Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/28
-
(ACC Mentioned) McSally Internal Poll Shows Tie with Ward
Nov 27, 2017 | Politico - Morning Score
By Maggie Severns
...American Chemistry Council backs Heitkamp, Barrasso with TV ads: The American Chemistry Council, which began airing ads backing Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow and the GOP's Heller last week, also plans to air ads supporting North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, according to FEC disclosures. -
Court Denies EPA Bid to Relocate TSCA Lawsuit
Nov 27, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today denied EPA’s request to transfer to another court a lawsuit over one of the agency’s implementation rules under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Deadline Approaching for Chemical Manufacturers and Importers to Submit Chemical Substance Notifications to US EPA Under the TSCA Inventory Reset Rule
Nov 27, 2017 | The National Law Reivew
By Stephen A. Owens
-
WARNING – These Chemicals In Your Household Products Are Harming You
Nov 27, 2017 | Reports Healthcare
By Klaire Smith
New laws introduced in the United States recently have granted the Environmental Protection Agency more power and authority over the use or addition of chemicals that can be considered harmful to health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Open to Trade-Off If Republicans Dump Dourson
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
Senate Democrats appear willing to grease the skids for at least some Trump administration nominees if Republicans give up on Michael Dourson to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dourson Likely To Continue Advisor Role At EPA If GOP Fails To Act On Pick
Nov 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Michael Dourson, the Trump administration's controversial nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, is likely to continue in his role as an adviser to Administrator Scott Pruitt if the Senate GOP declines to act on his stalled nomination, sources say, suggesting there may be an incentive for Republicans to avoid considering the nominee and for the administration to maintain his pick. -
CPSC Issues Final Rule on Phthalates in Toys and Child Care Products
Nov 27, 2017 | The National Law Reivew
By Amy M. Rubenstein and Sarah K. Schiferl
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a final rule in October prohibiting the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation of toys and child care products containing more than 0.1 percent of five phthalate chemicals. -
With Prodding, Retailers Push Chemical Policies
Nov 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
A year ago, the Mind the Store campaign of consumer activist organization Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families issued a report card grading 11 retail chains on their efforts to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in products they carry. -
States Push Efforts to Address PFAS
Nov 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
Officials in three states -- Minnesota, New Jersey and North Carolina -- are pushing regulatory and litigation pressures on manufacturers to address releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a persistent class of chemicals that EPA does not formally regulate. -
Cape Is a Hot Spot for Certain Cancers
Nov 28, 2017 | Cape Cod Times
By Joyce R. Young
Everyone who lives on or visits Cape Cod loves the natural, tranquil beauty of its coastal waters and beaches and the diverse wildlife. -
First Amendment Suit Takes Aim At California's Listing Of Glyphosate As A 'Potential Carcinogen'
Nov 27, 2017 | Forbes
By Corey L. Andrews
Long the subject of much controversy, California’s Proposition 65 law prohibits businesses from exposing Californians to chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer” without first providing a warning. -
Top Weedkiller to Stay on European Market for Five More Years
Nov 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Stearns and Stephen Gardner
The European Union agreed to keep glyphosate, one of the world's most widely used herbicides, on the market for another five years, ending a political deadlock that resulted from concerns the chemical poses a cancer risk. -
Activists See Silver Lining In Europe's Roundup Approval
Nov 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The European Union's vote to to extend the authorization of the common herbicide glyphosate for five more years is a bitter pill for environmental organizations, which fought a transatlantic battle to curb use of the world's most popular herbicide. -
(ACC Mentioned) Turning America's Energy Abundance into Energy Dominance
Nov 28, 2017 | The Mercury
By Nicolas Loris
President Trump has spoken vociferously about American “energy dominance.” That’s good news for your energy bills, but also the economy at large. -
Clean Power Plan Battle Awaits EPA's New Air Chief Wehrum
Nov 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Just days into his new job as the EPA's top air pollution official, Bill Wehrum is about to dive into his office's most contentious fight: rolling back the first-ever carbon dioxide standards for power plants. -
Curtain Rises on Rollback Frenzy
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
The funeral planned by the Trump administration for a key climate policy could turn into an Irish wake today as hundreds of activists, protesters and energy industry executives converge on this sleepy coal country capital. -
Energy Oversight Woes Still Need Tending — IG
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Senior Interior Department officials say achieving "energy dominance" is their top priority. -
Keystone Pipeline to Restart Operations on Tuesday
Nov 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Keystone pipeline will return to service on Tuesday, operators announced, nearly two weeks after spilling about 5,000 barrels of oil in rural South Dakota. -
Ewire: Trump Administration 'Supports' Deal Limiting HFCs
Nov 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
A State Department official says the administration supports the “goals and approach” of an international deal reached last years to limit the production and use of refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, offering a rare example of a climate policy the Trump administration endorses. -
Caucus Defends Its Embrace of EPA Foe
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
When a freshman congressman who tried to abolish U.S. EPA joined the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus last week, observers — including environmentalists — expressed confusion and concern.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) McSally Internal Poll Shows Tie with Ward
Nov 27, 2017 | Politico - Morning Score
By Maggie Severns
EARLY POLLING DATA — FIRST IN SCORE — McSally internal poll shows tie with Ward: An internal polling memo from Arizona Rep. Martha McSally's campaign, obtained by Morning Score, has the congresswoman essentially tied with former State Sen. Kelli Ward in the state's GOP Senate primary. The survey has McSally earning 38 percent of the vote to Ward's 36 percent, with 26 percent undecided. Public polling in the race, mostly IVR surveys, has shown Ward with a significant lead over McSally, who has yet to officially launch her campaign. "Contrary to what some public polls suggest, Kelli Ward does not hold a strong position in the Primary race for United States Senate in Arizona. The limitations of these poorly-conducted surveys have created a misleading dialogue about the state of the nomination contest," WPA Intelligence pollsters Chris Wilson and Alex Muir write. Read the full memo here.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT FALLOUT — “Conyers allegations put Pelosi in tight spot,” by POLITICO’s Kyle Cheney and Heather Caygle: “Rep. John Conyers said Sunday he was stepping down from his post as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee amid accusations of sexual harassment that have put his party's leaders in a bind. The decision by the Michigan lawmaker — who has held his seat since 1965 and who denies the harassment allegations — followed several days of internal deliberation and pressure from Democratic colleagues, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who wanted Conyers to leave the high-profile post but didn't want to be seen as forcing him out. Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) and assistant Democratic leader Jim Clyburn(D-S.C.) reached out to some CBC members over the Thanksgiving recess to take the temperature of the caucus, according to multiple sources. The group is arguably the most powerful bloc within the House Democratic Caucus and is fiercely protective of its members, particularly Conyers, who was a founding member.”
— “In an interview Sunday on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ Pelosi seemed to underscore the cautious approach by taking pains to praise Conyers' record and call for ‘due process,’ even as she said she believed ‘he will do the right thing.’ She also referred to Conyers as an ‘icon’ for his lengthy service and work ‘to protect women.’ … After criticism on social media of her use of the word ‘icon,’ Pelosi quickly endorsed Conyers’ decision to step aside from the committee post. ‘No matter how great an individual’s legacy, it is not a license for harassment,’ she said in a statement.” Full story.
— Primary politics note: Conyers has faced contested primaries in each of the last three elections, getting less than 61 percent of the Democratic vote twice. If Conyers does decide to run for reelection, don’t sleep on the prospect of him losing this time around despite his “safe” district.
AIR WARS — FIRST IN SCORE — Not One Penny targets Murkowski, Capito in new ads: Not One Penny, a coalition of Democratic groups fighting the GOP plan for tax reform, is out with new television ads pressuring Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to vote against the plan. The ad aimed at Capito notes the plan “cuts access to affordable health care, including coverage for opioid addiction treatment,” while the ad encouraging voters to call Murkowski says the “congressional Republican tax plan delivers tax breaks to billionaires, millionaires and wealthy corporations.” The ads are part of a seven-figure national ad buy, which also includes spots aimed at Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller. Watch the ads here and here. Full story here.
—American Chemistry Council backs Heitkamp, Barrasso with TV ads: The American Chemistry Council, which began airing ads backing Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow and the GOP's Heller last week, also plans to air ads supporting North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, according to FEC disclosures. Heitkamp faces a tough fight for reelection, while Barrasso may face a GOP primary challenge. The group is spending $571,000 on ads supporting Stabenow, $590,000 on ads supporting Heller, $153,000 on ads supporting Heitkamp and $133,000 on ads backing Barrasso. The 30-second spot ad boosting Heitkamp says “she fights to provide a strong safety net for our agriculture industry while working to lessen regulations for our farmers and small businesses.” Watch the ad here.
CASH CRISIS — NRSC raises $2.1M, spends $2.7M in October: The NRSC spent $2.7 million and raised just $2.1 million in October, according to FEC records, the fourth month in a row the group spent more than it brought in. The committee has about $14.3 million on hand, but still has $10.3 million in debt. Its counterpart, the DSCC, raised $4.1 million, spent $2.4 million and has $17.5 million on hand. The DSCC has about $8 million in debt, which includes the mortgage on its Capitol Hill offices. Full report here.
Days until the 2018 election: 344.
Thanks for joining us! You can email tips to the Campaign Pro team at sbland@politico.com, eschneider@politico.com, krobillard@politico.com, dstrauss@politico.com and mseverns@politico.com.
You can also follow us on Twitter: @politicoscott, @ec_schneider, @politicokevin, @danielstrauss4 and @maggieseverns.
WOMEN RULE WEEK! POLITICO is partnering with women-led businesses in the DC-metro area to offer a full week of exclusive perks in conjunction with the 5th annual Women Rule Summit! Join the fun at participating businesses during Women Rule Week (Nov. 27 – Dec. 1) for exclusive deals and tweet 5x using #WomenRule for a chance to win two free tickets to the Summit on Dec. 5!
UH OH — “The time to hack-proof the 2018 election is expiring — and Congress is way behind,” by POLITICO’s Martin Matishak: “Lawmakers are scrambling to push something — anything — through Congress that would help secure the nation’s voting systems ahead of the 2018 elections. But it might already be too late for some critical targets. By this point during the 2016 election cycle, Russian hackers had already been in the Democratic National Committee’s networks for at least three months. … Voters in Texas and Illinois will take to the polls in the country’s first primaries in just over three months — a narrow timeline for implementing software patches, let alone finding the funds to overhaul creaky IT systems, swap out aging voting machines or implement state-of-the-art digital audits.” Full story here.
ICYMI — “Moore communications director resigns”: “Embattled Alabama GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore has lost his campaign communications director with only three weeks to go before the Dec. 12 special election, Moore's campaign announced. … The statement did not include a reason for Rogers' departure.” Full story here.
— “Pro-Jones super PAC touts Democrat's Christian values and support for gun rights,” by POLITICO’s Daniel Strauss: “A new ad by the pro-Doug Jones super PAC Highway 31 argues that the Democratic Senate nominee in Alabama would be led by his Christian convictions and is a strong defender of gun rights. ‘He's the tough prosecutor who brought the [1996 Atlanta] Olympics bomber, Eric Rudolph, to justice,’ the narrator in the ad says.” Full story here.
— Trump weighed in on Jones over the weekend: “The last thing we need in Alabama and the U.S. Senate is a Schumer/Pelosi puppet who is WEAK on Crime, WEAK on the Border, Bad for our Military and our great Vets, Bad for our 2nd Amendment, AND WANTS TO RAISES TAXES TO THE SKY. Jones would be a disaster!” Trump wrote on Twitter. More from POLITICO’s Matthew Nussbaum here.
FLIPPING 24 SEATS — March On’s Fight Back PAC announced a new fundraising campaign for 2018 called $24 for 24. Per a press release, “the campaign is centered around impeachment and the concern that the Republican Congress would not initiate impeachment proceedings no matter what Special Counsel Robert Mueller reports. The only way we can be sure any potential allegations against Donald Trump and his cronies are handled correctly is to flip the 24 Congressional seats needed to take back the majority in Congress. ... Andi Pringle, Executive Director of March On’s Fight Back PAC, said, 'Flipping Congress is no easy task. Whether you’re a committed activist or not, $24 for 24 is a way everyone can participate in the vitally important work of reclaiming our country from the extreme Right. That is the only way we’ll be able to turn the tide on issues of importance to our community, whether that’s women’s reproductive health, climate change protections or impeachment.'”
FLORIDA MAN — “John Morgan: I'm leaving Democratic party, Nelson should run for governor,” BY POLITICO Florida’s Matt Dixon: “John Morgan tossed a bomb Friday into the 2018 political landscape, saying in a post-Thanksgiving message he is leaving the Democratic Party, and that Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson should not run for re-election, but rather seek the governor's mansion so he can leave a ‘legacy.’ … Morgan did not close the door on the idea of running for governor himself — a notion supported by many in his party — but said in his message, if he did, he would do so as an independent.” Full story here. Read Morgan’s Facebook post here.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I'm not aware of a single senator of either party who was elected for supporting leadership, and I know there hasn't been a candidate elected by opposing Mitch McConnell,” said GOP strategist Josh Holmes, a former McConnell chief of staff, downplaying the notion that candidates stand to gain by avoiding McConnell this year in POLITICO.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-score/2017/11/27/mcsally-internal-poll-shows-tie-with-ward-032062
-
Court Denies EPA Bid to Relocate TSCA Lawsuit
Nov 27, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today denied EPA’s request to transfer to another court a lawsuit over one of the agency’s implementation rules under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act.
Three lawsuits over the prioritization rule, which established how EPA will determine which chemicals to study first, were consolidated in September in the 9th Circuit. Meanwhile challenges to the evaluation rule, which governs how EPA will study each chemical, were moved to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Trump administration and the environmental groups challenging those rules each tried to have both transferred to the same court. EPA asked for the prioritization rule suits to be moved to the 4th Circuit, while green groups asked for the evaluation rule to be moved to the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit’s denial means that the prioritization rule lawsuits will remain there. The order, which did not include an explanation, was issued by Judges Wallace Tashima, William Fletcher and Richard Tallman, all Clinton appointees. The judges ordered opening briefs be filed by Jan. 23.
WHAT’S NEXT: The 4th Circuit last week said it would wait to decide its path forward until the 9th Circuit had ruled. The 4th Circuit could choose to transfer its evaluation rule lawsuit to the 9th Circuit or instead to keep it.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2017/11/court-denies-epa-bid-to-relocate-tsca-lawsuit-138734?print=true
-
Nov 27, 2017 | The National Law Reivew
By Stephen A. Owens
The February 7, 2018 deadline is rapidly approaching for manufacturers and importers of chemical substances in the US to submit their notifications to US EPA as required by the Inventory Reset Rule issued by US EPA pursuant to the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The Inventory Reset Rule requires every chemical manufacturer and importer to notify US EPA of each chemical substance it manufactured or imported for a non-exempt commercial purpose in the US during the 10-year period ending June 21, 2016 (the “lookback period”). Each chemical substance for which US EPA receives a notice will be designated as “active” on the TSCA Inventory.
The rule also gives chemical processors the option to report to US EPA any chemical substance they processed during the same lookback period, but they must do so by October 5, 2018.
Any chemical substance that is subject to the reporting requirement will be designated as “inactive” on the Inventory if it is not reported to US EPA by a manufacturer, importer or processor by the applicable deadline. Once the Inventory “reset” is finalized, no one may manufacture, import or process an inactive substance without giving US EPA prior notice not more than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacturing, importing or processing.
Certain substances do not have to be reported to US EPA for purposes of the Inventory Reset Rule. Substances that are generally excluded from being listed on the TSCA Inventory do not have to be reported (i.e., naturally occurring substances and substances that are excluded based on the low volume exemption, LoREX exemption, polymer exemption, test marketing exemption or R&D exemption). The Inventory Reset Rule also exempts all substances for which US EPA already has received an “equivalent” notice: substances that were reported in response to the 2012 or 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR); substances that were added to the Inventory during the lookback period pursuant to a Notice of Commencement (NOC) submitted to US EPA during that period; and substances added to the TSCA Inventory since June 22, 2016. US EPA has posted a list of the exempt substances on its website.
In addition to these exemptions, the Inventory Reset Rule provides that a manufacturer or importer is not required to submit a notice for a substance covered by the lookback period if the manufacturer has “evidence in the form of a CDX receipt” from another manufacturer showing that the other manufacturer or importer submitted a notice to US EPA for the substance. US EPA cautions, however, that any manufacturer relying on the exemption “bears the risk” if the other manufacturer later withdraws its notice and the substance is subsequently designated as inactive. US EPA also has stated that a company seeking to maintain an existing “confidential business information” (CBI) claim for the chemical identity of a substance should submit a notice for the substance and assert the CBI claim itself even if a company is relying on a CDX receipt from another manufacturer. Otherwise, the company runs the risk that the other company did not assert the CBI claim or even that the other company might withdraw its submission entirely.
US EPA also has compiled a “preliminary” list of chemical substances for which the agency received notices through November 10, 2017. US EPA will update this list approximately once each month. The list is for “informational purposes only,” however, and does not relieve manufacturers and importers from the obligation to report the substances that they have manufactured or imported. According to US EPA, substances identified on the list are not exempt from the reporting requirement unless, as noted above, a manufacturer has obtained a copy of the CDX receipt from another manufacturer or importer showing that the other company reported the substance to US EPA.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/deadline-approaching-chemical-manufacturers-and-importers-to-submit-chemical
-
WARNING – These Chemicals In Your Household Products Are Harming You
Nov 27, 2017 | Reports Healthcare
By Klaire Smith
New laws introduced in the United States recently have granted the Environmental Protection Agency more power and authority over the use or addition of chemicals that can be considered harmful to health.
The new Act is also cited as a milestone by many. Under the Frank R. Lautenberg, Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the review of existing chemicals will be done by the Environmental Protection Agency for the first time.
So, where should the Environmental Protection Agency begin its investigation and what has it considered doing so far?
As soon as the new Act was introduced, a number of public health organizations started preparing lists of the most dangerous chemicals that are present in some of the most widely used and needed products in the United States.
One of the lists, which was created by a popular public health advocate, became popular with the organizations and was recognized by the Environmental Working Group.
The list comprised of ten out of the approximately eighty thousands chemicals that are a potential threat to health and used in common household products.
The Environmental Working Group suggested that the Environmental Protection Group should begin with the chemicals on the since not only does the EPA have the ultimate power now but it can actually protect the general population from a lot of health conditions.
Taking such a step is needed and extremely important as you might not know but the products you use in your life such as detergents, soaps, cleaners, and shampoos contain chemicals which have been linked to cancer, thyroid problems, birth defects, and many other health conditions.
Which are the chemicals that were named on the particular list?
The list was prepared through a close examination of the effect of the chemical present in some product on the health as well as how widely are the product(s) containing it used.
One of the chemicals that is specially named by multiple public health organizations, environmental protection organizations, and was among the top names in the list is Asbestos which is also one of the no safe exposure chemicals.
This means that no matter how little you are exposed to it, it will still be potentially harmful and you should prevent it as much as possible. Many people think it has been banned since the 1980s but in reality, there are a number of products still having the substance.
The name the came second to Asbestos on the list was PERC or what is also known as perchloroethylene. It is a recognized as a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Cancer Research.
Make sure to check your spot removers, dry-cleaning fluids, makeup removers, and water repellents of this substance is usually found in these products.
Phthalates are another problematic substance that comes on the number third on the list. They have been linked to the early production of reproductive hormones in girls as well as an early puberty which raises the risk of breast cancer.
Chlorinated phosphate fire retardants are substances found in upholstered furniture, baby seats in cars, foam cushions, and insulation that have been linked to possible permanent brain and nerve damage.
You might have seen a chemical called BPA at the back of many food cans which also happens to be very dangerous chemicals with far-reaching effects. It has been linked to diabetes, infertility, and developmental risks.
Other chemicals that were on the list and can potentially harm you include TBBPA and related chemicals, DEHA, bromopropane, and P-dichlorobenzene, all of which are probable carcinogens and present in furniture, mattress, baby products, plastic wraps and many common things.
It is suggested that you avoid any products that you know contain the mentioned chemicals till the EPA decides to take action. Although there are over 80000 chemicals that are toxic and present in many products, it is good to begin by eliminating the most dangerous ones.
https://reportshealthcare.com/warning-chemicals-household-products-harming/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Open to Trade-Off If Republicans Dump Dourson
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
Senate Democrats appear willing to grease the skids for at least some Trump administration nominees if Republicans give up on Michael Dourson to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program.
Democrats are staunchly against Dourson, and several Republicans have either expressed their opposition or concern with confirming him as assistant administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Democrats say they want his nomination withdrawn in return for agreeing to votes on less controversial Trump picks.
"We've made it very clear to Republicans and the administration that we think they should just pull down the nomination and ask him to leave his sinecure that he has at EPA, and that will help us to move forward on some other nominees that are awaiting action," said Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Dourson is a veteran of the agency who went on to found Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, a nonprofit firm that frequently downplayed the health risks posed by chemicals for industry clients.
TERA and Dourson joined the University of Cincinnati in 2015, where he worked until last month when he quietly left to take a job advising EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
The position was intended to help Dourson get reacquainted with the agency while his nomination worked its way through the Senate (E&E Daily, Oct. 18).
But that plan ran into trouble when North Carolina Republican Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis announced they would vote against confirming Dourson, due to their concerns about his industry-funded chemical research.
With only a two-seat majority in the Senate and the vice president as a tie-breaker, his nomination would fail if he lost another GOP senator's support (Greenwire, Nov. 16).
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake — one of six Republican senators whom environmental groups are pressuring to oppose Dourson — said yesterday he was "still looking" at the nominee.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another target of environmentalists, told E&E News in a brief interview, "I don't have any answers about Michael Dourson."
She said, "I don't have an opinion on him at this point. We've been kind of trying to push through some of the others, and I have not focused on him."
The office of Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who told reporters before the Thanksgiving break she was "leaning against him," responded to a request for her latest thoughts by sending her earlier quotes.
Aides for other Republicans whom environmentalists now hope to win over — Tennessee Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander and Arizona Sen. John McCain — didn't respond to questions about Dourson.
Those lawmakers are all from "places that are struggling with chemical contamination of drinking water or other types of issues that are relevant because Dourson has worked directly on those chemicals in those places," said Richard Denison, the Environmental Defense Fund's lead scientist.
"There's a lot of effort we, and other groups, have been mounting to make sure that senators in those states understand that the conflicts that Dourson would bring to this job directly reflect situations that have played out in their states," Denison said.
That includes action alerts directed at the senators' offices, op-eds and editorials, and direct contacts with the lawmakers and their staffs.
The American Chemistry Council remains strongly behind Dourson.
"We still support Dr. Dourson's nomination for this important position with EPA during this crucial point in the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act," ACC spokesman Jon Corley said in an email.
"His knowledge, experience and leadership will strengthen EPA's processes for evaluating and incorporating high quality science into regulatory decision making."
ACC has a lot of political muscle and favors that it can call in to help Dourson. The trade group has 64 lobbyists on staff or contract and has already donated at least $58,000 to Senate Republicans in the 2018 election cycle, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
But in a bid to kill Dourson's nomination and force him out of the agency, Democrats are withholding their backing from EPA nominees like Susan Bodine, Trump's well-regarded pick for enforcement chief.
Asked whether he was referring to Bodine, a veteran of both the George W. Bush EPA and EPW Republican staff, Carper laughed.
"Yes, that could be one," he told E&E News, before adding that EPW Democrats also want more responses to their oversight letters from EPA. "I think we're starting to see some progress."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060067407/search?keyword=American+Chemistry+Council
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dourson Likely To Continue Advisor Role At EPA If GOP Fails To Act On Pick
Nov 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Michael Dourson, the Trump administration's controversial nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, is likely to continue in his role as an adviser to Administrator Scott Pruitt if the Senate GOP declines to act on his stalled nomination, sources say, suggesting there may be an incentive for Republicans to avoid considering the nominee and for the administration to maintain his pick.
The sources cite several cases during the Obama and other administrations when nominees for top EPA jobs continued playing similar advisory roles at the agency even though their nominations failed to advance in the Senate.
As a result, sources expect that Dourson could continue for some time to serve in his current role as Pruitt's advisor on chemical issues as long as the Senate doesn't vote on his nomination and he retains the administration's support.
By contrast, if the Senate were to act and the nomination were to fail, Dourson would face pressure to depart. “There are not a lot of examples at EPA of a nominee being affirmatively voted down by the Senate,” one former EPA official says. “If that happened, he couldn't stay.”
Dourson, a former EPA risk assessor and industry consultant, has faced strong opposition from Democrats and environmentalists, who fear he would undermine efforts to implement the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act.
But his nomination is in shaky territory after North Carolina's two Republican senators -- Richard Burr and Tom Tillis -- came out in opposition to the nomination over his past work on behalf of industry groups involved in several major chemical contamination issues in the state. A third GOP senator, Susan Collins (R-ME), has also indicated she is leaning against his confirmation.
Even Democrats who might otherwise support the nominee have declined to do so or to take a public position. As one example, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), whose state is home to at least two high-profile chemical release events where Dourson helped industry develop less-protective safety standards, issued a statement declining to support Dourson.
Although the nomination is stalled, Dourson is serving as a special adviser to Pruitt on chemical issues, an appointment that is drawing concerns from Senate Democrats who say it is at odds with a Supreme Court ruling in National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, which limits appointees' ability to serve in interim positions under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
But the former official says Dourson's advisory role could continue as long as the Senate does not kill the nomination. “The whole notion of being a consultant is that you're at the agency getting up to speed on the issues. If you're no longer waiting to get confirmed” the reasoning no longer applies.
In such a case, Dourson would either leave the agency or Pruitt would have to find him a different position as a political appointment, though the deputy assistant administrator political appointment in the toxics office is already filled by Nancy Beck, formerly of the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's biggest trade group.
An industry source considers it unlikely that President Donald Trump will nominate anyone else for the post anytime soon. “I'm assuming that Dourson is going to be the casualty that people are looking for,” the source says. “Think how incompetent the White House political office is. I can't imagine we get another [EPA toxics] nominee any time soon, if at all.”
In either case, Beck will continue running the office from her appointed position, which did not require confirmation, the source adds.
Past Precedent
But if the Senate decided not to act on the controversial nominee, the former official says, there are “any number of scenarios” that could play out, including the president deciding to withdraw the nomination on the theory that he won't be confirmed and he needs to nominate someone else.
“If the president pulls the nomination, [Dourson] could stay at the agency only if they find another political appointee's [slot].”
Alternatively, Trump could leave the nomination pending and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee could say it's still pending. “That may be a basis to keep [Dourson] on as a consultant,” the source says.
Looking to past precedent, the source points to a quartet of Obama administration nominees who were never confirmed but continued to serve in top roles: Ken Kopocis to lead the water office, Janet McCabe to lead the air office, Stan Meiburg to serve as deputy administrator and Tom Burke, nominated three times to serve as EPA's research chief.
While such practice was considered routine at the time, the high court ruling likely undermines agencies' ability to continue it.
In the case of the four Obama nominees, none was ever confirmed, though the source argues that the Obama nominees' situations are different from Dourson's.
During the Obama administration, Republican senators blocked many EPA nominees because of concerns about EPA decisions or actions with which they disagreed, the source says. In these cases, “the failure to confirm was not a personal rejection” of the nominee. “If you have a situation where it's pretty clear the votes are not there to confirm … that's a different situation. This is an example of a candidate for reasons specific to him there are objections.”
The source noted that William Wehrum, confirmed shortly before the Senate's Thanksgiving recess to lead EPA's air office, was similarly nominated to lead that office during the George W. Bush administration. In that instance, Wehrum's nomination was not acted upon because of opposition from then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who at that time chaired the environment committee.
“When he wasn't confirmed, he left [EPA] and Bob Meyers was appointed as acting [assistant administrator for EPA's air office],” the source added.
An EPA spokesman did not respond to queries regarding Dourson's status by deadline.
But an agency source agrees that Dourson would not be able to remain in advisory position long after the Senate voted against his nomination or his nomination is withdrawn. “There are definitely limits to the amount of time you can” remain in such a position, the source says. “The more authority” the position a nominee holds before confirmation, “the more limits” on how long that position can be maintained.
Like the first source, the EPA source notes that the administration is also free to appoint Dourson to a different political position.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dourson-likely-continue-advisor-role-epa-if-gop-fails-act-pick
-
CPSC Issues Final Rule on Phthalates in Toys and Child Care Products
Nov 27, 2017 | The National Law Reivew
By Amy M. Rubenstein and Sarah K. Schiferl
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a final rule in October prohibiting the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation of toys and child care products containing more than 0.1 percent of five phthalate chemicals. Phthalates make plastics soft and pliable, and are contained in many toys and other products intended for young children. The rule will take effect on April 25, 2018.
The rule put an end to litigation against the CPSC over phthalate chemicals. In December 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, and the Breast Cancer Fund sued the CPSC because it had not passed a final rule before the January 14, 2015 deadline. An August 2017 consent decree required the litigation to be dismissed with prejudice after the CPSC issued a final rule barring children’s products containing phthalates. So the court dismissed the suit on October 31.
The phthalates regulation is nearly a decade in the making. Congress originally prohibited toys and child care items containing three phthalates (DEHP, DBP, and BBP) in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The CPSIA also imposed an interim ban on three additional phthalates (DINP, DNOP, and DIDP) until an expert panel known as the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) completed an investigation into these phthalates. The CHAP considered the health effects of phthalates in combination or alone, and made a recommendation to the CPSC whether to ban additional phthalates from children’s toys and products. In July 2014, the CHAP published a report recommending that the CPSC ban five phthalates, including making permanent the interim ban on DINP (the report also recommended banning DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP).
The CPSC put forward a proposed rule banning the five additional phthalates in December 2014, but the CPSC did not vote on the final rule until last month. The final rule passed three to two, which reflects the ongoing controversy surrounding the phthalates rule.
In his statement defending the passage of the final rule, CPSC Commissioner Elliot F. Kaye noted that future litigation and judicial review are “very likely,” and even made an appeal to “the judges and law clerks who may look over the record and make a final determination” if the final rule becomes the subject of future litigation. Commissioner Kaye noted that the CPSIA had a specific charge to the CPSC, argued that the CHAP followed the directives of Congress in its thorough review, and stated that the rulemaking process “included the latest and most credible and relevant scientific information available.”
On the other side of the debate, CPSC Commissioner Joseph P. Mohorovic characterized the October 18 vote as “a missed opportunity to pass a reasoned, evidence-based rule prohibiting the phthalates that pose actual risk to consumers.” Mohorovic first argues that the “Commission cannot say with confidence that any of the general population is exposed to an unacceptable risk.” He then states that he opposes the final rule “because it is in no way a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.” Acting CPSC Chairman Anne Marie Buerkle also published a statement in which she, like Mohorovic, asserted the view that the data do not support the Commission’s decision to make permanent the ban on DINP or to extend the scope of the prohibition on phthalates to include a broader scope of toys than the CPSIA required. These criticisms of the final rule echo phthalate manufacturers’ earlier criticism of the CHAP report, arguing that it was flawed because it relied on data from 2005.
The impact of the final phthalates rule on the toy and child care product industry remains to be seen. The Toy Association, the trade association representing the toy industry, said in a statement re-affirmed last month that it does not believe the rule is fully supported by scientific evidence. Even so, in a statement emailed to CNN, the Toy Association confirmed that “safety is the toy industry’s top priority” and noted that the rule’s passage will have minimal impact on manufacturers in the toy industry because “[t]he industry largely moved away from using phthalates in the late 1990s.”
The CPSC’s recently passed final rule on phthalates resolves questions about the use of phthalates in toys, but it appears that other industries may be subject to scrutiny for phthalate use in the future. Both supporters and opponents of the recently passed final rule point to the potential negative health effects of phthalates in other consumer products. For instance, Dr. De-Kun Li of Kaiser Permanente Division of Research called the rule the first step in the right direction, but noted that “phthalates are still plentiful out there in consumer products” and indicated his hope that cosmetic products are the next to be regulated. Likewise, Commissioner Mohorovic’s statement indicated that dietary sources are the biggest contributor to phthalate exposure. As the phthalate debate carries on, manufacturers outside of the toy and child product industries should monitor the controversy and seek counsel as to whether their products may be at issue.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cpsc-issues-final-rule-phthalates-toys-and-child-care-products
-
With Prodding, Retailers Push Chemical Policies
Nov 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
A year ago, the Mind the Store campaign of consumer activist organization Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families issued a report card grading 11 retail chains on their efforts to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in products they carry. No company received an A grade; Target and Walmart were the only ones to even get a B.
This year’s report card, out on Nov. 14, looks quite different. . . .
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i47/prodding-retailers-push-chemical-policies.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
States Push Efforts to Address PFAS
Nov 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
Officials in three states -- Minnesota, New Jersey and North Carolina -- are pushing regulatory and litigation pressures on manufacturers to address releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a persistent class of chemicals that EPA does not formally regulate.
EPA last year released drinking water health advisories for two of the earliest and better known PFAS, known as PFOA and PFOS, of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). These advisories are intended to guide local authorities, but have no regulatory effect.
But the agency has yet to formally regulate any of the substances.
In Minnesota, Attorney General Lori Swanson is preparing for an upcoming trial against 3M Co., for $5 billion in damages to the health of residents near the company's plant and the environment who were exposed to the substances which are sometimes known as perfluorinated compounds (PFCs).
According to a Nov. 21 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Swanson says that PFAS the company released near Twin Cities suburbs years ago “caused higher rates of cancer, infertility and low birthweight babies” and in court briefs filed Nov. 17, “Swanson included the conclusions of an expert environmental witness, while alleging that the health and environmental damage of the contamination totals $5 billion,”
The new court documents include “allegations that 3M knew the local groundwater was contaminated with PFCs years before it stopped making them; that it suppressed the information over the objections of its own scientists; and that it withheld critical information from” EPA, the article states.
3M told the paper that it has not damaged the state, “let alone over $5 billion in alleged damages.” The suit is scheduled for trial in early 2018.
Minnesota is not alone among states taking a harder approach to PFC contamination.
New Jersey announced early in the month that it will regulate PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, one of the first states to do.
New Jersey is issuing a PFOA standard of 14 ppt, along with a standard for another PFC, known as PFNA of 13 ppt, according to a Nov. 1 article in The Record.
The new standards were researched and proposed by New Jersey's independent advisory group known as the Drinking Water Quality Institute, which “has worked to develop recommendations that will protect the citizens of New Jersey from these contaminants based on the scientific literature, as well as on detection and treatment strategies that are available,” Keith Cooper, the institute’s chairman, told The Record.
The institute is scheduled to meet Nov. 28 to discuss its draft health-based maximum contaminant level support document for PFOS.
Meanwhile, North Carolina is continuing to monitor for water discharges of GenX, another PFAS, from a Chemours facility in Fayettville, which the state is targeting for exceeding its discharge permits and failing to notify the Department of Environmental Quality of an October spill.
North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) released a Nov. 22 statement reporting another spike in its monitoring of levels of GenX in the Cape Fear River.
NCDEQ noted that “a similar spike in GenX concentrations” followed an Oct. 6 spill that the company, Chemours, a DuPont spinoff, failed to report to DEQ as required by its discharge permit. The state announced earlier in November that it had cited Chemours for failing to report the Oct. 6 spill and moved to revoke Chemours’ wastewater discharge permit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-push-efforts-address-pfas
-
Cape Is a Hot Spot for Certain Cancers
Nov 28, 2017 | Cape Cod Times
By Joyce R. Young
Everyone who lives on or visits Cape Cod loves the natural, tranquil beauty of its coastal waters and beaches and the diverse wildlife.
But for the past 20 years, the Silent Spring Institute of Newton has been investigating one of the Cape’s dark sides: high rates of breast cancer.
At its annual Cape Cod update presentation in October, the institute shared more research data on what are known as contaminants of emerging concern emanating from the Cape’s septic systems and cesspools in relation to the high breast cancer rates.
That same week, the topic was pancreatic cancer at a continuing medical education presentation at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Plymouth.
James Moser, co-director of the Pancreas and Liver Institute at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, noted that Cape Cod is also a hot spot for pancreatic cancer. The Cape also has high rates of prostate cancer and melanoma skin cancer; 2,000 cases of Parkinson’s disease; and 10,000 cases of Alzheimer’s dementia.
One clue may be found in the April 2016 Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, in an editorial titled “Microbes and Alzheimer’s” authored by 31 medical doctors and Ph.D.s from around the world. The paper noted that it has been known for 30 years that Alzheimer’s is a brain infection — viruses, fungi or bacteria.
A 1999 book, “Microbes and Malignancy: Infection as a Cause of Human Cancers,” suggests microorganisms, especially viruses, cause not just cervical and liver cancers, but many other blood and solid organ cancers, like breast cancer.
Multitudes of diverse chemicals from air, water, food and consumer products are known to cause immunosuppression by an equally diverse array of mechanisms, including such very widespread endocrine hormone disrupters as pesticides, plasticizers and fragrance.
Drinking and cooking with the “chemical soup” water that the Silent Spring team has documented could easily be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, along with exposures to myriad other common everyday chemicals.
Sewage systems are seen to be the panacea to the nitrogen-phosphate septic system contamination problems, but the literature tells another story.
Viruses and contaminants of emerging concern, including pharmaceutical drug residues, are consistently found in sewage treatment plant effluent going into streams and rivers all over the U.S. Estrogenic chemicals, including drugs, are feminizing male fish living in these downstream waters.
The only true solution is source reduction. As I told the Brewster Ponds Committee several years ago in response to residents’ queries about how to save the health of their ponds, it is the personal responsibility of each of us to monitor everything put onto outdoor grounds and everything put down our drains.
The harsh reality is that it all ends up in the one aquifer under the Cape, and people are the “lab rats” in this chemistry experiment of drinking water with a highly diverse mixture of common chemicals.
As one physician on the Silent Spring board has consistently emphasized, prevention is the only real cure.
In accordance with the 25-year-old “precautionary principle” — take action immediately based on accumulating scientific evidence, even if it is not 100 percent complete — I recommend towns consider a fragrance awareness policy similar to the “No Scents Makes Good Sense” policy adopted by Halifax, Nova Scotia. My suggestion to this effect was met with total rebuff in Barnstable, Brewster and Orleans, even though Dr. Anne Steinmann of the University Melbourne, Australia, has clearly shown endocrine hormone-disrupting chemicals in fragranced products in general, not just perfumes.
The towns also ignored The Endocrine Society’s recent scientific statement paper showing endocrine hormone-disrupting environmental chemicals causing fat and sugar metabolism dysfunction, heavily contributing to the current obesity and diabetes II epidemics.
Those who do not heed the lessons of history — as with lead poisoning — will repeat the same mistakes, this time with massive and grave ramifications for the entire population.
— Joyce R. Young of Harwich is a board-certified naturopathic physician.
http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20171128/cape-is-hot-spot-for-certain-cancers
-
First Amendment Suit Takes Aim At California's Listing Of Glyphosate As A 'Potential Carcinogen'
Nov 27, 2017 | Forbes
By Corey L. Andrews
Long the subject of much controversy, California’s Proposition 65 law prohibits businesses from exposing Californians to chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer” without first providing a warning. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) publishes a list of chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer.” By statute, that list must include substances designated as potential carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an international non-governmental entity.
Widely regarded as one of the safest herbicides ever developed, glyphosate is used worldwide in the cultivation of major crops. The federal government has approved the use of glyphosate for more than 250 types of agricultural crop applications, based on extensive scientific analyses of each specific use of the herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concludedthat use of glyphosate in accordance with federal labeling instructions presents no unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, and specifically that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. Likewise, California itself has twice examined glyphosate in its own reviews—in 1997and in 2007—and on both occasions concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a cancer hazard to humans.”
The same is true for every other regulatory body worldwide that has evaluated glyphosate, including regulatory agencies in Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan, and the International Programme on Chemical Safety (the recognized authoritative body on these issues in the World Health Organization), as well as the Joint Food and Agricultural Organization and World Health Organization Meeting on Pesticide Residues. Earlier this month, a new studypublished in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reinforced these findings.
Despite the worldwide consensus regarding the safety of glyphosate, in 2015 IARC concluded that glyphosate is a “potential carcinogen,” thereby automatically triggering California’s Prop 65 warning regime. IARC’s pronouncements have long been controversial among the scientific and public health communities. Among toxicology and regulatory experts who take great care not to exaggerate or inflame public understanding of cancer risks, there has been extensive public criticism of IARC’s recent glyphosate conclusions. Reuters has reported, for example, that the lead scientist chairing IARC’s glyphosate review knew of fresh data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute showing no cancer link to glyphosate but did not present that data to IARC’s specialists.
An appeal is currently pending in a California Court of Appeal of a lawsuit that argues Prop 65’s listing mechanism, because it allows a non-governmental entity to dictate an outcome, violates the California Constitution’s prohibition on such delegation (see WLF’s amicus brief in the case hereand a WLF publication on it here).
Apart from the scientific controversy over IARC’s determination, the Prop 65 listing of glyphosate is also the subject of a new lawsuit filed this month in federal court. That lawsuit raises, among other legal claims, an as-applied First Amendment claim. As a general principle, the government can no more force private parties to speak than it can prevent them from speaking. Yet courts typically allow the government to compel warnings or disclaimers for commercial speech when the required statements are factually uncontroversial and neither misleading nor unduly burdensome.
For example, in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s attempt to compel cigarette companies to include gruesome graphic warnings on cigarette packages—such as a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole—because those warnings were not purely factual, literally true statements but were instead intended to discourage consumers from purchasing cigarettes.
Likewise, in CTIA v. San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit struck down a San Francisco requirement that cell phone dealers inform consumers about issues pertaining to potentially dangerous radiofrequency energy emissions from cell phones, because the Federal Communications Commission had concluded that using cell phones is safe and San Francisco’s warning was essentially staking out a contrary position in an ongoing debate in the scientific community about the issue.
By contrast, in American Meat Institute v. USDA, the en banc D.C. Circuit upheld a USDA regulation requiring disclosure of the country of origin of certain meat products, concluding that such disclosures were purely factual and furthered the government’s goal of enabling consumers to choose American-made products.
In short, the government only prevails in compelling commercial speech when the compelled message is indeed “purely factual”—i.e., not subjective, and not a “fact” over which there is substantial controversy about its accuracy. Here, there should be little question that a California-mandated glyphosate warning is not purely factual, much less uncontroversial. Even if IARC believes that glyphosate is potentially carcinogenic, every regulatory body in the world disagrees, including agencies within the federal and California governments. Likewise, there is substantial public controversy regarding the methods IARC used to reach its outlier conclusion, including recent press accounts.
We are aware of no case where the government has been allowed to compel statements whose accuracy is as highly disputed as the glyphosate warning would be. A court is therefore likely to conclude that, as applied to glyphosate, the compelled cancer warning is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2017/11/27/first-amendment-suit-takes-aim-at-californias-listing-of-glyphosate-as-a-potential-carcinogen/2/#b7ec6a4411bb
-
Top Weedkiller to Stay on European Market for Five More Years
Nov 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Stearns and Stephen Gardner
The European Union agreed to keep glyphosate, one of the world's most widely used herbicides, on the market for another five years, ending a political deadlock that resulted from concerns the chemical poses a cancer risk.
With the bloc's permit due to expire in mid-December, EU national representatives meeting Nov. 27 in Brussels endorsed a five-year extension proposed by the European Commission. In the vote, 18 member countries approved the prolongation, nine were opposed, and one abstained—amounting to a positive verdict under the EU's “weighted-majority” rules.
“Today's vote shows that, when we all want to, we are able to share and accept our collective responsibility in decision-making,” Vytenis Andriukaitis, in charge of health policy at the commission, the 28-nation EU's executive arm, said in an emailed statement. As recently as Nov. 9, Andriukaitis had failed to win majority support from EU national governments for a five-year renewal.
In a crucial move, Germany switched from an abstention to reauthorize glyphosate earlier this month to voting in favor this time. Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said this was done without her approval. “Anyone interested in building trust between partners cannot behave that way,” she said.Glyphosate is marketed by more than 40 companies under various trade names after being patented initially by Monsanto Co., whose U.S. patent expired in 2000, according to the European Crop Protection Association. In the EU, which accounts for about a sixth of worldwide glyphosate use, the herbicide is used to tackle weeds in cereal crops, vineyards, and fruit and olive production.
Fear vs. Science
“We are pleased the substance has been reapproved, however, not pleased that despite overwhelming scientific evidence it is only for a period of five years” rather than the typical 15 years, said Graeme Taylor of the European Crop Protection Association. “This debate clearly sets many precedents for the future, and one of the most worrying is the way the movement against the substance has been driven by organizations relying on fear rather than science.”
The agreement to renew the EU license until the end of 2022 follows heated debate in Europe about glyphosate. Although the EU's chemical and food-safety authorities have declared the herbicide safe, opponents have stayed vocal as traces of it were found in foods including breakfast cereals and cookies.
“Europe's farmers count on glyphosate as a vital tool to help them provide food to hundreds of millions of European citizens, reduce carbon emissions and the impact of farming on the environment, protect the quality of their soil, and support biodiversity on their farms,” said a Monsanto spokesman who asked not to be named, citing company policy.
Glyphosate has remained on the EU market over the past two years as a result of two temporary extensions that prevented the license from lapsing as originally scheduled in December 2015. Those extensions—one for six months and a second for 18 months—were meant to buy time for a political consensus to develop.
The European Crop Protection Association, which represents agrochemical companies including Monsanto, and a lobby group for EU farmers had urged a 15-year renewal of the bloc's permit for glyphosate. The commission had sought national backing for a 10-year prolongation of the license until as recently as October, when it scaled back that proposal in a bid to overcome political opposition.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124275584&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124275584&jd=124275584
-
Activists See Silver Lining In Europe's Roundup Approval
Nov 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The European Union's vote to to extend the authorization of the common herbicide glyphosate for five more years is a bitter pill for environmental organizations, which fought a transatlantic battle to curb use of the world's most popular herbicide.
The decision to allow glyphosate on shelves through 2022 is a loss in the fight to restrict the herbicide on the basis that it may cause cancer. But some activists see the glass half full: a narrow win to OK the controversial chemical for far less time than it would have received under normal circumstances—and the opportunity to ramp up activism in that time.
The five-year license for the weedkiller, best known as the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup, is 10 years less than the usual renewal period for pesticides, and shorter than the 10-year reauthorization the European Commission failed to put forward for a vote last month.
In the end, the representative for Germany cast the deciding vote in favor, defying a “no” recommendation from the country's outgoing environment minister. Germany had abstained in the last vote.
“The fact that the E.U. has reauthorized glyphosate for five years is a setback for the consumer environmental movement in the United States,” Gary Ruskin, campaign director for the group U.S. Right to Know, told Bloomberg Environment.
Opposition to the common herbicide arose from documents disclosed in a multidistrict lawsuit against Monsanto in the U.S., which indicate the company manipulated data and influenced regulatory bodies to give glyphosate a clean bill of health.
Monsanto has refuted these “Monsanto Papers,” saying they were cherry-picked and skewed from the wider body of science that finds no link between glyphosate and cancer.
Still, Ruskin said, “those revelations will continue to explode, both in the United States and in Europe.”
The EU had to postpone a vote on the issue last month for lack of support. The current authorization for glyphosate expires Dec. 15.
Ruskin's group and the cancer victims’ attorneys in the lawsuit have been in close contact with members of the European Parliament opposed to glyphosate.
The nonprofit's research director, Carey Gillam has met with them and with some non-governmental organizations. Gillam, the author of a book on glyphosate, testified at a hearing on the Monsanto Papers in October.
Gillam told Bloomberg Environment that she does not advocate for a policy position to ban or not ban glyphosate, but seeks to share information on the issue that was hidden or difficult to obtain in the past.
Possible Restrictions in Public Spaces
Opponents of the chemical add that the five-year license represents agribusiness's loss of control over the direction of glyphosate.
“Monsanto thought they'd win 15 years of glyphosate with their eyes closed, but had to fight tooth and nail for five with restrictions,” Luis Morago, campaign director for Avaaz, a U.S.-based organization promoting social activism, said in a statement.
Germany is “not going to be able to protect Monsanto for long from the overwhelming public opposition to poison on our food and playgrounds,” Morago said. The terms of the new license also may place restrictions on where the herbicide can be sprayed, such as in public parks.
The decision also sparked a Twitter announcement from French President Emmanuel Macron to ban the herbicide in the next three years. France has the highest acreage of agricultural land among the European Union's 28 member states, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
‘Facebook Science’
Monsanto declared the decision a victory, citing Europe's scientific agencies’ conclusions that glyphosate does not cause cancer.
The opposition was spurred by social media, or “Facebook science,” despite Europe's official food safety regulator finding that glyphosate did not increase cancer risk, said Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy.
Social media activism “was in full bloom here,” Partridge told Bloomberg Environment. “True science at the end of the day will prevail.”
Only 15 percent of global glyphosate production goes to Europe, according to the European Crop Protection Association. Monsanto controls about 40 percent of the global glyphosate market. Other manufacturers include Bayer AG, BASF Corp., and Syngenta, but Monsanto has taken the lead in defending glyphosate.
In June 2016 the European Commission renewed the license for 18 months when the bloc's member states refused to approve a longer term reauthorization for the chemical to allow for more investigation on its safety by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The agency ruled in March that glyphosate should not be classified as a carcinogen.
‘The Politics Changed’
The multidistrict litigation, currently being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern California District, consolidated hundreds of cases of people who say that Monsanto's Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. The lawsuits follow a 2015 finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen.
The federal judge in that case dealt a blow to the plaintiffs’ attorneys Nov. 17, ordering a three-month delay to hearings on the scientific evidence over whether Roundup is linked to cancer. Judge Vince Chhabria pushed the hearings from December to March after a major study found no significant link between glyphosate and cancer in a survey of thousands of farmers and their spouses.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit say the reauthorization in Europe won't significantly affect their case, said Kathryn Forgie, an attorney with Andrus Wagstaff PC in Oakland, Calif. But the vote illustrates how the decision on glyphosate became a political one.
“Nothing really changed between when they couldn't get the 10-year and they couldn't get the five-year except that the politics changed,” Forgie said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124275586&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124275586&jd=124275586
-
(ACC Mentioned) Turning America's Energy Abundance into Energy Dominance
Nov 28, 2017 | The Mercury
By Nicolas Loris
President Trump has spoken vociferously about American “energy dominance.” That’s good news for your energy bills, but also the economy at large.
Before understanding how we can achieve energy dominance, it’s important to note that the U.S. is already a global energy powerhouse. For nearly six years, America has been the world’s largest petroleum and natural gas producer. The result has been affordable power, new job opportunities, and a competitive industrial sector that relies on energy as a critical input for their operations.
After accounting for inflation, overall energy expenditures in 2015 were the lowest since 2004, driven in large part because of increased supplies. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “In constant 2015 dollars, average annual household energy expenditures peaked at about $5,300 in 2008. Between 2008 and 2014, average annual household energy expenditures declined by 14.1 percent.”
Nevertheless, a number of government-imposed obstacles prevent Americans from benefiting the nation’s rich wealth of natural resources. Federal ownership and mismanagement of lands and coastal waters have stifled oil and gas production on federal lands. Opening access to natural resources currently off-limits should be step one.
Step two should be changing the regulatory landscape. Coal, struggling to compete with cheap natural gas, has also been knocked down by heavy-handed regulations that deliver no meaningful environmental benefit. Market forces may very well continue to diminish coal’s share of the electricity pie, but unshackling domestic regulations will give the industry a fighting chance.
Onerous federal regulations often duplicate state regulations, requiring businesses to spend money jumping through unnecessary hoops rather than hiring another worker or investing in new equipment.
What would unleashing America’s energy sector mean for the average household and the economy? Using a clone of the federal government’s energy model, we can see that opening access and deregulating would generate significant economic gains.
Annual electricity expenditures will decline, resulting in a total savings of nearly $1,000 for such a household. These savings are particularly important for low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes, for whom energy costs represent a larger portion of their budget.
Increased energy supplies will drive prices down further, generating significant cost savings and overall economic gains to households. The average family of four gains more than $27,000 by 2035. In terms of total gross domestic product, these gains translate to an increase of more than $2.4 trillion for the entire U.S.
More opportunities for energy development also means more job opportunities. For instance, the prospect of more oil and gas extraction creates employment for those directly associated with the extraction including data scientists, engineers, and geologists.
Moreover, the energy boom provides more employment opportunities for local businesses near extraction sites such as hardware stores, hotels, laundromats, restaurants, and so forth. Heritage Foundation research estimates a peak employment gain of 1.4 million new jobs, and average gains of more than 660,000 jobs.
These gains occur for a variety of reasons. Even for businesses not directly or indirectly associated with energy production, cheaper energy lowers the cost of doing business. Nearly every business in the U.S. uses energy as an input cost for its product, whether it is as simple as paying the electricity bill or filling up a vehicle with gasoline or diesel to transport goods.
The Trump administration has a lofty but achievable 3 percent target for economic growth. Capitalizing on America’s energy abundance must be a part of that strategy.
Cheaper energy means companies nationwide would incur lower operational costs and therefore have more resources to invest in labor and capital. Chemical companies are investing heavily in the U.S., citing the affordable and abundant natural gas as their motivation. As of July 2017, the American Chemistry Council reports that the industry is cumulatively investing $185 billion on 310 projects in the U.S.
Although lower energy prices may tamper new investments, companies are reducing operating costs and improving efficiency to enhance productivity. As Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of IHS Markit, has remarked, “The industry is in the middle of re-engineering its processes and its technologies to be a $50 industry, not a $100 industry.” The federal government should not stand in the way of energy innovation.
Loris is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Research Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C., 20002
http://themercury.com/turning-america-s-energy-abundance-into-energy-dominance/article_197a5a69-3a69-5293-94f9-0cea6cbaed87.html
-
Clean Power Plan Battle Awaits EPA's New Air Chief Wehrum
Nov 28, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Just days into his new job as the EPA's top air pollution official, Bill Wehrum is about to dive into his office's most contentious fight: rolling back the first-ever carbon dioxide standards for power plants.
Wehrum's boss, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, has been a longtime foe of the Obama-era carbon dioxide standards, known as the Clean Power Plan. As the EPA prepares for two days of hearings on the rule in Charleston, W. Va., Nov. 28–29, Wehrum told Bloomberg Environment in an interview that the agency will cast a wide net as it considers whether to simply repeal the rule or issue a replacement.
The EPA proposed to repeal the Obama-era limits Oct. 10, and the agency also is expected to soon issue a notice seeking comment on how to proceed next.
The point of the upcoming notice “is to help better define” alternatives to outright repealing the rule, Wehrum said. That includes whether any replacement rule should “be more than an inside the fence rule” that looks at steps utilities can take to reduce their emissions beyond improving the performance of individual power plants, he said.
The scope of the upcoming notice won't provide insights into what any potential replacement rule might look like, but it will offer a signal of what options the EPA is considering, Megan Berge, an attorney in Baker Botts LLP's Washington office, who represents the power industry, told Bloomberg Environment.
“Will they take comment only on measures at a facility? Or will they seek comment on measures that a state could undertake for compliance, such as flexibility options, as well?” Berge said.
It's unclear what input the EPA expects to receive from the notice that it hadn't already gotten through the Clean Power Plan rulemaking process, environmental advocates said. Before it left office, the Bush EPA issued an advance notice seeking input on how it should regulate greenhouse gases from the power sector, according to Ann Weeks, an attorney with the Clean Air Task Force.
“We have been here before. There's no dirt that hasn't been turned over,” Weeks told Bloomberg Environment.
Smaller Fixes, Bigger Rewards
Though the Clean Power Plan will be the largest fight ahead, Wehrum also is interested in smaller, more targeted fixes to an air pollution permitting program that industries have long said is in need of an update.
The core frustration with the permitting program, known as New Source Review, Wehrum said, “comes from the uncertainty as to how the program should be applied and how the program should be implemented.”
The permits require industrial facilities—including coal-fired power plants and refineries—to install modern pollution controls when renovating or building new facilities that significantly increase air emissions.
Wehrum led efforts to revise the New Source Review program during the Bush administration, where he served in the EPA's air office from 2001–2007—the past two years as acting air chief. During that time, “we thought fundamental change was necessary to make the rules work better and to make them more understandable,” he said.
“In this case, I'm not so sure full-scale reform is what we need to do,” Wehrum said.
Singles, Not Homers
Instead, he wants to look at a smaller package of targeted changes.
“The analogy I use is we're going to try to hit a few singles, maybe a couple of doubles, but we're not going to swing for the fences every single time here,” Wehrum said. “If we do enough of these more targeted things, then I think over time we will have a big impact on the program.”
Wehrum said Pruitt supports his vision of piece-by-piece changes, and he's already talked with EPA air office officials and staffers about beginning work on the issue.
In an Oct. 25 report, the EPA listed updating New Source Review as a top priority. Pruitt announced that he's creating a task force on the issue—though Wehrum didn't have additional details to share on that yet.
Critics of the Trump EPA said Wehrum's piece-by-piece approach could be out of necessity. Wehrum's outlined approach is “an admission of the impossibility of sweeping rollbacks due to clear statutory language and strong case law,” John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA is “very constrained” by prior case law, much of which was created when Bush EPA efforts to amend the New Source Review were struck down in court, Walke said.
And though Wehrum appears to have ruled out a sweeping package of changes, it's still unclear which smaller efforts the agency will choose to tackle first.
“There are so many ways to skin the cat,” Berge said. “New Source Review reform is the biggest question mark in terms of the agency's agenda.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124275583&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124275583&jd=124275583
-
Curtain Rises on Rollback Frenzy
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
The funeral planned by the Trump administration for a key climate policy could turn into an Irish wake today as hundreds of activists, protesters and energy industry executives converge on this sleepy coal country capital.
U.S. EPA begins its public hearings this morning on repealing the Clean Power Plan, a landmark rule by former President Obama's administration to cut greenhouse gases in the power sector. The rollback is in line with President Trump's promise to boost coal — and the people who mine it — even as utilities say they're mostly dropping the fuel for economic reasons, not regulatory ones.
The events today and tomorrow are the only public hearings that EPA has scheduled for the repeal, so all sides are coming out in full force. Three sessions will happen simultaneously in the state Capitol, along with counterprogramming organized by environmental groups at a nearby university.
This week's testimony won't convert anyone to the other side. But the hearings do offer a glimpse of what interest groups want to come next — and, for some, how they plan to keep playing the politics of coal now that the declining sector cannot blame its problems on the White House.
Coal mines employ the fewest number of people since at least 1978, the year the U.S. Energy Information Administration began keeping track. And natural gas dislodged coal this year as the country's biggest source of energy.
Repealing the Clean Power Plan could potentially boost coal back to the top spot by 2019, according to the EIA. That prospect commands attention in West Virginia, the second-biggest coal-producing state after Wyoming. But utilities aren't betting on it.
"Repeal or not, it doesn't change things," said Melissa McHenry, spokeswoman for American Electric Power Co. Inc., the largest electric utility in West Virginia.
The company is not going to bring retired coal plants back online, and it's not going to build any new ones, either. Coal power accounted for nearly all of West Virginia's electricity in 2016, according to EIA. But AEP is planning to add 7,300 megawatts of renewables and more than 2,100 MW of gas, McHenry said.
The utility expects to see future carbon regulations, and it's asking EPA to issue a replacement rule — just like several of its counterparts that want to lock in easier regulations before Trump leaves office. The United Mine Workers of America is asking for that, too.
Coal tycoon and outspoken Trump supporter Bob Murray could stake out a more strident position during his scheduled speaking slot today. The CEO of Murray Energy Corp. was a driving force behind EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's embrace of a "red team" to challenge climate science — a move that could undercut the government's ability to regulate carbon at all.
The hearings will serve as a campaign stop for politicians like Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.V.) and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), two Senate hopefuls vying to take on Sen. Joe Manchin (D), who is not on EPA's list of speakers but backs the regulatory rollback.
Meanwhile, environmentalists will counter EPA's hearing by holding one of their own at the University of Charleston, directly across the river from the Capitol. They plan to hold a panel discussion and afterward will invite people to speak for five minutes each — then submit their transcribed remarks to EPA tomorrow as formal comments.
The alternative hearing might also bring into focus what environmentalists want from the next administration.
Part of Trump's political appeal rests on giving miners "false hope" that he can bring back coal, said Sierra Club organizer and West Virginia resident Bill Price. So environmentalists are folding a jobs pitch into their agenda.
"There needs to be investment in coal communities so miners can be retrained, economic diversification can happen and we can have a really vigorous economy in Appalachia — which we've never had under the coal industry," he said.
One of those avenues out of coal jobs comes from the Appalachian Regional Commission, which spends millions of dollars retraining displaced coal workers. Trump has proposed eliminating it.
Price admits retraining can be a tough sell. His father was a coal miner.
"He never would've been able to embrace, probably, the change," Price said. "But we also need to look out for our future generations."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/28/stories/1060067419
-
Energy Oversight Woes Still Need Tending — IG
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Senior Interior Department officials say achieving "energy dominance" is their top priority.
But first, the agency has some serious work to do to address vulnerabilities in its oil, gas, coal and renewables programs, according to a report last week from Interior's Office of Inspector General.
"In managing energy resources, the DOI faces many continuing and emerging challenges," the IG wrote.
Interior is particularly weak on determining the fair value of public and tribal energy resources; addressing aging offshore and onshore infrastructure; and strengthening its renewable energy portfolio, the inspector general found.
The document cites multiple reports from the Government Accountability Office highlighting Interior's struggles in those areas. In 2011, the department landed on GAO's list of agencies at "high risk" of fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement.
Earlier this year, Congress appeared poised to strike down a slate of rules introduced under the previous administration to appease some of GAO's concerns (Energywire, Feb. 27).
After lawmakers failed to bring most of the proposed rescissions to a vote, Interior began the slow work of undoing several of the Obama-era regulations under the rulemaking process.
For now, GAO's analysis of Interior's deregulatory strategy is on hold, said Frank Rusco, director of the office's natural resources and environment team.
"From statements by Secretary [Ryan] Zinke and news reports, it looks as if Interior is looking for ways to reduce the regulatory framework associated with oil and gas development on federal lands," Rusco said. "However, until they actually implement such changes, we cannot comment speculatively about them."
Though Interior's issues date back to the Obama administration — and beyond — the department under President Trump has done little to advance its predecessors' progress, said Tyson Slocum, energy program director for the watchdog group Public Citizen.
In fact, this administration may have moved a few steps back, he said.
"What was on a fast track appears now to be on a slow track," Slocum said.
President Obama's Interior put mining on hold as it issued sweeping investigations into royalty determinations for coal and other minerals. The department issued a new valuation rule that was set to take effect this year.
In February, Trump's Interior walked back that regulation with the promise that its newly resurrected Royalty Policy Committee would be scrutinizing payment procedures for fossil fuels.
"To simply scrap that whole review and put that over to this committee seems more about putting it on a slow track than seriously addressing the royalty issue," Slocum said.Aging infrastructure
During the royalty panel's first meeting in October, Zinke's top energy adviser noted that the department's Bureau of Reclamation is the country's second-largest producer of hydroelectric power.
But that status carries major infrastructure responsibilities, the inspector general wrote.
"The USBR's water-related infrastructure assets have a current estimated total replacement value of $99 billion, and many of the USBR's oldest buildings and structures are functioning beyond their initial design lives," the report says.
Oil and gas infrastructure — both onshore and off — is in a similar state, the inspector general found.
"Unplugged and abandoned infrastructure poses financial and environmental risks, as well as safety and offshore navigational risks," the document says. "Mitigating these risks through permanent reclamation of orphaned oil and gas wells, offshore production platforms, and related infrastructure could cost hundreds of millions of Federal dollars."
Abandoned coal mines are also of concern, the inspector general wrote.
In the White House's proposed Interior budget — a largely symbolic document — for fiscal 2018, administration officials zeroed out a pilot program designed to reclaim abandoned mines.
Spending bills later introduced by congressional appropriators included funding for the program.Setting the stage for the next 5 years
The inspector general report comes ahead of the anticipated release of the department's next strategic plan.
Interior's current five-year plan expires next year. A leaked version of the 2018-2022 strategy sets ambitious goals for streamlining its energy permitting process (Energywire, Oct. 26).
It includes no mention of "climate change," yet the inspector general listed the issue under the department's top management and performance challenges (Climatewire, Nov. 27).
"As the next Strategic Plan is developed, bureau and program plans that direct the DOI's mission will undoubtedly be updated or replaced to reflect current priorities and set milestones," the inspector general document says.
The inspector general conducted its analysis in coordination with officials from Interior's various subagencies. The report considered department action taken as of Sept. 30.
Laura Peterson, an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, said Congress could opt to call hearings on the inspector general recommendations, but they are not required to do so.
"President Trump has made increased production of domestic resources a cornerstone of his energy policy, and Secretary Zinke testified that he wants taxpayers to get the full value of resources from federal lands," she said. "However, the administration's approach to achieving these goals centers on reviewing and removing regulations that they view as restrictive. This approach doesn't appear to align with the IG or GAO's recommendations."
Interior did not respond to requests for comment on the inspector general report.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/28/stories/1060067399
-
Keystone Pipeline to Restart Operations on Tuesday
Nov 27, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Keystone pipeline will return to service on Tuesday, operators announced, nearly two weeks after spilling about 5,000 barrels of oil in rural South Dakota.
Keystone operator TransCanada said the pipeline will operate at reduced pressure “to ensure a safe and gradual increase in the volume of crude oil moving through the system.”
The company said federal pipeline safety regulators had signed off on plans for a “safe and controlled return to service.”
Keystone leaked 5,000 barrels of oil, or about 210,000 gallons, on Nov. 16, causing a section of the 2,147-mile pipeline to go offline. Keystone transports oil from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas.
The leak — the third to affect Keystone since it entered service in 2010 — came days before Nebraska regulators approved a permit allowing TransCanada to expand its pipeline system. The company is looking to develop the Keystone XL pipeline, which would deliver oil from Canada to the existing pipeline in Nebraska.
That project still needs to clear legal and regulatory hurdles.
TransCanada said on Friday that it had cleaned up some 44,000 gallons of the oil spilled from Keystone in Marshall County, South Dakota.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/362008-keystone-pipeline-to-restart-operations-on-tuesday
-
Ewire: Trump Administration 'Supports' Deal Limiting HFCs
Nov 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
A State Department official says the administration supports the “goals and approach” of an international deal reached last years to limit the production and use of refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, offering a rare example of a climate policy the Trump administration endorses.
The Nov. 23 remarks by career diplomat Judith Garber were made at this year's annual meeting of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty that many observers consider a success in limiting chemicals that threaten the stratospheric ozone layer.
Last year, countries agreed on the Kigali Amendment to the underlying treaty, which creates a global phase down for hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), chemicals that were the primary replacements for ozone-depleting substances but are potent GHGs.
The new pact has wide support among industry and environmental groups, though there has been ongoing uncertainty about whether the Trump administration would embrace the deal that was negotiated during the Obama administration.
Garber's remarks could settle at least some of that uncertainty. “The United States believes the Kigali Amendment represents a pragmatic and balanced approach to phasing down the production and consumption of HFCs, and therefore we support the goals and approach of the amendment,” she said, according to a transcript of her remarks.
She added that there are “a number of steps in our domestic process that we would need to complete before reaching a final decision on transmittal of the Kigali Amendment to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. There is no timeline currently determined for these steps, but we have initiated the process to consider U.S. ratification of the Amendment.”
As Inside EPA readers know, the Kigali deal is set to take effect in 2019 after clearing a threshold for the number of countries ratifying the deal.
A commercial refrigeration source recently said that large retailers are already moving away from HFCs and that the country is likely to meet its 2019 target, despite a recent appellate court ruling vacating key parts of an EPA rule that was intended to limit the use of HFCs.
Even though environmentalists and chemical firms that back the rule have appealed the split ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the country's compliance situation could give the Trump administration and the Senate significant time to consider the ratification process.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-trump-administration-supports-deal-limiting-hfcs
-
Caucus Defends Its Embrace of EPA Foe
Nov 28, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
When a freshman congressman who tried to abolish U.S. EPA joined the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus last week, observers — including environmentalists — expressed confusion and concern.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), like many of the caucus's GOP members, is somewhat lukewarm on climate action. He acknowledges global warming but is skeptical of the scientific consensus that humans are the primary factor driving it.
Earlier this year. Gaetz introduced legislation to do away with EPA, saying the federal government is not good at conservation.
Melinda Pierce, legislative director with the Sierra Club, criticized the bipartisan caucus, saying the inaction of its Republican members has rendered it useless.
"The supposed Climate Solutions Caucus is welcome to add any member they'd like — even climate deniers who propose legislation to terminate the EPA," she said in a statement.
"But, until the silent half of the caucus backs up the name of the caucus with actual votes for clean energy solutions and against the fossil fuel industry, being a member will be nothing more than a line on representatives' resumes."
While caucus backers take a more moderate tone, opting for a big tent approach, greens and many Democrats say Republican fossil fuel defenders are using membership to greenwash their resumes.
The Citizens' Climate Lobby, a group that pushes GOP lawmakers to join the caucus, said Gaetz's addition is a promising development.
"Any time any Republican, no matter who they are, joins the caucus, that's a good thing," said Steve Valk, CCL's communications director.
"Two years ago, there were no Republicans even willing to acknowledge that climate change was a problem that needed to be solved," he said. "And now you have 31 Republicans and more coming on each month who are saying, 'Yes, we have a problem that needs to be addressed."
Valk added: "That looks like progress to me."
Caucus critics say it allows members to join without demanding any concrete action on climate. But Valk said he's optimistic bipartisan movement to address global warming is coming.
"I think there's a certain amount of urgency now that wasn't there before," he said. "While I can't say too much on that, I can say there are some serious discussions going on about solutions and among Republicans. I'd say, give them a little time. It will be worth our patience."
While Republicans on the Hill are reluctant to speak about climate solutions, there has been renewed talk about a carbon tax in the wake of the recent spate of hurricanes. A growing number of Republicans, conservatives and libertarians now openly support pricing carbon (E&E Daily, Nov. 1).
Florida Reps. Ted Deutch (D) and Carlos Curbelo (R) started the Climate Solutions Caucus last year with the aim to find market-based solutions to global warming. The Noah's Ark caucus adds Republicans and Democrats in pairs.
Valk noted that while CCL does not have an outfit in Gaetz's district, the legislator was likely swayed to join by his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.
"Who knows how that connection happened. Maybe they met at a freshman orientation and went out for a beer and found out they both like Led Zeppelin or something," Valk mused.
"Gaetz could have said, 'No, I don't think so.' Gaetz is in a conservative district in the Florida Panhandle, Pensacola is basically southern Alabama. He's got nothing to gain with his constituency by gaining the caucus. We accept everybody at face value."
The caucus now boasts 62 members, with more expected to join in the coming months.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/11/28/stories/1060067393
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested