and two with no industry ties. Fourteen of the new members consult or work for the fossil fuel or chemical industries, which gave Pruitt nearly $320,000 for his campaigns in Oklahoma as a state senator and attorney general.
Under the Obama administration, industry-affiliated scientists made up 40 percent of the Science Advisory Board, or 19 of its 47 members. Under President Donald Trump, 68 percent of the board, 30 of its 44 current members, now has ties to industries. That leaves 14 with no industry ties, including two Obama appointees who work for environmental groups.
The Science Advisory Board, established by Congress in 1978, helps the EPA ensure it has the best available science when crafting regulations and standards that address the nation’s drinking water, air pollution, toxic contamination and other environmental problems that threaten public health.
“If memberships are weighted toward viewpoints that support the agenda of the administration, then the administration is signaling that it’s not asking for advice, but for a rubber stamp,” said environmental scientist Deborah Swackhamer, who was chairwoman of the board under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“That’s a complete misuse.”
A history of separating politics and science
Keeping drinking water safe. Shielding vulnerable populations from air pollutants that trigger asthma and heart attacks. Protecting communities from cancer-causing chemicals. These are the EPA’s mandates. And when making key decisions about science to follow these mandates, the agency relies on panels of advisers.
The Science Advisory Board is arguably the most important panel among 22 federal advisory committees that report to the EPA. The board gives the agency advice on specific matters, such as the impacts of fracking on drinking water supplies, factors that drive algae blooms in the Great Lakes and whether the agency’s risk assessments are scientifically sound.
The board doesn’t give guidance on proposed regulations. Rather, it vets the scientific foundations on which those recommendations are built, such as how dangerous the air pollutant ozone is at certain exposures or at what dose an industrial chemical would raise the risk of cancer.
To get the best science to policymakers, the EPA long has relied on a diversity of experts and a tradition of keeping politics out of scientific deliberations. In establishing the Science Advisory Board, Congress called for experts from academia, industry, nongovernmental organizations and federal, state and tribal governments. Most board seats over the past several decades have been held by government-funded university researchers.
But in February, Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, convened a hearing called “Making EPA Great Again” to investigate what he called the EPA’s “political agenda.” Smith, a Texas Republican who disputes climate science, said Science Advisory Board experts under Obama had “become nothing more than rubber stamps who approve all of the EPA’s regulations” because they receive millions of dollars in government grants.
Last month, Pruitt said experts who serve on the EPA’s scientific advisory boards can’t provide objective advice if they receive agency grants. He promised an audience at The Heritage Foundation, an anti-regulatory think tank that questions climate change, that he was “going to fix that” by restoring the “independence and transparency and objectivity in regard to the scientific advice we are getting at the agency” by prohibiting scientific advisers from taking EPA grants.
In a news release, Pruitt said the new makeup of the board shows the “EPA’s commitment to science and openness to expertise from a diverse array of perspectives.”
Pruitt has required advisory board members to remain “financially independent” of the EPA, but has placed no such restrictions on scientists with ties to industry.
“To say that academics have more conflicts because they get (government) grants is turning the idea of conflict of interest on its head and is patently absurd,” said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “If a scientist working at a high level did not receive government funding, how would they have achieved that?”
New advisers criticize mainstream science
A Reveal investigation shows that several new board members have a history of criticizing mainstream science to cast doubt on the health risks of commercial and industrial air pollutants and products.
One new appointee, Kimberly White, is a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents chemical manufacturers, including Dow Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and DuPont Co. The group for decades has fought EPA regulations on widely used chemicals linked to health effects, including flame retardants, formaldehyde, asbestos and plasticizers.
In an email to Reveal, White said that in the past, the EPA science board “lacked sufficient balance among its members, and they have missed out on valuable insight from important perspectives from industry.” She said her goal is to ensure that board recommendations “are objective and grounded in the highest quality and most relevant scientific evidence.”
The new appointees also include scientists who have served as expert witnesses for industries regulated by the EPA. Dr. Samuel Cohen, a cancer expert at the University of Nebraska, testified on DuPont’s behalf in a lawsuit holding the company liable for illnesses related to drinking water contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a chemical DuPont used in a West Virginia plant that made Teflon. Cohen testified that the plaintiff’s kidney cancer was caused by her obesity, not PFOA, yet an independent science panel has found a probable link between the chemical and serious health conditions, including kidney cancer.
Cohen did not respond to a request for comment.
Two of Pruitt’s new appointees helped companies defend their products or fight restrictions on secondhand smoke, and another sought more than $300,000 in tobacco industry funding but was rejected.
John Graham, dean of the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs and founder of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, asked a top Philip Morrisexecutive for $25,000 in 1991 to support his center, which he said had exposed “serious weaknesses in the federal government’s risk assessment process.”
Graham told the executive that he launched the center with gifts from several corporations, all with a financial interest in minimizing environmental regulations, including BP, Chevron Corp., Dow and Exxon. He ended his pitch by saying, “It is important for me to learn more about the risk-related challenges that you face.”
Graham got his $25,000 and later served as an adviser to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition, a group created by Philip Morris to discredit an EPA report that identified secondhand smoke as a carcinogen.
Graham told Reveal in an email that he received larger amounts of funding from the EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to run his Harvard center.
“Since I have extensive experience with both government and industry,” he said, “I look forward to providing unbiased advice to EPA.”
He also said he worked to reduce particulate pollution while head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President George W. Bush.
But Graham instituted an approach to risk analysis, according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, that challenged the scientific consensus underlying regulations on ozone, fine particulate matter and formaldehyde pollution. The EPA decided not to tighten its health standard for fine particulate matter in 2006 under Graham, rejecting the recommendations of its expert panel for the first time on ambient air pollution.
Another new board member, Louis Anthony Cox, early in his career worked for consulting firm Arthur D. Little, which contributed to the industry’s discredited effort to develop a “safer” cigarette. He later testified on behalf of Philip Morris and three other tobacco giants against a smoker’s husband who sued the companies for lying about the dangers of cigarettes.
Cox received at least $22,000 for his services from tobacco industry law firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon – the same firm that helped Philip Morris create “sound science” guidelines to challenge the EPA’s listing of secondhand smoke as a carcinogen and in 2016 sued the EPA on behalf of the coal industry to prevent the agency from enforcing carbon emission reductions under its recently repealed Clean Power Plan.
In addition to his membership on the Science Advisory Board, Cox has been tapped as chairman of a separate EPA board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Cox, who runs consulting firm Cox Associates, told Reveal in an email that he’s used models to calculate the “excess risk of lung cancers caused by different smoking exposure histories” for various private- and public-sector organizations, including Philip Morris and the EPA. That work, he said, has helped him “appreciate some of the most common errors, heuristics and biases that can affect the judgments of scientists … in interpreting data.”
In addition to his work on behalf of the tobacco industry, Cox also has questioned the benefits of reducing particulate pollution in a paper sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute.
New board member Robert Phalen, who directs the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory at the University of California, Irvine, asked the Center for Indoor Air Research – a tobacco industry body founded to counter evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer – to fund a grant of more than $311,000 to study “interactions among indoor aerosols.” Phalen submitted his proposal three times, but the group rejected his request in 1997, saying his hypothesis “seems implausible.”
The center was disbanded in 1998 after the tobacco companies agreed to stop sponsoring research as part of a landmark settlement of a federal lawsuit that charged the industry with conspiring to hide the dangers of smoking for decades.
In an email to Reveal, Phalen said he did not recall seeking any grants from the tobacco-funded group.
Phalen also has discounted some of the health effects of air pollution. In a 2004 report, he wrote that the risks of breathing particulate pollution “are very small and confounded by many factors.”
He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2012, “Modern air is a little too clean for optimum health.” Children’s lungs, he was quoted as saying, need to be exposed to irritants to learn how to ward them off.
But studies repeatedly have shown that children are highly susceptible to air pollution for a variety of reasons, including because they breathe more air per pound of weight, have immature immune systems and spend more time exerting themselves outdoors.
Another new board member, Stanley Young – a statistician who advises The Heartland Institute, an anti-regulatory think tank that showcases global warming deniers at itsannual conference – recently has questioned evidence underlying EPA regulations on air pollutants.
Young also is an adviser to the American Council on Science and Health, whichdescribes itself as a “pro-science consumer advocacy organization” but is funded by free-market foundations and the chemical, fossil fuel and tobacco industries and challenges evidence supporting regulations.
Young did not respond to a request for comment.
Research from around the world has reported a link between air pollutants and deaths and hospitalizations from respiratory disease and heart attacks. Young published a critique of this evidence in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, a journal known for publishing industry-friendly science.
Former board members fear ‘grave danger’
The new board members’ dismissal of well-established science about air pollutants worries former board member and Princeton University air pollution expert Denise Mauzerall, who was removed by Pruitt.
“I fear the protection of our environment is in grave danger,” she said.
Mauzerall said links between air pollutants and health effects have “been well established in the epidemiological literature now for decades. … The World Health Organization has found air pollution to be one of the largest risk factors in the world forpremature mortality.”
Peter Thorne, chairman of the Science Advisory Board before Pruitt’s purge, cited the panel’s guidance to the EPA about strengthening standards for ozone and fine particulates as an example of how science protects public health.
“With that science,” he said, “we save lives, and we do it in a cost-effective way for the American people.”
Thorne is an occupational and environmental health expert at the University of Iowa College of Public Health who also was removed from the board. The EPA has funded some of his research.
“The job of the Science Advisory Board is to ensure that the EPA is using the best science in all its decision-making,” he said. “It’s an insult to fine research programs to say that those of us funded by those programs are not qualified to advise on these issues.”
Earlier this month, 10 senators – nine Democrats and an Independent – asked the headof the Government Accountability Office to review the EPA’s move to purge the board of agency-funded scientists, noting that it appears to strengthen the voice of industry-funded scientists.
Former board chairwoman Deborah Swackhamer said Pruitt’s upending of the board signals the EPA’s shift away from using scientific evidence to guide policy.
“There has always been a very strong culture of trying to make sure this committee remains objective in its role,” said Swackhamer, professor emerita at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health and Humphrey School of Public Affairs.
She voiced particular concern about the appointment of Michael Honeycutt as the newest chairman. Honeycutt, director of the toxicology division of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, rejected evidence that the EPA’s proposal to tighten the ozone standard will yield health benefits.
“The chair of the (Science Advisory Board) has historically been a researcher from academia, as they typically pose the least chance of conflict of interest,” said Swackhamer, who still serves on a separate EPA advisory board. “This appointment doesn’t follow that pattern.”
She called Honeycutt “a bureaucrat without a strong science background, who openly rejects most of the science used in standard-setting.”
Honeycutt declined to comment.
Thomas Burke, director of the Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute and a former science adviser and deputy assistant administrator at Obama’s EPA, said the goal in determining the makeup of the board should be an “appropriate balance of perspectives, as long as the high bar of scientific expertise is met.”
“What’s happening, unfortunately, is many polluters’ interest groups are taking a page out of the tobacco playbook, casting doubt on the science to delay decision-making,” Burke said.
https://www.salon.com/2017/11/25/epa-swaps-top-science-advisers-with-industry-allies_partner/
-
Exclusive: Exxon Mobil Chief Revamps Refining, Chemical Operations-Spokeswoman
Nov 27, 2017 | Reuters (In the New York Times)
HOUSTON — Exxon Mobil Corp Chief Executive Darren Woods is reorganizing the company's refining and chemical operations, part of a push to boost profits amid volatile oil and natural gas prices, a spokeswoman said.
The changes at the world's largest publicly traded oil producer are the most sweeping to date by Woods, who became chief executive in January after former chief Rex Tillerson resigned to become U.S. secretary of state.
Woods has moved first to reshape the businesses he knows best, according to sources familiar with the matter. Before taking the helm at Exxon, Woods ran Exxon's refining operations and earlier in his career was a senior executive in its global chemicals unit.
The reorganization aims to squeeze more profits from the fuel and chemicals businesses as the company works to improve its exploration and production operations, which have struggled since 2014 to adjust to lower oil and gas prices.
The restructuring, disclosed internally last month, will combine the fuels and lubricants division with the supply and refining divisions.Continue reading the main story
Financial responsibility for the merged operation will rest with country and regional chiefs who report to Exxon's Irving, Texas, headquarters rather than divisional bosses as previously, according to people familiar with the matter.
The changes are designed to simplify operations and increase accountability for profitability, the sources said.
Exxon spokeswoman Charlotte Huffaker confirmed the overhaul in a statement, adding the company expects it will "improve decision making and enhance performance in the market."
It was not immediately clear if the changes will involve job cuts or executive departures. Huffaker said she could not say if there would be any impact on jobs.
REFINING STRENGTH
Exxon's refining and chemical operations have grown in stature under Woods, delivering steady earnings compared to its oil and gas production.
Exxon operates 22 refineries in 14 countries, processing nearly 5 million barrels of oil per day. The firm builds chemical and refining plants in the same location, allowing managers to shift production between fuels or chemicals based on demand.
The changes come as Exxon expands the refining division. The company is investing $20 billion through 2022 to expand its chemical and oil refining plants on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The refining and chemicals arms contributed more than $4.2 billion apiece to 2016 earnings, compared with a $196 million profit from exploration and production. Last year's results were affected by sharply lower crude prices.
In some quarters, Exxon would not have made any money were it not for its refineries.
This year, the company's oil and gas business bounced back to a $5 billion profit during the first nine months on stronger crude prices. Refining earnings were $4.03 billion and chemicals $3.25 billion, respectively, for the first three quarters this year.
Some staff members have raised questions as to whether there is any need to alter a system seen as largely successful, said the sources who declined to be identified.
It was unclear if the changes would impact an internal accounting practice known as general interest principle. That rule permits certain transactions to be loss-making for a local division if they are beneficial for the corporation as a whole.
Exxon did not comment on any potential accounting changes.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/11/27/business/27reuters-exxon-mobil-restructuring.html?_r=0
-
Committee To Vote On CEQ, EPA Picks
Nov 27, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Two of President Trump's top environmental nominees will likely take a step closer to Senate confirmation this week.
On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will vote on the nominations of Kathleen Hartnett White to be chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Andrew Wheeler to be deputy U.S. EPA administrator.
At a confirmation hearing earlier this month, Hartnett White, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, faced tough questions from both Democratic and Republican senators (Greenwire, Nov. 8).
Farm-state lawmakers repeatedly asked about her past criticism of biofuels. Hartnett White had called for the repeal of the renewable fuel standard and blamed ethanol for causing food shortages. But at the hearing, she downplayed her prior positions, saying she had used flawed data in her analysis on ethanol.
Bill Wehrum found his nomination to lead EPA's air office held up over similar concerns about the RFS by GOP senators. Wehrum eventually won confirmation on a 49-47 vote after Administrator Scott Pruitt pledged to abide by the biofuel program.
Democrats have also sought to bring greater exposure to Hartnett White's past comments on several other issues, including climate change. She again often walked back many of her past comments during her hearing.
"Just to be a completely different person and to say things that are entirely unrelated, unconnected to what she said for years just was breathtaking," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the EPW panel, said regarding Hartnett White (E&E Daily, Nov. 9).
Wheeler, a former longtime aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and the EPW Committee, was a familiar face for the panel's members in both parties. But he too came under scrutiny for his lobbying record as a principal with Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting since leaving Capitol Hill.
Democratic senators have sought a copy of an "action plan" authored by coal giant Murray Energy Corp., one of Wheeler's former clients, that is meant to guide Trump administration energy policy.
Wheeler was questioned over the plan during this month's hearing. He confirmed that he had seen the document but did not have a copy (E&E News PM, Nov. 8).
Schedule: The markup is Wednesday, Nov. 29, at 10 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/11/27/stories/1060067289
-
U.S. Companies Split Over Global Chemical Classifications
Nov 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A United Nations proposal for a single, global classification list for chemicals used in trade is getting support—and some skeptical looks—from U.S. companies navigating the conflicting standards.
Companies in favor of a single, harmonized, global list of chemicals that would classify things like flammability and carcinogenicity, say it would reduce compliance costs and trade barriers by resolving conflicts between countries’ chemical classifications. But, skeptics say there is an overwhelming amount of work to be done to create such a list.
Hach Co., which manufactures and distributes water quality testing technology, is in favor of the proposal.
“For a multi-national company like Hach, it is very difficult to keep up with national classification lists,” James Lee, senior compliance analyst for chemicals at Hach Co., said.
In U.S. workplaces regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hazard communication citations are among the most common violations, according to the agency. In fiscal 2015, hazard communication, which governs the evaluation of chemicals in the workplace, was the second most frequently cited standard.
The United Nations committee considering the chemical list proposal is scheduled to meet Dec. 6 through Dec. 8 in Geneva. But the committee needs to reach an agreement to take action on the list.
“There are concerns about how it should be developed, politics involved, how much work and time, and whether major players like [the European Union], China, and Japan will pay much attention to this list, or even oppose it,” Lee said.
Lagging Behind
The “Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals” is a framework a U.N. committee built to help countries classify the hazards of individual chemicals used in trade.
OSHA was involved with the system at its inception, and has been taking public input on the U.N. proposal for a global list based on the system's framework. The U.N. committee first started studying the possibility of a global list in 2008.
The classifications range from a chemical's carcinogenicity to flammability to environmental contamination risk. But, since countries have based their classifications on differing studies, or interpreted them differently, a single chemical's classification can vary from country to country.
One country may designate a chemical as a known carcinogen, while another may designate it as a suspected carcinogen.
Companies know that communicating chemical hazards is a clear priority, but the classifications are not well understood, Glenn Trout, president and chief executive officer of VelocityEHS, told Bloomberg Environment.
“There's really a lot of confusion around how to label chemicals in the work environment,” Trout said.A global list proposed by the U.N. committee would align those classifications.
“Theoretically, it sounds like a great idea, but when you think about how it would be implemented, practically speaking, it is very complicated,” Melissa McCaffrey, marketing communications director for VelocityEHS, told Bloomberg Environment.
A pilot program involving three chemicals, facilitated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, found that international bodies could reach a consensus on nonbinding classifications, but “substantial” effort was required. It would take potentially 18 to 20 months from selecting a chemical to finalizing its classifications, according to Edmund Baird, counsel for standards at the U.S. Department of Labor.
“It just seems like—not an insurmountable task, but there has to be a serious commitment,” McCaffrey said.
OSHA has its own separate hazard communication rule, and doesn't plan to make changes to the rule as a result of global list feedback, according to an agency spokeswoman.
Weighing In
The American Petroleum Institute supports developing a list, as long as its classifications are not binding or mandatory. The institute's members include Alcoa Oil and Gas, Belle Fourche Pipeline, and Hess Corp.
A global list would help countries that don't have the resources to develop their own classifications, the institute said in a statement. But, the U.N. committee would need to determine how it chooses chemicals for the list and how it justifies each classification.
“These two key considerations become particularly salient when the available data are apparently conflicting,” the institute said in a statement.
The U.N. committee has already agreed that the list be developed transparently and that the classifications be non-binding.
The American Cleaning Institute, which represents companies such as Cargill, Inc., Unilever, and Colgate-Palmolive, isn't supporting the list.
The list isn't a priority for the institute's members, and the effort necessary to build a list is a significant roadblock, Richard Sedlak, executive vice president for technical and international affairs at the American Cleaning Institute, said.
It's unclear whether the U.N. committee will set a timeline if it decides to build a list.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124199487&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124199487&jd=124199487
-
California Hazardous Waste Violations Cost DirecTV $9.5 Million
Nov 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
AT&T Inc. subsidiary DirecTV will pay $9.5 million for violating California's electronic waste disposal and other hazardous waste rules under a deal with state and local prosecutors.
The settlement amends a $23.8 million judgment the prosecutors won against AT&T in 2014 for similar claims (People v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., Cal. Super. Ct., No. RG14748856, 11/21/17).
At issue are violations, between January 2005 and May 31, 2007, at 25 DirecTV facilities throughout the state. AT&T acquired the satellite video services company in 2015.
Mishandling Electronics
The agreement resolves a complaint accusing DirecTV of mishandling electronic devices such as remote controls and transformers as well as batteries, aerosol cans, and various gels and liquids. It was approved by approved by California Superior Court in Alameda County Nov. 21.
California's hazardous waste laws regulate the handling, storage, and disposal of all the materials. Under the laws, electronic devices and batteries are regulated as universal waste.
The agreement also settles alleged violations of the state's Unfair Competition Law.
AT&T moved swiftly to resolve the allegations after the DirecTV merger, the company told Bloomberg Environment in a Nov. 24 email.
“The settlement recognizes the company for taking prompt action, dedicating additional resources toward environmental compliance, and improving our hazardous and universal waste management compliance programs,” AT&T spokesman Marty Richter said.
Penalties Split
Under the agreement, DirecTV will pay $7 million in civil penalties, over $1.08 million on supplemental environmental projects, and $837,500 in investigative and attorney costs. DirecTV also will spend at least $580,000 over five years on supplemental environmental compliance measures, according to the agreement.
State agencies and local prosecutors in affected areas will benefit from some of the penalties, with the biggest chunk, $3.47 million, going to the Alameda County District Attorney Nancy E. O'Malley's office, which played a lead role in the investigation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124199488&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124199488&jd=124199488
-
Monsanto Can't Shake San Diego's PCB Nuisance Claims
Nov 27, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Monsanto must once again defend public nuisance claims brought by the City of San Diego over PCB contamination of its municipal stormwater system, the Southern District of California ruled.
The city's second amended complaint presents enough facts that the city has a property interest in its municipal stormwater system and that it is injured by Monsanto's PCBs, the court said (City of San Diego v. Monsanto Co., 2017 BL 420600, S.D. Cal., No. 15-cv-578, 11/22/17).
The court had dismissed the city's claims in September 2016, finding it failed to allege that the municipal stormwater system is “injuriously affected by the nuisance.”
The city alleges that it has incurred costs retrofitting multiple facilities in order to reduce and remove PCBs from stormwater.
Several west coast cities have filed public nuisance claims against Monsanto alleging that PCBs it made years ago have contaminated public waterways.
The suits represent an intersection of hazardous waste and product liability law that could have a far-reaching impact on industrial product manufacturers.
The other cities that have filed suit are Seattle and Spokane, Wash.; San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, Calif.; and Portland, Ore.
Monsanto's PCBs were used in electrical equipment such as transformers and motor start capacitors, and in products such as caulks, paints, and sealants.
Judge William Hayes issued the decision.
Baron & Budd PC represents San Diego.
Latham & Watkins LLP represents Monsanto.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124199494&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124199494&jd=124199494
-
Chemical Company's Response to Water Worries: Silence
Nov 25, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Emery P. Dalesio
RALEIGH, N.C. — Americans have grown accustomed to hearing apologies from everyone from cheating car-makers to cheating presidents, but a Fortune 500 chemical company with a pollution problem in North Carolina is following a different model: don't apologize, don't explain.
For six months, Wilmington, Delaware-based Chemours Co. has faced questions about an unregulated chemical with unknown health risks that flowed from the company's plant into the Cape Fear River, which provides drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people.
The company has said virtually nothing in its own defense about chemicals it may have discharged for nearly four decades, and it skipped legislative hearings looking into health concerns.
Earlier this month, North Carolina environmental regulators said they might fine Chemours, revoke its license to discharge treated wastewater into the nearby river and open a criminal probe. State officials said the company chose silence over reporting a chemical spill last month as required.
In a rare response, Chemours said it's committed to operating the plant, which employs about 900, "in accordance with all applicable laws and in a manner that respects the environment and public health and safety."Continue reading the main story
New tests have detected the chemical GenX, used to make Teflon and other industrial products, at levels beyond the state's estimated but legally unenforceable safety guidepost in 50 private water wells near Chemours' Fayetteville plant and at a water treatment plant in Wilmington, about 100 miles (62 kilometers) downstream. There are no federal health standards addressing GenX and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies it as an "emerging contaminant" to be studied.
Lack of information about the chemical, its prevalence and health effects has disturbed people across eastern North Carolina.
John Fisher, 77, said when he moved into his home 20 years ago the company's predecessor, DuPont, would invite neighbors through the gates for picnics and plant tours. But the only contact he's had with Chemours was a notice a couple of weeks ago that his water well needed testing, and its outside vendor arranging to drop off bottled water.
"They haven't officially gotten a hold of us saying, hey, we feel sorry for you, this is what we're going to do for you," Fisher said.
Fisher said he wonders whether GenX or other chemicals in his well water caused the cancer deaths of his dog and his daughter's dogs next door.
"They would get big balls hanging off their bellies and they were all cancerous," Fisher said. "We couldn't figure out why all our dogs were dying of cancer."
DuPont began using GenX to replace another fluorinated compound after neighbors of the company's Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant claimed in more than 3,500 lawsuits that the compound made them sick. DuPont spun off Chemours into a separate company two years ago. A jury in July 2016 found the two companies liable for a man's testicular cancer that he said was linked to a chemical emitted by the West Virginia plant.
The two companies this year agreed to pay nearly $671 million to settle further lawsuits.
Chemours' zipped-lip strategy is likely a defensive crouch against the threat of costly lawsuits at a time when its financial future looks bright, said Geoffrey Basye, a public affairs consultant and former Federal Aviation Administration spokesman under President George W. Bush. Bond rating agency Moody's has upgraded its opinion of the company and Chemours' stock price has more than doubled since the start of the year.
"Not only can a stock's performance play a pivotal role in how a company chooses to respond, or not respond, major shareholders and the board can also influence a company's public affairs posture," Basye said.
The company's caution could make people think it's hiding something, he said, but he noted that industrial companies like Chemours tend to have a different culture from enterprises that deal directly with consumers.
"Companies who tend to operate in the shadows before a crisis occurs have a tendency to stay in the shadows once the crisis hits," Bayse said.
Chemours' silence runs contrary to legal lessons and social science research that suggest addressing mistakes eases hard feelings and saves corporations money, said Maurice Schweitzer, a Wharton business school professor who teaches negotiation and corporate decision-making.
Studies have found an apology for medical mistakes can be enough to satisfy aggrieved patients, leading to fewer malpractice actions, greater willingness to settle lawsuits and lower demand for damages, Schweitzer said.
"The natural tendency to keep a low profile, hope things blow over, is exactly what anyone who's been harmed by some action doesn't want," he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/11/25/us/ap-us-chemical-river-no-comment-.html
-
France to Vote Against EU Licence Extension for Weed-Killer Glyphosate
Nov 27, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Dominique Vidalon
PARIS — France will vote against a five-year extension of the licence for weed-killer glyphosate that the European Commission will propose on Monday, a junior French environment minister said.
The decision makes renewal more difficult for the product, which the U.N. health agency (WHO) has said causes cancer. Glyphosate is a key ingredient in Monsanto Co's top-selling weed-killer Roundup.
"The Commission will put one single proposition on the table on Monday: renewing glyphosate (licence) for five years. In view of the risks, France will oppose this proposition and vote against it," Brune Poirson said in an editorial in French Sunday newspaper Journal du Dimanche.
Fourteen out of 28 countries voted in favour of extending the licence when the EU voted on the issue on Nov. 9 with nine against and five abstentions. Under EU rules, 16 favourable votes are needed as a "qualified majority" for renewal before authorization expires on Dec. 15.
The Commission said after the Nov. 9 vote it would resubmit the proposal at the end of the month.
Glyphosate has been used by farmers for more than 40 years but its use was cast in doubt when WHO's cancer agency said in 2015 it probably causes cancer. The European Chemical Agency said in March this year, however, there was no evidence linking it to cancer in humans.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/11/26/business/26reuters-france-glyphosate.html
-
Glyphosate Or Nuclear: What To Do beyond Scaring
Nov 27, 2017 | Euractiv
By Cécile Philippe
France should show political courage, embrace another vision and stop opposing the renewal of glyphosate’s authorisation in the EU, argues Cécile Philippe.
Cécile Philippe is an economist and Director-General of the Molinari Economic Institute.
For a number of years now, the use of the glyphosate molecule as a herbicide has been controversial to the point that today, the member states of the European Union (EU) cannot reach an agreement about it.
Under a licensing protocol in the EU, its authorisation had to be renewed in June 2016. Due to the lack of a qualified majority when the vote took place, the Commission decided to extend its authorisation by 18 months. During the vote on November 9, there was still no majority. A new vote is scheduled for 27 November. If it fails, the authorisation may expire on 15 December.
In France, a glyphosate ban for personal usage is planned from 1 January 2019 and the government may decide to ban it for all uses. However, this is not enough for our country, which wants to extend the ban across all of the EU.
To do this, our leaders say they are only willing to accept an extension for the next three years, which they say would be sufficient to phase out usage of this product. The Minister for Ecological Transition, Nicolas Hulot, said he was “proud” that France had “held firm” during the vote on 9 November.
But should we hold firm? Like nuclear, is it possible and above all reasonable to remove glyphosate in such a short period of time?
Recently, former Environment Minister Brice Lalonde praised the more realistic programme of his successor in relation to nuclear energy. In essence, Nicolas Hulot announced at the beginning of November that the objective of reducing the share of nuclear energy to 50% of electricity production would be postponed.
Hulot, the activist, could have chosen to resign in order to remain in line with his beliefs. He chose however to remain a Minister and to endure the criticism of the many commentators who accused him of backtracking and of capitulating.
This was not necessarily an easy choice because we are all subject to the powerful influence of cognitive biases whereby the more that one has invested in an idea, the more difficult it is to give it up. Undoubtedly, taking on the role of Minister forced Nicolas Hulot to take into account broader considerations.
Considerations like the absence of substitutes in the short term, the continued innovation and advancements in nuclear safety, and the impossibility of finding the perfect energy source.
It seems sensible to me that he adopts this same principle of realism when it comes to glyphosate. Because the questions that arise for glyphosate are the same as those that arise for nuclear, or for any other complex technology:
What advantages does the product in question provide and at what price? Can we do without it? Are there substitutes? Do they offer superior comparative advantages?
The use of glyphosate removes weeds without ploughing. This has important environmental benefits as it maintains soil quality, moisture and carbon content. It has the beneficial effect of increasing earthworms and insects that contribute to drainage efficiency and biodiversity.
All this without reducing yields, thus avoiding increasing land under cultivation. Organic farming, for its part, cannot do without ploughing. This is rarely mentioned in debates over the environmental sustainability of different forms of agriculture.
Today, glyphosate is a scary product because in 2015, a study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is a part of the World Health Organization (WHO), identified it as a probable carcinogenic risk.
It has also categorised alcohol and processed meats as carcinogens. Will France’s wines and charcuterie be next on the list of products to ban?
Information published by Reuters last October has tainted the credibility of the IARC study. Meanwhile, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded in March that the component should not be classified as a potential carcinogen.
This echoes the position of many agencies, including the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), which considers it an “unlikely” cancer risk, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, which, after evaluating 3,000 studies, judged that there is no evidence of toxicity to humans exposed to realistic doses.
Few are willing to give up the yields gained from a complex mix of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, techniques, innovations, etc. Therefore, wanting to ban glyphosate means believing that there are substitutes that offer at least the same benefits overall in terms of yield, price, environmental benefits, health risks, etc.
However, the debates do not deal sufficiently with this question: with what exactly are we going to substitute this product?
In this case, as in the case of nuclear energy, one must be realistic and stop believing that a perfect technique exists. There are only better or worse choices with more or fewer disadvantages. In the current state of the debate, it is no longer even possible to ask these questions calmly and to try to answer them constructively.
This is undoubtedly what courage in politics is: knowing how to give up a narrow vision when necessary in order to embrace a broader vision that takes into account the complexity of today’s society. France should embrace such a vision, and stop opposing the renewal of glyphosate’s authorisation in the EU.
-
Oil And Gas Industry Is Causing Texas Earthquakes, A ‘Landmark’ Study Suggests
Nov 24, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Ben Guarino
An unnatural number of earthquakes hit Texas in the past decade, and the region's seismic activity is increasing. In 2008, two earthquakes stronger than magnitude 3 struck the state. Eight years later, 12 did.
Natural forces trigger most earthquakes. But humans are causing earthquakes, too, with mining and dam construction the most frequent suspects. There has been a recent increase in natural gas extraction — including fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, but other techniques as well — which produces a lot of wastewater. To get rid of it, the water is injected deep into the ground. When wastewater works its way into dormant faults, the thinking goes, the water's pressure nudges the ancient cracks. Pent-up tectonic stress releases and the ground shakes.
But for any given earthquake, it is virtually impossible to tell whether humans or nature triggered the quake. There are no known characteristics of a quake, not in magnitude nor in the shape of its seismic waves, that provide hints to its origins.
“It’s been a head-scratching period for scientists,” said Maria Beatrice Magnani, who studies earthquakes at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Along with a team of researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey, Magnani, an author of a new report published Friday in the journal Science Advances, attempted to better identify what has been causing the rash of Texas quakes.
A cluster of earthquakes around a drilling project can, at best, suggest a relationship. “The main approach has been to correlate the location to where there has been human activity,” said Michael Blanpied, a USGS geophysicist and co-author of the new study.
The study authors took a different approach in the new work — they hunted for deformed faults below Texas. “This technique is called high-resolution seismic reflection imaging,” Magnani said. Seismic reflection is the same tool that allows extractors to find oil and gas deposits in underground structures.
To collect seismic reflection data, an artificially generated wave ripples through the ground and reflects back to the surface, like light off a mirror. The result is “a little bit like an ultrasound,” Magnani said, revealing not baby toes but twisted rock.
The scientists compared the Texas earth with Mississippi, another seismically active region that, like Texas, is not close to a turbulent edge of a tectonic plate. Unlike Texas, though, north Mississippi has a much longer history of recorded earthquakes, going back to the early 1800s.
An underground ultrasound revealed that, beneath Texas, the most recent signs of active faults were in a geologic layer 300 million years old — 70 million years before the first dinosaur took its first step. All the younger layers above it were stable.
“All the displacement was stopping at a layer that is 300 million years old,” Magnani said. “The fault did not move after that layer was deposited.”
In the Mississippi region, in contrast, the rock told a story of continuous fault activity, unbroken for the last 65 million years.
Given the lack of faults in Texas's most recent 300 million years of history, there is no known geologic process that could explain its sudden quake outbreak. “There is no other explanation” except that these earthquakes are caused by human activity, Magnani said.
The study is in line with what other earthquake experts had surmised using different analyses. “We don't expect a lot of pushback” from the scientific community, Blanpied said.
“This is a landmark contribution in the question of whether the Fort Worth basin earthquakes are man-made,” said Cliff Frohlich, a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin who was not involved with the study. Frohlich said this research eliminates the possibility, sometimes raised by the oil and gas industry, that the Texas quakes are part of a natural cycle of faults that awaken every few thousand or million years.
The seismic reflection data provide a powerful argument “that these earthquakes are something new and different,” he said — activity stemming from the injection of wastewater deep into basement rock. (“Most of the time it's the large volume injection,” he said, “not the little frack jobs.")
In March 2016, the USGS published a map of the likely areas where human-made earthquakes will strike in the United States. About 7 million people are at risk of these events, with Texas and nearby Oklahoma among the most susceptible states.
“We hope that the response from our colleagues will be to deploy this [technique] elsewhere,” Blanpied said. Magnani said she would like to apply seismic reflection to Oklahoma, which has also experienced an unusual uptick in earthquakes.
But seismic reflection data are difficult and expensive to collect, though the oil and gas industry will sell the information. As for why no one else had attempted to do this before, the authors said Magnani was simply the first person to have the idea to use seismic reflection to look for old faults.
There is still more work to do. Any successful regulatory process, Magnani said, will require an understanding of the physical processes that trigger human-made earthquakes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/24/fracking-and-other-human-activities-are-causing-texas-earthquakes-study-suggests/?utm_term=.98a8f29d6bf7
-
44K Gallons Recovered So Far From Keystone Pipeline Spill
Nov 25, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline that leaked last week, spilling more than 200,000 gallons of oil into the South Dakota countryside, says it is making progress with cleanup efforts.
TransCanada Corp. announced Friday that it has recovered more than 44,000 gallons of oil so far from the spill site, which is located in Amherst, S.D., according to Reuters.
The company was forced to shut down the 590,000 barrel-per-day pipeline on Nov. 16 when a leak of more than 5,000 barrels of oil, or about 210,000 gallons, was reported.
A statement from TransCanada promised that the company had tested local drinking water to make sure it wasn't contaminated. The company has added at least 170 personnel to deal with the spill, according to Reuters.
“As a safety precaution, TransCanada sampled one residential water well yesterday at a location about 1.5 miles from the site to alleviate any concerns — all test results were normal,” TransCanada said.
The company announced in a statement last week that protecting the environment remained one of its "top priorities."
"TransCanada appreciates the collaborative support of local officials, emergency response personnel and commissioners in Marshall County, as well as the landowner who has given permission to access land for assessment, identification and clean-up activities," the company said.
"The safety of the public and environment are our top priorities and we will continue to provide updates as they become available."
On Wednesday, a federal judge allowed a key lawsuit against the pipeline's permit to move forward in the wake of the spill despite protests from the Trump administration. The lawsuit over the project's permit is one of the key roadblocks in the way of the pipeline.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/361780-more-than-44400-gallons-recovered-so-far-from-keystone-pipeline
-
Editorial: Industrial Safety Is A Community Concern
Nov 26, 2017 | SFGate
By Editorial Board
Two Bay Area counties are home to oil refineries, but only one has an industrial safety ordinance directed at preventing accidents that could harm workers and pollute the air — Contra Costa County. Solano County has no ordinance, but Benicia, where Valero operates a refinery, is beginning a conversation on adopting a city safety ordinance.
The push for the city ordinance comes at a time when the state recently has adopted its own industrial safety ordinance modeled on the Contra Costa County ordinance. The regional air quality board also unanimously adopted on Nov. 15 the strictest regulation in the nation to limit emissions of cancer-causing toxic air contaminants. Solano County officials say they are studying the new state regulations but question the need for another layer of governmental oversight.
The goal, said Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, who called the Nov. 14 community meeting along with a coalition of environmental and community groups, “is to get a seat at the table.”
Air quality is always a concern in a refinery town, but a May 5 incident at Valero that sent huge plumes of black smoke and flames soaring into the sky reignited community worries. The flaring resulted in shelter-in-place and evacuation orders and raised the price of gasoline. It was later determined the refinery had released 80,000 pounds of toxic sulfur dioxide — a huge amount, experts said.
Two investigations (one by the state, one by the county) found Valero not at fault, but the county’s findings were never forwarded to the city and only revealed through a public records act request. The regional air board is still investigating.
Valero is suing PG&E over a power failure that preceded the refinery losing control of its process.
An industrial safety ordinance would bring Benicia — and surrounding communities — into the know and give residents directly affected some say.
An ordinance also would require Valero to pay fees to the city, or Solano County if the Board of Supervisors adopts an ordinance, to contract for the engineering expertise needed to oversee prevention programs, audits and inspections. Unsurprisingly, Valero is against the idea.
Contra Costa County adopted its industrial safety ordinance in December 1998 after a series of incidents, and just days before four men were killed and a fifth seriously burned in a gruesome refinery accident. Richmond soon after adopted its own ordinance. Contra Costa’s ordinance is held up by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board as a model. The record shows the number of refinery and chemical facility incidents has diminished since adoption.
Industrial safety is a public concern. The public deserves to be in the know.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Industrial-safety-is-a-community-12382466.php
-
Committee To Weigh NEPA Reforms
Nov 27, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow and Kellie Lunney
The House Natural Resources Committee is set to consider revising National Environmental Policy Act guidelines during a hearing this week.
A mainstay of federal environmental oversight, NEPA was enacted on Jan. 1, 1970. In addition to establishing the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the law requires agencies to assess the environmental impact of their proposed actions.
Since its passage nearly 50 years ago, NEPA has come under fire from some business interests that say it slows the progress of large infrastructure projects. CEQ said in September that it would take steps to speed up the reviews (E&E News PM, Sept. 14).
The Trump administration has made efforts at other agencies to expedite NEPA studies. Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt issued a September memo directing that environmental impact statements under NEPA "shall not be more than 150 pages or 300 pages for unusually complex projects" (Greenwire, Sept. 6).
Natural Resources has also been paying more attention to NEPA issues, elevating oversight from the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee to the full panel.
"The original goal of this piece of legislation was to ensure that each federal agency carefully considers how their decisions will impact the environment. Today, however, the regulatory reach of NEPA far outweighs its general concern for the wellbeing of our environment," the Natural Resources majority says on its website.
"It has become another tool for excessive litigation and to block or impede literally any economic or energy-related activity that may have a federal nexus," the site says.
"The Obama Administration's push to force its climate agenda using NEPA as a back door regulatory tool has begun to seriously impact the future development and production of energy, electricity, transportation, forest management, agriculture and a host of other activities that are the base of the American economy," it says.
Other NEPA-related hearings since last year have focused on CEQ guidance on greenhouse gas emissions scrutiny, environmental group litigation and Obama regulations.
The idea of waiving NEPA to expedite recovery in Puerto Rico, which faces years of rebuilding from Hurricane Maria, is likely to crop up during the hearing.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) in late September said waiving requirements for detailed environmental assessments of projects that receive federal funds would be a boon to the island, whose electric grid was mostly destroyed (E&E Daily, Sept. 27).
NEPA's environmental review process can be waived under the Stafford Act for emergency actions, although other environmental laws still apply.
Democrats, including the panel's ranking member, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, have complained that Bishop and other Republicans have tried to undermine bedrock environmental laws like NEPA through various legislative maneuvers, including bills aimed at streamlining the backlog of oil and gas permits for federal lands.
Bishop last month, however, used NEPA to his advantage. He introduced his long-awaited Antiquities Act reform bill, which would sharply reduce the president's authority to designate national monuments under the current law.
That bill includes new limitations on the size and purpose of national monuments and would institute requirements for those sites to be reviewed under NEPA (E&E Daily, Oct. 10).
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, Nov. 29, at 10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.
Witnesses: Mike Bridges, president, Longview/Kelso Building Trades and Construction Council, Portland, Ore.; Jim Willox, commissioner, Converse County, Wyo.; Philip Howard, chairman, Common Good, New York City; and Dinah Bear, former general counsel, White House Council on Environmental Quality.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/11/27/stories/1060067291
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested