Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/12/17
-
(ACC Blog) Reducing Food Waste Starts At The Grocery Store…With A Little Help From Plastic
Dec 11, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Emily Tipaldo
Food waste is a major issue for our environment, and for our families. According to the USDA up to 40 percent of all food produced in the U.S. goes uneaten. -
(ACC Mentions) How Big Oil Is Tightening Its Grip On Donald Trump's White House
Dec 12, 2017 | The Guardian
By Jie Jenny Zou
The oil industry has stalled action on climate change from the inside and sold America on fossil fuels – and its influence goes back further than people realize -
If We Put Workers First, All Three NAFTA Nations Will Win In A New Trade Agreement
Dec 11, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
For many members of Congress renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been more than 20 years in the making. A chance to create a new trade model that benefits workers across the North American continent. -
EPA Gathers Feedback on Picking Possible Chemicals for Regulation
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA needs to update its 2012 strategy for selecting chemicals to scrutinize, which could result in regulations under an amended chemicals law, trade associations and nonprofit organizations told the agency Dec. 11. -
4th Circuit Transfers TSCA Evaluation Rule Case To 9th Circuit
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has transferred environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA's rule for evaluating risks of existing chemicals under the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the 9th Circuit, after the 9th Circuit rejected EPA's request to transfer litigation challenging a related rule to the 4th Circuit. -
(ACC Mentioned) Floored by Fluorochemicals: What Are The Health Risks?
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
How extensive and risky is fluorochemical contamination? How are these chemicals affecting people's health? -
US EPA Approves Manufacture Of Two New Polymers
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has found that two polymers are "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" in pre-manufacture notice (PMN) rulings, allowing them to be marketed. -
Monsanto Companies Beat School's PCB Claims
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Monsanto and its related companies aren't liable for cleaning up PCB-laden caulk installed in a Massachusetts middle school in the 1960s, the First Circuit ruled Dec. 8. -
Dems Expect Dourson Withdrawal; Trump Taps Nuke Chief
Dec 12, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones and Nick Sobczyk
Senate Democrats believe the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program will end in failure, Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said yesterday. -
U.K. Chemical Industry Pleads for EU Trading Rules Post-Brexit
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Noël
The U.K.’s $54 billion chemical and pharmaceutical industry pushed the government to keep the European Union regulatory framework for the sector, joining other lobby groups heaping pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May to avoid rupturing ties with the nation's leading export market. -
EU Draft Guidance Makes Identifying EDCs 'Impossible', NGO Says
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A European pressure group has criticised the recently released draft guidance on the identification of endocrine disruptors (EDs) in biocides and pesticides. The document, PAN Europe says, makes it impossible to identify any substance as an ED "in the near future, even when there is evidence that it causes harm". -
Echa Considers Luclid Cloud Option For Biocides Registration
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is considering whether to extend the option to register substances via the Cloud to biocides, the agency has said. But it will not make any decision until it has discussed offering this to larger companies dealing with REACH. The possibility is currently only available to SMEs doing so. -
Senators Urge Wider Federal Investigation of Industrial Packager
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
A global reconditioned industrial packager under federal investigation in 10 states over its operations may face additional scrutiny from two other agencies at the urging of U.S. senators. -
Health Groups Sue Chemical Board To Require Release Reporting Rule
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
Health groups are suing the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) for failing to promulgate rules requiring industrial facilities to report their chemical releases following an incident, citing in part concerns that first responders were harmed after exposure to the Arkema, Inc. fire in Houston following Hurricane Harvey due to inadequate reporting data. -
Enviros Sue Chem Safety Board Over Accident Report Rules
Dec 11, 2017 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
Environmentalists have sued the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, alleging the agency has failed to publish regulations for accidental chemical-release reporting as required by the Clean Air Act. -
Northwest Democrats Furious at Trump Administration Over Oil-Train Brake Rule Rollback
Dec 11, 2017 | Portland Business Journal
By Pete Danko
Democrats in the region are piling on their criticism of a Trump administration decision to withdraw a railroad braking-system rule aimed at trains carrying highly flammable commodities. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bias: New York Times Publishes New 3,000-Word Attack Against Trump’s EPA, Leaves Out Key Details
Dec 11, 2017 | The Western Journal
By Chris White
A lengthy report Sunday from The New York Times suggesting the EPA is pulling back enforcement efforts on polluters misses a couple of glaring points that could help explain the agency’s supposed scale back. -
EPA Can (But Won't) Question Industry Pollution Projections
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The Supreme Court won't review a ruling against electric utility DTE Energy that said the Michigan company had to account for significant increases in air pollution when making major modifications to its coal-fired power plant. -
EPA Starts Clock For Imposing Ozone FIPs On Major Cities
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued formal findings that parts of the New York City and Chicago metropolitan areas, as well as three areas in California, have failed to submit to the agency plans for attaining the 2008 ozone standard, starting a two-year clock for the areas to either submit plans or have EPA impose its own ozone-reduction plan on them. -
Supreme Court Declines To Hear Case on NSR Permit Test
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Supreme Court without comment has let stand a lower court ruling upholding an EPA test for when it can use its own data to require facilities to obtain Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permits -- just days after the agency announced it is dropping the same long-running test. -
A Landmark California Climate Program Is in Jeopardy
Dec 12, 2017 | The New York Times
By Justin Gillis and Chris Busch
Gov. Jerry Brown of California and lawmakers in Sacramento pulled off a huge political feat last summer when they renewed one of the state’s premier climate programs. -
Cost of California Carbon Credits Likely to Increase, Study Says
Dec 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California's much-debated cap-and-trade carbon emissions program, now extended to 2030, could experience significant price spikes for the carbon credits over the next 12 years, according to a recent discussion paper by The Brattle Group. -
9th Circuit Panel Skeptical Of Dismissing Kids' Suit
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A panel of federal appeals judges today appeared wary of granting an unusual request by the federal government to halt a climate case brought by youth plaintiffs. -
Pruitt Says EPA To Weigh Limiting Oil & Gas Methane In Pollutant 'Bundle'
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the agency plans to weigh the “significant” question of whether to regulate oil and gas methane emissions directly or as part of a “bundle” of emissions including conventional air pollutants, the latter of which likely would foreclose any future standards of the potent greenhouse gas for existing equipment in the sector. -
Macron to Keep Alive Paris Climate Pact as Trump Stays Home
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Deen and Ewa Krukowska
French President Emmanuel Macron this week will seek to breathe new life into the fight against global warming and sway debate away from skeptics of the process led by U.S. President Donald Trump. -
Big Investors Press Major Companies to Step Up Climate Action
Dec 12, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Alister Doyle
More than 200 institutional investors with $26 trillion in assets under management said on Tuesday they would step up pressure on the world's biggest corporate greenhouse gas emitters to combat climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Reducing Food Waste Starts At The Grocery Store…With A Little Help From Plastic
Dec 11, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Emily Tipaldo
Food waste is a major issue for our environment, and for our families. According to the USDA up to 40 percent of all food produced in the U.S. goes uneaten. While most surveyed Americans (91 percent!) say preventing food waste in their homes is “very important” many of us are not aware of how plastics help prevent it. Our Plastics Make it Possible® campaign recently spent time with one busy family to get their take on food waste—and how plastics help prevent it.
For Shakti Shukla, preventing food waste is important for many reasons. Shakti’s family comes from India, where her family cultivated the food that they ate. So Shakti was raised with a clear understanding that food is precious and not to be wasted. And, as a mom of three young children, the last thing she has time for is making multiple trips to the grocery store every week. For both these reasons, when she does make it to the store, she looks for groceries in plastic packaging.
There’s a reason you see more food in plastic packaging today. That package was designed specifically to help protect the product it contains, whether it be produce, meat, dairy, or prepared food. Take the groceries in Shakti’s cart as an example:The cucumbers she buys for heathy snacks for her family come wrapped in just a little plastic, which helps extend their shelf life from a few days to more than a week.The berries for breakfast come in a plastic clamshell designed to limit the amount of moisture in the package. Too much moisture and those berries won’t stay fresh for long.The condiments for hot dog night come in plastic squeeze bottles designed to give us more control when putting mustard on our dogs—and if the bottle falls on the floor, it won’t break.And when you’ve finished the food, the plastic package often can be recycled. (Here are some quick tips on recycling plastics; you can also check with your municipality to learn what can and cannot be recycled in your area.)
Whether your reason for wanting to prevent food waste is more principled or more practical—or both, like Shakti’s—plastics can help you get there.
To hear more from Shakti, including some of her recipes, or to learn more about preventing food waste, click here.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/12/reducing-food-waste-starts-at-the-grocery-storewith-a-little-help-from-plastic/
-
(ACC Mentions) How Big Oil Is Tightening Its Grip On Donald Trump's White House
Dec 12, 2017 | The Guardian
By Jie Jenny Zou
The oil industry has stalled action on climate change from the inside and sold America on fossil fuels – and its influence goes back further than people realize
When Rick Perry was interrupted by climate-change protesters during his address to the National Petroleum Council in late September, the energy secretary was ready with a retort.
“You want to talk about something that saves lives? It’s the access to energy around the globe,” Perry said, countering a woman worried about deadly hurricanes and a man whose hometown is being submerged by the rising Philippine Sea. “I am proud to be a part of this industry. I am proud to be an American.”
It was an opportunity for the former Texas governor to champion an industry he’d long embraced by showing fealty to the petroleum council, an arcane federal advisory committee dominated by energy executives. Picking up on Perry’s message was interior secretary Ryan Zinke, who haspledged to fast-track drilling and open more areas to fossil-fuel development.
The two took turns reassuring the council’s nearly 200 members during a meeting at the opulent Hay-Adams hotel in Washington DC, that the White House would be a friend, not foe, to big oil. “We’re now in the business of being partners, rather than adversaries,” Zinke said. “If I were in the industry, I’d be pretty happy.”
It wasn’t the first time that global warming had been cast aside by the energy department’s petroleum council, successor to a wartime body created by Harry Truman. In 1972, the council buried the industry’s own climate research with the help of top executives at the American Petroleum Institute, a longtime ally that once shared a building with the council.
API has gone beyond the lobbying typical of trade associations, helping spawn permanent substructures within the executive branch that ensure its voice is heard. These government entities, which include the petroleum council and an obscure but powerful White House office, have for decades worked in tandem with API to fortify the oil and gas industry, often, its critics say, at the public’s expense.
API’s history on climate issues goes back farther than most realize. As early as 1959, it grappled with global warming, hosting a conference where the looming, manmade catastrophe was discussed. As the environmental movement was blossoming, API – with the government’s support – was working behind the scenes to undermine it by distorting projections of regulatory costs. An enduring false narrative was constructed: the economy or the environment.
For nearly a century, API has enjoyed special access to the executive branch, furtively shaping policy from the inside. Now, under Donald Trump, the industry smells victory on multiple fronts with a White House that openly detests regulation as much as it does. Days before Trump’s inauguration, API president Jack Gerard heralded the “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to reshape energy policy.
Fifty-two environmental rules have since been overturned or are in the process of being rolled back. API has publicly supported at least 23 of these actions. In May, the institute also sent a 25-page wish list to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Among the items it wants reconsidered: tougher standards for ozone – the main ingredient in smog – and regulation of methane, a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide.
API officials did not respond to interview requests.
On its website, the institute says, “We negotiate with regulatory agencies, represent the industry in legal proceedings, participate in coalitions and work in partnership with other associations to achieve our members’ public policy goals.”‘Regulating the regulators’
“I asked my staff for a joke, but it’s still going through cost-benefit analysis,” Neomi Rao said from a podium in October, drawing hearty laughs from a mostly male crowd of lobbyists, lawyers and policy analysts at the Heritage Foundation – a conservative thinktank based in Washington.
It was a tongue-in-cheek nod to the little-known agency Rao has led since July – the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which she called a “small but mighty” division of the White House Office of Management and Budget. “If you are a very pro-regulatory administration, then you are not going to appreciate the work that OIRA does,” Rao warned the audience, likening her office to a “roadblock” against burdensome policies that hurt the economy. “The pace and scope of deregulation that’s occurred is truly unprecedented, and we’re just getting started.”
Rao – a constitutional scholar who clerked for conservative supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas and often shared pizza with the late Antonin Scalia – has embraced her role as “regulatory czar”, pledging to surpass a Trump executive order to eliminate two existing regulations for each one created. Her staff of roughly 50 reviews the costs and benefits of all major federal rules, providing the stamp of approval needed to turn proposals into regulations – or spiking them.
Though she is an ardent supporter of leaner and more restrained government, she plans to staff up OIRA and broaden its powers.
How, exactly, she’ll do this is a mystery – much like the inner workings of OIRA itself. The agency has routinely come up short of basic transparency guidelinesrecommended by the Government Accountability Office, garnering a reputation on Capitol Hill as a black box that heavily edits or kills regulations with little explanation in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Cass Sunstein, who led the office during the Obama administration, has since defended the practice of derailing particular rules by putting them on a “shit list.”
While OIRA has resisted public scrutiny, it has held its doors open for industry.
Since April 2014, 35 of OIRA’s 712 meetings on proposed EPA regulations have been with API representatives – including a 2015 conference call with the institute’s president, Gerard, over ozone. The institute, along with the American Chemistry Council and ExxonMobil, ranked among the top 10 groups that met with OIRA from 2001 to 2011. Such encounters wield influence: a 2015 study by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers found the agency was more likely to edit rules when lobbied by industry than by public interest groups. Rao’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but on its website OIRA notes it will meet with “any party interested in discussing issues on a rule under review”.‘Quality of Life’
Bias toward industry can be traced to its founding. Though OIRA was created in 1980, its roots date to the EPA’s formation in 1970. As a counterweight, Richard Nixon established the National Industrial Pollution Control Council, an advisory committee within the Commerce Department made up entirely of industry executives.
Members regularly reviewed and commented on draft regulations before they were released to the public, weighing in on matters such as leaded gasoline and the Clean Air Act.
Industry members of the committee – which was overseen by secretary of commerce Maurice Stans – coordinated a public-relations effort emphasizing the enormous costs the oil industry claimed it was absorbing to improve the environment.
In February 1971, the pollution committee advised Nixon aides to prioritize costs. The White House budget office obliged that October by creating a new program called Quality of Life Review, which assessed major environment, health and safety regulations. Tapped to lead the agency was bureaucrat Jim Tozzi, who had shown a passion for deregulation at the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Quality of Life became all about reining in the EPA, Tozzi explained during an interview with the Center for Public Integrity. Occupying a floor of the Executive Office Building next to the White House, his office quickly went to work on the EPA’s proposed Clean Air Act guidelines. “I was like a little despot,” Tozzi said. “Somebody needed to regulate the regulators.”
Under Jimmy Carter, the Quality of Life program became OIRA in 1980, with Tozzi as deputy administrator. In 1983, Tozzi left the agency to join a law firm headed by William Ruckelshaus – the EPA’s first administrator, a Nixon appointee and an early champion of cost-benefit analysis. Tozzi now runs theCenter for Regulatory Effectiveness, a think tank he founded and staffed with former OIRA employees that assesses regulations.
Tozzi said his plan for policing the EPA – and every other federal agency – has survived nine consecutive administrations and looks bright under Rao. “The Trump administration,” he said admiringly, “has gotten the number of regulations going out to a trickle.”‘Virtually indistinguishable’
As Nixon’s pollution control committee quietly lobbied on industry’s behalf, the National Petroleum Council was doing its part to paint Big Oil as a linchpin of the US economy.
A council environmental report in 1972 – prompted by an oil spill off Santa Barbara, California, three years earlier that left an estimated 3m gallons of crude oil in the Pacific – cast the disaster as an anomaly and urged government to continue fostering oil and gas development.
Citing research by API, the report also played down climate change. “Carbon dioxide concentrations do appear to be increasing for reasons not well understood,” the council wrote, adding that scientists would have to wait until the year 2000 to determine “whether or not a serious problem exists”. Even if the gas were having an effect, controlling such a ubiquitous pollutant could “impose impossible administrative and enforcement burdens”.
But things weren’t as ambiguous as the council made them sound. API papers on atmospheric pollutants in 1968 and 1969 made it clear that rising carbon dioxide levels came from the burning of fossil fuels and that warming was inevitable. The 1968 paper warned that there could be “melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels [and] warming of the oceans”, while the 1969 paper noted that carbon dioxide levels would rise “as our combustion economy continues to consume increasing amounts of fossil fuel”. Several authors of the petroleum council’s report likely knew this, given that they were top API officials – including the president, Frank Ikard, and public-affairs executive PM Gammelgard.
Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, an advocacy group that tracked down the climate studies says API’s research during the 1960s makes the case “compellingly that the science is really sound”.
Muffett claims the petroleum council’s report is proof that high-level API executives were aware of the grave threats of warming and worked to hide the revelations.
Digging through archives, Stanford University researcher Ben Franta found what he believes is API’s earliest public reckoning with climate change: a November 1959 conference it hosted at Columbia University where a renowned scientist posited the emerging threat before 300 “government officials, economists, historians, scientists and executives”.
Within years, API was feverishly commissioning air-pollution research that resulted in the 1968 and 1969 papers. “API had this long-running awareness of climate change and climate science, and in that history the message they were getting from scientists was that climate change was real,” said Franta, who is writing his dissertation on the trade group’s activities. “If they wanted to head off that threat, they were going to have to think about acting then.”
API leaders have played key roles at the National Petroleum Council, a federal body chartered in 1946 whose reports claim to be nonpartisan and in the national interest. The council’s roots date back to World War II as a quasi-government agency that aided the war effort. It later became an adviser to the interior department and is now attached to the energy department, which did not respond to requests for comment. Members of the privately funded council are prohibited from lobbying and self-dealing but a review of its secretive, 71-year history shows it has long carried water for industry, minimizing environmental concerns while promoting deeper and riskier drilling.
The council refused to provide the Center for Public Integrity with any of its subcommittee records, and declined to provide all documents prior to 1973 – including records underlying its 1972 environmental report. Its executive director declined to comment.
The council’s composition and views have been fodder for complaints from those outside of industry. Its leaders have been the biggest, loudest voices in oil; until February, former ExxonMobil CEO and current secretary of state Rex Tillersonwas council chairman. Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney led the group before he became vice-president in 2001.
Of 192 members on the council’s roster, 144 come from the oil and gas industry. Over its lifetime, the council claims, almost a third of its 2,800 recommendations have been “fully implemented”.
These recommendations – to open more of the Arctic to drilling, for example – stand a good chance of being embraced by the Trump administration. At the petroleum council’s meeting in September, energy secretary Perry put his audience at ease. “The government’s not going to be in your way,” he said.
With contributing reporting from Chris Young and Rachel Leven.
Read a longer version of this article on the Center for Public Integrity’s website.
This is the first of three pieces this week in collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity about how Big Oil tightened its grip on US politics. Read the second part on Thursday: How the oil industry set out to undercut clean air.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/12/big-oil-white-house-century-of-influence
-
If We Put Workers First, All Three NAFTA Nations Will Win In A New Trade Agreement
Dec 11, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
For many members of Congress renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been more than 20 years in the making. A chance to create a new trade model that benefits workers across the North American continent.
I led the opposition to NAFTA in 1993, and have made trade a top priority in my tenure in Congress. It is not for a lack of support for global trade, but because trade must be an economic system that lifts economic prospects for all people. It must be fair. A drive through my district in Northern Ohio, spanning five counties from Toledo to Cleveland, is a reminder of the plight workers experienced following NAFTA’s passage. From shuttered factories, hollowed out neighborhoods, and chronic economic stress due to reduced income and outsourced jobs.
In a recent letter to U.S. Trade Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, I emphasized that the voices of workers from Ohio and our industrial heartland should guide this administration’s renegotiations process.
This Summer I held a NAFTA renegotiation field hearing in Brook Park, Ohio near Cleveland. Testimony from the United Steelworkers, the United Auto Workers, National Farmers Union, Teamsters, the Blue Green Alliance, Sierra Club, and Policy Matters Ohio was consistent: put workers first.
Though the situations and analysis varied, their stories were all too similar. Millions of Americans witnessed jobs disappear due to outsourcing, and with significant wage and benefit losses as a result of NAFTA’s economic impact. Northern Ohio families lost on average, $7,000 in annual wages since 1990!
The U.S. has never achieved a trade balance with our NAFTA competitors. Indeed the red ink runs deep. Technically, in 2016 the U.S. had a $12.5 billion trade surplus with Canada when services are included. But if you look at just goods, the products that we make, that number flips into a $12.1 billion trade deficit with our neighbors to the North. Now with our neighbor to the South, according to data from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, our overall trade deficit with Mexico in 2016 was $55.6 billion, and our goods deficit with Mexico is $63 billion. It is clear where our imbalance lies.
Since NAFTA’s passage, the cumulative trade deficit with Mexico and Canada is well over $1 trillion which translates into thousands and thousands of lost jobs and lower wages for U.S. workers. We must stop these trade practices that snuff out American jobs and hurt our communities. My bill, the Balancing Trade Act, would require the administration to address the trade deficit seriously.
Deficits aside, signals and statements from Canada hold promise in these renegotiations. Though we don’t agree on everything when it comes to trade, Canada’s statements urging the end of so-called “Right to Work” laws, which are anti-worker, as a part of NAFTA is positive. It is an affirmative statement of Canada’s values and the priorities of their government. In theory, each nation is going to represent itself and its elected leaders, but Canadian overtures on worker protections and worker’s rights holds value for all workers in all three nations.
Additionally, there is promise we can find common ground to rid North America’s trade system of the corporate-friendly Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, which only further bloats transnational interests.
Over the course of this year, I repeatedly called for the inclusion of a tri-party Independent Labor Secretariat, to ensure labor standards are enforced. This idea is supported by the AFL-CIO. Perhaps this idea is one our friends in Canada and Mexico can get behind. Having an instrument with a clear purpose to represent North American workers will help remedy labor inequities that vastly harmed workers across our continent.
As we enter the next round of NAFTA negotiations, which are to take place in Washington, D.C. in December, I call on my counterparts in Canada to join me to fight for a continental compact that values workers and raises wages. Let us elevate the rule of law and democratic principles. The Trump administration has signaled its intent to follow through on President Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric; our Canadian colleagues should join in holding his feet to the fire.
We have a rare opportunity to attempt to finally focus on the workers. Now is not the time for politics or pandering to corporations and wealthy special interests. Ultimately, the American worker, and workers throughout North America need a level playing field. Congress will supply the votes to support such an achievement if the deal puts American workers’ interests first.
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur represents Ohio’s Ninth District. Kaptur is the Dean of the Ohio Delegation and senior-most woman in the U.S. Congress.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/364261-if-we-put-workers-first-all-three-nafta-nations-will-win-in-a
-
EPA Gathers Feedback on Picking Possible Chemicals for Regulation
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA needs to update its 2012 strategy for selecting chemicals to scrutinize, which could result in regulations under an amended chemicals law, trade associations and nonprofit organizations told the agency Dec. 11.
The Environmental Protection Agency must consider whether chemicals are stored near sources of drinking water and whether some populations are vulnerable or highly exposed, said Melanie Benesh, an attorney with the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group.
She referred to the criteria that the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 require the agency to use as it selects chemicals for closer inspection and possible risk assessment.
The amendments require the EPA to “prioritize” chemicals in two categories: high priority for closer analysis and a “risk evaluation,” or low priority. A low-priority designation means all of the chemical's “conditions of use” posed few concerns, allowing it to be set aside unless new science warrants another review.
The amendments did not, however, say anything about exactly how the EPA should choose chemicals to put into that prioritization pipeline. The EPA held its first meeting Dec. 11 about strategies it could use to select chemicals that are candidates for prioritization.
Silence on Strategy
Having a more formalized selection process to identify candidate chemicals for prioritization would help chemical makers and companies that purchase chemicals to make cars, computers, paint, and other goods know when a chemical they make or use could be headed towards closer scrutiny, James Votaw, an attorney with Keller and Heckman LLP's Washington office, told Bloomberg Environment.
The heads-up would be useful, he said, because the TSCA amendments put tight limits on the amount of time the agency on a chemical's priority level: nine to 12 months.
If companies know before the nine to 12 month deadline clock starts ticking that a chemical they make or use will be prioritized, they could use the time to generate hazard or exposure information that could be useful if the agency prioritizes it, he said.
Legal Interpretations Differ
Lindsay McCormick, a project manager with the Environmental Defense Fund, warned against overreliance on information voluntarily submitted by industry. Companies could “cherry pick” the data they submit to present their chemicals in the most favorable light, she said.
The EPA must use broad new information-gathering authorities Congress provided when it amended TSCA to collect all “reasonably available information” to help with prioritization, Robert Stockman, a senior attorney with the EDF.
The EPA's decisions that chemicals are low priorities can be challenged in court. That opens the door for a company's competitor to sue because it makes a similar compound that is not designated low priority.
Environmental organizations, and even states, also may challenge the agency's low-priority decisions. In contrast, outside parties can't legally challenge the EPA's decision that a chemical is a high priority for risk evaluation, because that means there will be more opportunities to review and discuss the compound.
Comments on how the agency might approach prioritizing chemicals are being accepted through Jan. 25.
The agency must begin to prioritize chemicals in June 2018 to meet its statutory deadline of having designated at least 20 chemicals as high priorities and 20 chemicals as low priorities by December 2019, said Jeff Morris, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124991540&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124991540&jd=124991540
-
4th Circuit Transfers TSCA Evaluation Rule Case To 9th Circuit
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has transferred environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA's rule for evaluating risks of existing chemicals under the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the 9th Circuit, after the 9th Circuit rejected EPA's request to transfer litigation challenging a related rule to the 4th Circuit.
Environmental groups this year filed a slew of lawsuits challenging EPA's rules that establish a framework for reviewing existing chemicals under the new law -- those that have been in commerce for decades and were largely grandfathered under the old law. The need to address risks from existing chemicals was a major driver of TSCA reform.
In a Dec. 11 order, the 4th Circuit transfers environmental, labor and public interest groups' lawsuits challenging EPA's final risk evaluation rule to the 9th Circuit. The move is largely procedural after the 9th circuit late last month rejected an EPA request to move lawsuits challenging a related prioritization rule to the 4th circuit.
The 4th circuit had previously said it would defer to the 9th circuit on which court should hear the cases.
Groups including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the Environment Defense Fund (EDF) and the Natural Resources Defense Council in August filed lawsuits challenging EPA's June final rules for prioritizing and evaluating existing chemicals under the revised TSCA.
The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation in September consolidated the challenges to the prioritization rule in the 9th Circuit and to the risk evaluation rule in the 4th Circuit.
EDF Sept. 5 filed a lawsuit challenging a third framework rule issued in August on updating the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals -- those that were on the market prior to the original TSCA's enactment in 1976, or chemicals that have since been added to that inventory, though that case is proceeding along a different track in the D.C. Circuit.
Although EPA and environmentalist petitioners agreed that a single court should hear challenges to the prioritization and risk evaluation rules, the parties differed over the appropriate venue.
EPA urged the 4th circuit to hear both cases, arguing the court moves cases more quickly, and that its location on the east coast would save taxpayer money on attorney's travel expenses. But environmentalist petitioners argued that the 9th circuit was the appropriate venue in part because groups filed in there first.
In a Nov. 27 order, the 9th Circuit -- which covers Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii -- denied EPA's request to transfer the prioritization rule case. The court also consolidated the various suits over the TSCA rule and related policies filed in the court and establishing a briefing schedule that begins Jan. 23.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/4th-circuit-transfers-tsca-evaluation-rule-case-9th-circuit
-
(ACC Mentioned) Floored by Fluorochemicals: What Are The Health Risks?
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
How extensive and risky is fluorochemical contamination? How are these chemicals affecting people's health?
Those are among the questions the Environmental Protection Agency, the Defense Department, and other environmental research agencies are jointly addressing to assist public health officials, wastewater utilities, and military installations.
“We need more research,” Mark Levine, Vermont's health commissioner, told Bloomberg Environment. “We don't want to minimize what exposure could do, but we don't want people to get overly concerned.”
Fluorochemicals are fire-resistant, heat-resistant, and stain-resistant and are used in hundreds of consumer products as well as in firefighting.
Military and other firefighting training facilities are the largest sources of exposures, Jennifer Field, an Oregon State University professor and authority on fluorochemicals recently told Bloomberg Environment. Landfills are the second major source, followed distantly by wastewater treatment facilities, she said.
Detection methods, cleanup treatment options, and health risks from ongoing and future exposure are all being examined at the EPA, according to a Dec. 7 internal memo obtained by Bloomberg Environment.
The Department of Defense, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Toxicology Program, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are among the other agencies also developing information to help states, municipalities, military sites, and other places.
Flows Downhill
A Bloomberg Environment analysis of EPA water contaminant data found that 65 water utilities across 24 states and territories had at least one sample that came back above the agency's lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
Collectively, these drinking water utilities serve more than 6 million people across the country, and PFOS and PFOA are merely two among thousands of fluorochemicals.
If the EPA's advisory level is protective, then most U.S. citizens are not in danger, according to Rainer Lohmann, director of the University of Rhode Island's Superfund Research Center.
States, municipalities, and federal agencies already have provided bottled water, closed sources discharging the chemicals, or begun to treat water to reduce the pool of people exposed, he said.
Health advisory levels aren't enforceable and might not reflect the best science. The central question is whether they are safe enough, Lohmann told Bloomberg Environment. Some U.S. states and EU countries have set lower recommended or enforceable limits for fluorochemicals, he said.
Big Family
Researchers have found at least 3,000 varieties of fluorochemicals in the environment, Linda Birnbaum, director of the NIEHS, recently told Bloomberg Environment. The group increasingly is called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a name that reflects their diverse carbon-chain lengths, structures, and molecular combinations.
These chemicals are, or have been, used to make stain-resistant upholstery, waterproof apparel and footwear, and grease-resistant food packaging such as pizza boxes, popcorn bags, and hamburger wrappers.
The largest single source of known contamination is around training and firefighting sites where aqueous film-forming foam is used in particularly dangerous aircraft, shipboard, and oilfield fires.
The chemicals don't easily degrade in the environment, and the number of scientific studies showing that PFOS and PFOA cause health problems in people and animals is growing, Birnbaum said.
Some people exposed to high concentrations of the chemicals have experienced high cholesterol, colon and thyroid problems, testicular and kidney cancers, and elevated blood pressure during pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“We don't know a lot about the health effects of others,” Birnbaum said, referring to the thousands of fluorochemicals beyond PFOS and PFOA.
Multiagency Meeting
A multiagency committee within the White House's National Science and Technology Council will meet in February coordinate research efforts, Michael DeVito, acting chief of the National Toxicology Program, said Dec. 7 during a meeting of the program's Board of Scientific Counselors.
Scientists from these agencies and researchers with grants have described other efforts at meetings Bloomberg Environment has covered during the past six weeks.
For example, NIEHS and its National Toxicology Program will use computer models to predict the chemicals’ biological and health effects, as well as conduct animal experiments.
Diverse Research
The EPA's Office of Research and Development plans to analyze 75 fluorochemicals through screening studies, according to the agency's Dec. 7 memo.
Marc Allyn Mills—an environmental engineer at the EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory—told participants at a recent environmental conference that the agency is working with independent labs to validate testing used to measure fluorochemicals in groundwater, surface water, waste water, soil, sediment, and sludge.
The EPA's toxics office is organizing data and revisiting chemical categories last updated more than five years ago, Tala Henry, a division director in the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said at a Dec. 6 meeting on the agency's new chemicals program.
The agency's Office of Land and Emergency Management is working on PFAS cleanups at 32 federal Superfund sites in cooperation with states, Thomas Sinks, who directs EPA's Office of the Science Adviser, told an agency board.
The Department of Defense funds research to develop firefighting foams that can put out aircraft and ship fires but don't contain fluorine, Christopher Sherwood, a Defense Department spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
The carbon-fluorine bonds in fluorochemicals are among the strongest in nature, “an impenetrable fortress,” said Field, the Oregon State University professor, during the same conference at which Mills spoke.
Guidance, Litigation
Meanwhile, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has developed materials for health care providers and the general public.
The health care guidance has helped New Hampshire work with doctors who treat people near contaminated sites, Benjamin Chan, an epidemiologist with New Hampshire's Department of Health and Human Services, told Bloomberg Environment.
More research, however, could spur enforcement actions and lawsuits. 3M, the Chemours Co., and DuPont are among the companies that already face lawsuits because of contamination from fluorochemicals they have made in the past but voluntarily stopped producing.
Many other companies, including Angus Fire, Dafo Fomtec AB, Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A., and Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., have used either the older phased out chemicals or their newer replacements.
A large body of scientific information exists showing newer fluorochemicals are less persistent, less likely to accumulate in the food chain, and less toxic, Jessica Bowman, senior director of the FluoroCouncil at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
—With assistance from Sylvia Carignan, Steven Gibb, and David Schultz.
This is the second part of a Bloomberg Environment series looking at the impact of fluorinated chemical contamination on communities and businesses.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124991532&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124991532&jd=124991532
-
US EPA Approves Manufacture Of Two New Polymers
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has found that two polymers are "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" in pre-manufacture notice (PMN) rulings, allowing them to be marketed.
The findings, issued on 8 December, were for the generics:terephtalic acid and alcohol ester polymer hydroxy glycol and 2-ethylhexyl alcohol; andbutanoic acid, 3-oxo-, 2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)oxy]ethyl ester, polymer with cycloalkyl, 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- propenoate, methyl 2- methyl-2-propenoate and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2- propenoate
The first is an additive used in plastics, and the second is used in paints and architectural coatings. Both could also potentially be used as adhesives and sealants.
Although the EPA estimated that the new substances would be very persistent, it says they have "low potential for bioaccumulation, low human health hazard, and low environmental hazard".
https://chemicalwatch.com/62461/us-epa-approves-manufacture-of-two-new-polymers
-
Monsanto Companies Beat School's PCB Claims
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Monsanto and its related companies aren't liable for cleaning up PCB-laden caulk installed in a Massachusetts middle school in the 1960s, the First Circuit ruled Dec. 8.
It wasn't reasonably foreseeable in 1969 that vapors from polychlorinated biphenyls in a Monsanto caulk additive would be severe enough to risk human health, the unanimous court said.
The ruling upholding the dismissal of the school's tort claims is the latest victory for Monsanto, Pharmacia Corp., and Solutia Inc., and it could affect similar suits brought against the companies by school districts in Massachusetts and other states.
Former Monsanto is today known as Pharmacia. Monsanto and Solutia are affiliated companies that have assumed liabilities related to the historical manufacture of PCBs.
Here, the PCBs were detected in 2011 during a window replacement at the middle school in Westport, Mass., according to the complaint. The town removed PCBs from the school and sued numerous defendants, seeking more than $23 million in compensation in cleanup costs.
Pharmacia supplied a PCB-containing plasticizer used by a third-party manufacturer of the caulk, but there were no scientific studies in 1969 finding or suggesting that vaporization of PCBs in paint products also applied to caulk, the court said.
Westport didn't challenge a summary judgment for the companies on design defect claims, and that proved fatal to its negligent marketing allegations under Massachusetts law.
“A negligent marketing claim cannot be maintained independent of a design defect claim on these facts,” the court said.
It also rejected the claim that the companies had a duty to warn Westport of the vaporization risk from the caulk.
U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Norman H. Stahl and David Barron.
Baron & Budd, as well as Rodman, Rodman & Sandman, represented Westport. White & Williams, as well as Capes Sokol, represented the Monsanto companies.
The case is Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., 2017 BL 439688, 1st Cir., No. 17-1461, 12/8/17.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124991553&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124991553&jd=124991553
-
Dems Expect Dourson Withdrawal; Trump Taps Nuke Chief
Dec 12, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones and Nick Sobczyk
Senate Democrats believe the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program will end in failure, Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said yesterday.
The EPW Committee approved Dourson on an 11-10 party-line vote in October. But numerous Republicans outside the panel have expressed concerns about him (E&E Daily, Nov. 28).
With the GOP holding a slim majority in the chamber, a handful of defections would be enough to sink Dourson, who is already at EPA in an advisory capacity.
"I don't believe his name is going to come up for a vote. I expect it to be withdrawn if it hasn't been already," Carper said yesterday evening.
"I think a number of Republicans have spoken with their leadership," he said, "and this indicates that they don't support the nomination and urge the administration to pull the nomination."
Last week the Senate approved Susan Bodine for EPA enforcement chief. Carper had suggested Democrats were willing to allow picks like her to advance in exchange for concessions on others.Nuclear pick
Separately, the president last night nominated Lisa Gordon-Hagerty to be undersecretary for nuclear security at the Department of Energy.
Gordon-Hagerty is a security consultant, has been a member of the National Security Council staff and has worked on Capitol Hill.
She has also been a top executive at USEC Inc., now Centrus Energy Corp., which produces enriched uranium.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/12/12/stories/1060068725
-
U.K. Chemical Industry Pleads for EU Trading Rules Post-Brexit
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Noël
The U.K.’s $54 billion chemical and pharmaceutical industry pushed the government to keep the European Union regulatory framework for the sector, joining other lobby groups heaping pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May to avoid rupturing ties with the nation's leading export market.
“Ensuring that cars continue to run, planes continue to fly and medicines continue to work” means upholding the EU's rules on selling hazardous substances, called REACH, and being part of the European Chemicals Agency, according to a letter sent to Environment Secretary Michael Gove from Chemical Industries Association Chief Executive Steve Elliott.
Elliott said that although the introduction of REACH 10 years ago initially caused consternation to the U.K.’s chemical industry amid fears of extra costs and bureaucracy, being outside the system now would be harmful. Having a U.K.-specific regulatory framework could amount to hundreds of millions of pounds in costs being duplicated as companies seek to comply with a new set of rules.
“REACH is far from perfect but it is our belief that the best way of minimizing any disruption to supply chains” is maintaining the status quo, Elliott said in the letter, a copy of which was seen by Bloomberg.
The chemical industry's concerns mirror those of the aerospace industry, which called for continued membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency.
With the clock ticking down to Brexit in March 2019, May is having to tread a fine line to balance the competing demands of industry and so-called hard-Brexit supporters in her cabinet, such as Gove, who want few compromises in any deal. Other players she's contending with include her divided backbenchers, the EU, bloc member Ireland and the Northern Irish party that props up her government.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124991551&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124991551&jd=124991551
-
EU Draft Guidance Makes Identifying EDCs 'Impossible', NGO Says
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A European pressure group has criticised the recently released draft guidance on the identification of endocrine disruptors (EDs) in biocides and pesticides. The document, PAN Europe says, makes it impossible to identify any substance as an ED "in the near future, even when there is evidence that it causes harm".
The NGO adds that the guidance is limited by only focusing on adverse effects from interaction with oestrogen, androgen, thyroid and steroidogenic (EATS).
As a result, it says, chemicals will not be assessed for endocrine-related diseases of different modalities, such as obesity, diabetes, cognition and behavioural dysfunction.
And substances found to cause EATS-mediated adverse effects are not considered hazardous if there is no evidence on their key mechanism of action.
Mode-of-action studies "belong to the endocrine disruption research, and not to regulatory hazard assessment of chemicals that aims to protect people and the environment from the adverse effects of chemicals and should therefore have straightforward protocols," says PAN environmental toxicologist, Angeliki Lysimachou.
PAN fears that substances with ED properties can easily be approved under the guidance. Their positive adverse effects in laboratory experiments can be dismissed as non-endocrine mediated or non-adverse, or as non-human relevant, or not relevant for wildlife populations.
"The guidance completely overlooks the fact that European law is based on the precautionary principle; we don’t need to understand the complete mode of action through which a chemical causes an adverse effect, in order to limit human and environmental exposure," says PAN Europe chemical officer, Hans Muilerman.
The guidance was released for public consultation on 7 December. It was developed by Echa, the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Earlier this year, Efsa and Echa conducted two targeted consultations on the draft with experts representing member state competent authorities and stakeholders from NGOs and industry.
PAN urges stakeholders to take part in the public consultation. "This document must not go through," says Mr Muilerman.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62478/eu-draft-guidance-makes-identifying-edcs-impossible-ngo-says
-
Echa Considers Luclid Cloud Option For Biocides Registration
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is considering whether to extend the option to register substances via the Cloud to biocides, the agency has said. But it will not make any decision until it has discussed offering this to larger companies dealing with REACH. The possibility is currently only available to SMEs doing so.
Such companies can prepare and submit dossiers using Iuclid Cloud for SMEs, which stores user data on the Echa servers and is accessible via an internet browser.
The agency says that SMEs benefit in several ways. Using the Cloud means that they do not have to install the application locally or update it once installed. Furthermore, online access means that multiple users – including third parties, such as consultants – can view, add and edit data remotely.
The question of whether it would extend the option to biocides, and if so when, was raised by an attendee during the CRM webinar on Echa's Cloud services.
"That’s a question we get quite often because the dossiers are very similar," said Tommy Hägg, product manager for Echa's IT tools.
Companies registering substances under the biocides Regulation also use Iuclid for dossier preparation but via a module called R4BP. The agency had discussed bringing biocides registration within the scope of its Cloud services but not yet made a decision, said Mr Hägg.
"Currently we’re prioritising the functionality for the 2018 REACH registration deadline," he said.
The third and final REACH registration deadline is 31 May 2018 and is for substances manufactured or imported in quantities of 1-100 tonnes a year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62474/echa-considers-iuclid-cloud-option-for-biocides-registration
-
Senators Urge Wider Federal Investigation of Industrial Packager
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
A global reconditioned industrial packager under federal investigation in 10 states over its operations may face additional scrutiny from two other agencies at the urging of U.S. senators.
Container Life Cycle Management LLC, also known as Mid-America Steel Drum Co. Inc., is facing $108,461 in Occupational Safety and Health Administration fines for not providing employees with a hazard-free workplace at its Milwaukee location.
The Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also alleged 16 violations, proposing a $31,880 assessment against the Ludlow, Ky.-based company. And more recently, the Environmental Protection Agency issued notices of violation to three of the company's facilities for potential environmental violations.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) has urged federal agencies to investigate the company's operations for months and said she will continue because the company has put Wisconsin workers at risk.
“Federal agencies, including EPA, OSHA, and DOT need to do their job and hold this company accountable by identifying violations, issuing penalties and bringing these plants into compliance,” she said in a Dec. 8 statement to Bloomberg Environment . “Our work here is not done and I will continue to demand answers. We must ensure these workplaces and our communities are safe.”
Baldwin used a Dec. 5 Senate committee hearing to press Scott Mugno, the Trump administration's pick to lead OSHA. Baldwin asked Mugno if he would be aggressive in using the agency's statutory authority to issue willful violations and demand the payment of full fines in an effort to protect workers.
EPA Investigating
The EPA said it was investigating the company's industrial facilities in Milwaukee, Oak Creek and St. Francis, Wis., for potential Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Air Act violations. EPA personnel conducted site visits in 2017 to sample the soil and air around the company's Wisconsin facilities.
“[W]hile we don't believe the numbers cited by the EPA in the notices [regarding air emissions] are indicative of our operations, we remain committed to working with the EPA to address any issues that exist,” Debbie Crow, Greif Inc. spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment.
Container Life Cycle Management LLC is a joint venture majority-owned by Greif and provides reconditioned and remanufactured industrial packaging and related services in Europe and North America.
Senate Scrutiny
Baldwin has been following the company's actions for months.
In an Oct. 12 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Loren Sweatt, OSHA's acting administrator, Baldwin and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) said the agencies should expand their investigations to additional facilities owned by the company around the country.
They said to mirror the Department of Transportation, which is investigating the company's facilities in Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
The three federal agency investigations, along with whistleblower allegations, “raise concerns that similar violations may also be occurring at the company's other barrel refurbishing operations in other states across the country,” the letter said.
OSHA Citation
The April 12 OSHA citation said the company's Milwaukee work site wasn't free from hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.
Employees were exposed to reactive materials and chemical hazards due to the improper practices involving draining of chemicals; slip and fall hazards; improper dispensing of chemicals; and other chemical exposure hazards.
The company also did not possess a written emergency response plan, the OSHA citation said.
The company is contesting the OSHA citations and fines, Crow said. Many of the issues, she said, “were corrected to the satisfaction of the inspectors during the course of the inspection.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124991542&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124991542&jd=124991542
-
Health Groups Sue Chemical Board To Require Release Reporting Rule
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
Health groups are suing the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) for failing to promulgate rules requiring industrial facilities to report their chemical releases following an incident, citing in part concerns that first responders were harmed after exposure to the Arkema, Inc. fire in Houston following Hurricane Harvey due to inadequate reporting data.
The Dec. 7 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, marks the latest effort by environmentalists and others to pressure the Trump administration to impose new safety mandates on facilities in the wake of releases stemming from the hurricane, even as it seeks to roll back or delay Obama-era measures, such as EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule.
But winning any new CSB rule could be complicated as the Obama administration considered crafting such a measure in 2009, but shelved the effort in the face of concerns from other federal officials and industry groups that extensive new reporting requirements could duplicate existing regimes overseen by EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and others.
In addition, CSB told EPA's Inspector General in 2016 that a reporting rule was not needed because it already receives adequate release information.
The suit, filed by groups including Air Alliance Houston, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, charges that the board is required by the Clean Air Act to promulgate a reporting rule, though the law sets no deadline by which the board should act.
Nevertheless, the complaint charges that the board's failure to promulgate a rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “by unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying agency action required by statute.”
The suit urges the court to give CSB 18 months to craft a rule requiring facilities to report their chemical release following an incident, data that the groups say would help CSB better investigate incidents.
A key driver for the suit appears to be injuries sustained by emergency personnel who responded to the Aug. 31 fire at the Arkema, Inc. facility in Crosby, TX. The fire occurred after rising floodwaters from Hurricane Harvey overwhelmed backup cooling systems needed for safe storage of organic peroxide chemicals on site and used in the production of consumer products. First responders sought medical attention after exposure to smoke from the fire.
As a result, first responders sued Arkema in state court on Sept. 7, alleging in Graves v. Arkema that first responders were not aware of the dangerous properties of the chemicals released.
Another class action complaint, Wheeler v. Arkema France S.A. & Arkema, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Oct. 3, argues that Arkema “could have prevented or avoided th[e] accident with better precautionary measures, compliance with applicable regulations, and the use of reasonable care.”
“The need for this regulation was underlined most recently this summer when the Arkema chemical plant in Houston experienced chemical fires and explosions as a result of flooding from Hurricane Harvey. First responders to the stricken plant claimed that no one was aware of the dangerous properties of chemicals released,” PEER Staff Counsel Adam Carlesco said in a Dec. 7 statement.
“Congress has clearly required, and the CSB has acknowledged, that a rule must be promulgated to inform the public as to what chemicals industries have spewed into the atmosphere following an accident. Our lawsuit would finally implement this unambiguous yet long-neglected mandate,” he added.
RMP Rule
Environmentalists have also said the Arkema incident backs the need for the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's RMP facility accident prevention program with new requirements for hazard analysis and streamlined release of facility data.
The Obama EPA's Jan. 12 final RMP update rule brought new requirements for independent audits, hazard analysis, as well as provisions for streamlining release of facility data to first responders and the public. EPA issued the rule in response to an executive order on improving facility safety issued after an April 2013 fertilizer facility explosion in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders.
But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has delayed the rule's implementation while the agency works to reconsider it, an effort that is drawing legal challenges from environmental and labor groups, as well as 11 Democratic state attorneys general.
CSB has backed parts of the Obama EPA's facility safety prevention rule to help facilities better prepare for worsening risks from flooding, saying companies should reassess their emergency planning and coordination with first responders and communities to ensure adequate planning for extreme weather.
During a Nov. 15 conference call on CSB's investigation of the Arkema fire, Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland called for facilities to reassess emergency plans to account for flood risks, and underscored the need for key prevention concepts included in EPA's facility safety rule -- one of the regulations that the Trump administration plans to scale back.
With “tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico increasing in frequency and intensity, it's important that facilities have effective emergency response procedures in place,” Sutherland said.
While Sutherland did not overtly back the Obama RMP rule, she strongly backed the three concepts that were a significant part of the rule that now faces possible repeal.
There is a need for “better preparation and planning and communication with communities and emergency responders about risks and possible consequences,” Sutherland said. “We want people to be comfortable near a facility,” she added, noting that facilities should communicate “what they're storing and what the possible consequences could be of a catastrophic event.”
Sutherland also said the change from the Obama to Trump administration does not affect CSB's mission of investigating accidents and recommending improvements to safety rules.
“Our job as an independent non-regulatory agency is unique. Our mission is to hold everyone accountable -- the regulated community for how their operations run . . . and also to hold the regulators accountable,” she said. “The CSB will issue recommendations as many times as we need to drive chemical safety change.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/health-groups-sue-chemical-board-require-release-reporting-rule
-
Enviros Sue Chem Safety Board Over Accident Report Rules
Dec 11, 2017 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
Law360, New York (December 11, 2017, 5:10 PM EST) -- Environmentalists have sued the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, alleging the agency has failed to publish regulations for accidental chemical-release reporting as required by the Clean Air Act.
In a complaint filed Thursday in D.C. federal court, Air Alliance Houston, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and other environmental groups say that the CAA requires the Chemical Safety Board to establish requirements for reporting accidents. While having acknowledged the mandate, the CSB has not taken final action since the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, according to the suit.
PEER said in a statement that the lawsuit seeks to force the CSB to establish guidelines for the disclosure of air pollutants accidentally emitted by any industry within the agency's jurisdiction. The CSB is charged with investigating chemical fires, explosions, leaks and other accidents.
The group says the need for such a rule was highlighted this summer when Arkema Inc.’s liquid organic peroxide manufacturing plant caught fire in the wake of historic flooding from Hurricane Harvey.
“America’s sole industrial safety monitor is currently flying blind and placing the health of the public at risk,” PEER attorney Adam Carlesco said in a statement. “Congress has clearly required, and the CSB has acknowledged, that a rule must be promulgated to inform the public as to what chemicals industries have spewed into the atmosphere following an accident. Our lawsuit would finally implement this unambiguous yet long-neglected mandate.”
According to the lawsuit, the CSB in 2009 published an advance notice of proposed rule-making for chemical release reporting but took no further action.
In addition, the complaint says the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have separately noted the CSB’s lack of air pollution reporting guidelines for accidents.
At least two lawsuits have been filed against Arkema over the releases from its facility: one filed by first responders that alleged no one told them about the dangers associated with the chemicals released during the fires and explosions; and a separate class action that alleged the company “could have prevented or avoided the accident with better precautionary measures.”
The CSB did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
The plaintiffs are represented by Paula Dinerstein of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Counsel information for the CSB was not available Monday.
The case is Air Alliance Houston et al. v. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, case number 1:17-cv-02608, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
--Additional reporting by Michelle Casady. Editing by Edrienne Su.https://www.law360.com/articles/992948/enviros-sue-chem-safety-board-over-accident-report-rules
-
Northwest Democrats Furious at Trump Administration Over Oil-Train Brake Rule Rollback
Dec 11, 2017 | Portland Business Journal
By Pete Danko
Democrats in the region are piling on their criticism of a Trump administration decision to withdraw a railroad braking-system rule aimed at trains carrying highly flammable commodities.
The Department of Transportation said it jettisoned the requirement for electronically controlled pneumatic brakes because “the expected benefits do not exceed the expected cost.”
The decision added to long list of rollbacks of Obama-era regulations by the Trump administration, but this one has particular resonance in the Northwest, where a June 2016 derailment near Mosier, raised concerns about the oil trains that run through the region.
Sen. Jeff Merkley was first to criticize the Dec. 4 ruling, calling it “a huge step backward and one that puts our land, homes, and lives at risk.” Other pols joined in as the week wore on.
The mandate for "ECP" brakes was part of a May 2015 rulemaking by the Obama administration. It required use of the braking systems by 2021 and 2023, depending on the particular cargo. ECP brakes use electronic signals to control brakes simultaneously throughout a train, reducing braking distances compared to traditional air brake systems.
But the railroad industry fought back, saying it hadn't been demonstrated that ECP brakes would lead to fewer derailments, at least not to a degree justifying their cost. The Association of American Railroads sued, but put that suit on hold after Congress passed a law that required further review of the rule, to be concluded by this Dec. 4.
That review ultimately included a study by the National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board. A finding that it was “unable to make a conclusive statement concerning the emergency performance of ECP brakes relative to other braking systems” was cited prominently in the Trump administration’s announcement that it was rescinding the rule.
The industry and supporters in Congress hailed the ruling, but critics said it ignored agreement dating back for years that ECP brakes would enhance safety. They noted, too, that the NAS committee pointedly said its report was “not intended to be a comprehensive consideration of the performance of ECP brakes relative to that of other braking systems, nor is it intended to analyze the maximum capabilities of a brake system in ... reducing the incidence and severity of spills from derailments.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge said the Trump administration's decision pointed to the need for Oregon to pass "strong oil train" legislation next year. In the 2017 session, the Legislature came close on a bill that would have would have required railroads to carry “worst case” insurance and create state-approved spill prevention and quick-response plans, but the legislation diedamid criticism from advocates that it lacked transparency.
https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2017/12/11/northwest-democrats-furious-at-trump.html
-
Dec 11, 2017 | The Western Journal
By Chris White
A lengthy report Sunday from The New York Times suggesting the EPA is pulling back enforcement efforts on polluters misses a couple of glaring points that could help explain the agency’s supposed scale back.
President Donald Trump “has adopted a more lenient approach than the previous two administrations … toward polluters,” Times reporter Eric Lipton wrote without mentioning the role former President Barack Obama’s administration played in hollowing out the agency’s enforcement arm.
The EPA started about 1,900 cases during the first nine months under agency chief Scott Pruitt’s leadership, that is about one-third fewer than the number under President Barack Obama’s first EPA administrator, according to data Lipton compiled during the first few months of the Trump era.
Recent reports appear to complicate Lipton’s analysis. The number of special agents in the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division cratered from 207 to 154 during the Obama era and reduced the number of cases by 47 percent, according to documents Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility obtained earlier in 2017 through open records requests.
The EPA has 147 special agents in its Criminal Investigation Division. This is less than half the number of those employed in 2003.
The agency’s dwindling numbers have not been lost on some career EPA officials.
“The last administration crippled EPA’s criminal enforcement program,” Henry Barnet, director of the EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, said in a statement earlier in 2017. He sounded an optimistic tone about Pruitt’s ability to resuscitate the agency’s enforcement division.
“Administrator Pruitt is highly supportive of our program, he took the unprecedented step of meeting with our criminal investigators and reaffirmed that we’d have the resources to carry out our mission,” said Barnet, who has headed the unit since 2011.
Obama’s decision to slash investigations 47 percent and staff 24 percent was done, in part, to shift investigations to a new enforcement system called Next Generation Compliance in 2014.
The new system was done to ease oversight through electronic reporting and “advanced pollution detection technology.” Environmentalists groused about the decision.
“There’s no evidence companies are increasing their compliance because of the change,” Jeff Ruch, PEER’s executive director, told reporters in August when his group obtained the documents. The agency’s cuts, he said, were not made to save money.
Lipton’s analysis also chalked up the enforcement slowdown to the departure of more than 700 employees at the EPA since Trump took office, many of whom were offered buyouts to reduce the agency’s size.
He has not mentioned in previous reports whether the Obama-era shift to a digital platform helped reduce the agency’s ability to target polluters.
EPA fired back at Lipton’s reporting on Sunday.
There “is not only no reduction in EPA’s commitment to ensure compliance with our nation’s environmental laws, but a greater emphasis on compliance in the first place,” the agency said in a statement shortly after the report was published.
Pruitt “has not directed EPA staff to decrease their enforcement efforts and no request to gather enforcement information has been denied,” the EPA said, adding that The Times’ account “distorted the facts” on its enforcement efforts.
Lipton and Pruitt have a complicated past. He has been reporting on the former Oklahoma attorney general since at least 2014, when Lipton published an article detailing a supposedly “secret alliance” between Pruitt and oil and gas companies to defeat EPA regulations.
The Times’ report Sunday was not the only one the EPA has taken exception to in recent months.
Lipton wrote an article in October, for instance, detailing how EPA appointee Nancy Beck is supposedly directing the agency to weaken regulations targeting toxic chemicals. The agency refused to answer Lipton’s request for comment and, instead, lashed out on his supposed biased reporting.
“No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the agency, told Lipton in an email about his coverage of the EPA during the past several months.
Beck, a one-time executive at the American Chemistry Council, has repeatedly pushed for changes to various chemical regulations.
“The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country,” said Bowman, who also worked at the American Chemistry Council before joining the administration.
A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website. Some minor changes have been made for clarity.
What do you think? Scroll down to comment below.
https://www.westernjournal.com/bias-new-york-times-publishes-new-3000-word-attack-trumps-epa-leaves-key-details/
-
EPA Can (But Won't) Question Industry Pollution Projections
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The Supreme Court won't review a ruling against electric utility DTE Energy that said the Michigan company had to account for significant increases in air pollution when making major modifications to its coal-fired power plant.
The Environmental Protection Agency had sued the company, in a case dating to President Barack Obama's first term, for starting a $65 million overhaul to a unit in its Monroe coal-fired power plant without including pollution control details in its permit, as required by an EPA program called new source review.
The day before construction began, DTE Energy Co. filed notice to state environmental regulators that its total air pollution emissions would increase by thousands of tons a year, but chalked the surge in pollution up to consumer-driven growth, without submitting analysis to back up its case.
The company also claimed its construction was routine maintenance, repair and replacement—therefore not subject to preconstruction permits specifying how it would curb pollution under new source review.
The EPA in 2010 sued to require Monroe to undergo a new source review and ultimately prevailed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit earlier in 2017. DTE Energy asked the Supreme Court to hear its appeal of the case, but the justices Dec. 11 let stand, without comment, the Sixth Circuit's ruling.
Action May Have Limited Effect
The impact of the long-lived case is unclear. New source review has been around for decades, and under President George W. Bush the EPA set the most recent interpretation for new source review as an industry obligation that doesn't require EPA approval prior to construction.
Just last week, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signaled the agency would back away from the policy of prejudging how much pollution a new or modified power plant will spew.
Pruitt's new source review memo, sent to regional administrators, specifically mentioned the DTE Energy case. His memo said the Sixth Circuit decision “does not compel the EPA to pursue enforcement” when facilities fail to perform preconstruction emissions analyses or follow “the objective calculation requirements.”
Pruitt's memo specifically told officials to stop “second-guessing” industry emissions projections unless there is “clear error.”
While the Sixth Circuit opinion stands, “it remains to be seen whether the EPA continues to prosecute the case and if they do, what the federal district court will say,” John Walke, director of climate and clean air program at the environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg Environment Dec. 11.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124991533&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124991533&jd=124991533
-
EPA Starts Clock For Imposing Ozone FIPs On Major Cities
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has issued formal findings that parts of the New York City and Chicago metropolitan areas, as well as three areas in California, have failed to submit to the agency plans for attaining the 2008 ozone standard, starting a two-year clock for the areas to either submit plans or have EPA impose its own ozone-reduction plan on them.
In a Dec. 11 Federal Register notice, the agency says the three states failed to meet a Jan. 1 deadline to submit their state implementation plans (SIPs) -- emissions reduction strategies for meeting the standard -- required for the areas in question, which are all classified in “moderate” nonattainment with the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) that the George W. Bush EPA set at 75 parts per billion (ppb).
The decision starts a Clean Air Act two-year clock for the agency to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs) to directly regulate these major urban areas instead, unless the affected states come up with the necessary plans in the meantime. If the states do not submit, and get EPA approval of, SIPs within that timeline, EPA would be forced by the air law to directly regulate the areas in question. That could run counter to Administrator Scott Pruitt's push for “cooperative federalism” and giving states more lead authority on environmental regulation.
EPA has since in 2015 adopted a tougher ozone standard of 70 ppb, although implementation of this NAAQS has been delayed by the late designation of “nonattainment” areas violating the standard by EPA. However, the Trump administration has said it intends to reconsider this limit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-starts-clock-imposing-ozone-fips-major-cities
-
Supreme Court Declines To Hear Case on NSR Permit Test
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Supreme Court without comment has let stand a lower court ruling upholding an EPA test for when it can use its own data to require facilities to obtain Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permits -- just days after the agency announced it is dropping the same long-running test.
In its Dec. 11 orders list, the judges rejected a request from Michigan utility DTE Energy and others to hear DTE Energy Co., et al. v. United States, et al. in which the company sought to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruling that upheld EPA's recently rescinded policy.
The Obama administration had opposed high court review of the case, and the Trump administration continued that position.
Under the scrapped test, the agency for years said that it could require facilities to obtain NSR permits if the agency's own pre-construction emissions projections suggested a permit might be necessary -- even if a company's air data showed that emissions post-construction are below the threshold for triggering NSR.
But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last week undid the years-old policy, instead saying that the agency will now defer to companies' own pre-construction data on whether they should be subject to NSR.
Some companies try to avoid NSR because it can impose costly pollution control technology mandates, and industry groups, lawmakers and others have long complained that it discourages new facilities or expansions of existing facilities. The Commerce Department has identified NSR reform as a major step toward easing regulatory burdens on industry, and EPA has launched an internal task force to assess a potential overhaul of the program.
Environmentalists warn that Pruitt's decision will encourage companies to submit data to EPA showing they should not trigger NSR, which they say in turn will lead to increased air pollution.
“The Trump EPA enforcement retreat amounts to permission for industrial polluters to commit fraud and make false projections about their increased emissions, so long as those projections are 'procedurally' adequate -- even if they are substantively bogus and ultimately harmful to air quality,” John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a Dec. 8 blog post.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/supreme-court-declines-hear-case-nsr-permit-test
-
A Landmark California Climate Program Is in Jeopardy
Dec 12, 2017 | The New York Times
By Justin Gillis and Chris Busch
San Francisco — Gov. Jerry Brown of California and lawmakers in Sacramento pulled off a huge political feat last summer when they renewed one of the state’s premier climate programs. The governor sought a two-thirds majority to insulate the program from legal challenges, and he got there by winning support from eight Republican lawmakers.
It was a sharp and welcome contrast to the political dysfunction in Washington. Now California must write the detailed regulations that will turn the governor’s vision into reality. As supporters of strong action to tackle climate change, we are worried that the state government may be sleepwalking its way into a serious problem.
Getting the program, known as “cap and trade,” right matters far beyond the borders of California. It is the best-designed plan of its type in the world to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and has already been adopted by two Canadian provinces. China is paying close attention too, and the plan may well become a model for that country’s efforts to cut its emissions, the largest of any nation.
Within California itself, the public has been suffering from droughts, wildfires and other weather disasters that are aggravated by a warming climate. The recent fires that have forced thousands of people to evacuate parts of Los Angeles ought to focus some minds in Sacramento, the state capital, on how more can be done to reduce climate risks.
California’s cap and trade program sets a limit — the cap — on almost all of the state’s fossil fuel emissions, which decline each year. Companies either have to comply with the cap by reducing their emissions or buy permits that allow them to continue to pollute. Those permits are periodically auctioned off by the state and can also be bought and sold on the open market — the trade. The basic idea is that putting a price on emissions will encourage companies to find ways to cut them that are cheaper than having to buy permits.Continue reading the main story
The program has operated successfully since 2013. But for various reasons — including the lingering effects of the Great Recession, as well as big achievements by the electricity industry in cutting greenhouse gases under a separate set of programs — emissions in the state have been relatively low throughout this period.
As a result, companies had little problem meeting the cap, which was great news. The situation also meant that the permits were cheap because there wasn’t much demand for them. So businesses behaved just the way you or we might if Costco threw a big sale on paper towels. Knowing they would be able to use the things eventually, greenhouse gas emitters stockpiled tens of millions of permits.
The permits never expire, which is now a problem, because the mechanism for forcing emissions reductions is to ratchet down the number of permits the state makes available each year. The surplus threatens to upend that process. So in the 2020s, when California’s emissions limits are scheduled to get much tighter, the stockpile effectively means that many businesses will be able to stay within the more stringent caps by using their old permits, which will allow them to spew more greenhouse gases into the air than the policy intended.
The state’s Air Resources Board must tackle this crucial issue. Later this week, the board is expected to approve a framework for regulating emissions to 2030, and so far no fix for the permit surplus is included. Getting it right is critical, because the program is expected to account for nearly 40 percent of emissions reductions under the new framework.
Fortunately, the fix is straightforward. The Air Resources Board simply needs to adjust future emissions limits downward to take account of the surplus permits already in the marketplace. A consortium of states in the Northeast, which has a more limited cap-and-trade program that applies only to the power industry, took exactly that approach in 2014 when it faced a similar oversupply of permits.
But, you ask, won’t tightening the limits offend those companies and investors who, like dutiful Costco shoppers, had the good sense to buy the permits when they were cheap?
No. The minute the board adjusts the limits, the price of permits is likely to rise as demand for them increases. It will be like somebody telling you the paper towels stacked in your garage are worth more than you paid for them.
It is true, however, that companies expecting to have to buy a lot of future permits will not like the change. The oil industry, in particular, has savagely fought California’s emissions limits and is likely to warn that tighter emissions limits in the 2020s will raise the price of gasoline.
If so, the effect is likely to be no more than a few cents a gallon. (The main factor determining the cost of gas is the price of oil in global markets.) And by the 2020s, dozens of electric car models will be on the market, and gasoline cars will get better mileage under rules that were also pioneered in California and later adopted by the Obama administration.
The Air Resources Board must take on the risk posed by this oversupply of permits, sooner rather than later. Governor Brown has only a year left in office. We simply do not know if his successor will be as intelligent about the climate problem, or as committed to action, as he has been.
California has been a world leader in reducing greenhouse emissions, and the governor is rightly treated as a climate hero on the global stage. But that record will be at risk if he leaves office without tackling this issue — potentially tarnishing not just his legacy but also that of the eight Republican lawmakers who were brave enough to defy their party and vote for rational action to save the planet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/opinion/california-climate-program-emissions.html?_r=0
-
Cost of California Carbon Credits Likely to Increase, Study Says
Dec 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California's much-debated cap-and-trade carbon emissions program, now extended to 2030, could experience significant price spikes for the carbon credits over the next 12 years, according to a recent discussion paper by The Brattle Group.
Near-term, the paper predicts prices in the program run by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and participated in widely by operators in the oil/gas industry "will remain near the floor," but long-term it "will need to rise substantially" unless technology breakthroughs massively decrease emissions outside of the power generation sector.
Brattle's thesis is that California's goal of 80% decarbonization by 2050 has got to raise the tab on carbon emissions credits. Also, assuming the cap-and-trade program is extended beyond 2030, it will have to deal with the market consequences of the aggressive goals. The analysis examined four different scenarios, including one with today's low natural gas prices lasting for the next 30-plus years.
Brattle's analysts foresee prices for carbon emissions reaching $55/ton in 2030 and climbing to $130/ton in 2050, even with more aggressive complementary policies in the state covering renewable performance standards and low carbon fuel standards. Cap-and-trade is a "central element" for the state's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals.
"To meet the California GHG reduction goals for 2030 (40% reduction) and 2050 (80%), GHG prices will have to rise dramatically to drive consumers away from higher-emitting fuels and incentivize the development and adoption of clean technologies, as well as suppress some demand for fossil fuels outside of the electric sector," the analysts concluded.
GHG emissions in California declined 5% last year, the most significant one-year drop since 2013. The reductions came in the power generation sector as the result of more renewable sources coming online, the analysts said.
Cap-and-trade was extended through 2030 this year by the state legislature, and that action spurred GHG allowance prices to a record high of $15/ton in CARB's most recent auction.
Brattle concluded that over the long term, "reaching California's deep decarbonization goals may require large increases in GHG prices in the absence of technological breakthroughs." Transportation and other non-electric generation sectors will have to play larger roles in the reduction of carbon emissions, the analysts said.
The analysts' predict that fossil fuels will still represent 20% of the electric generation sector's resources in 2050, and GHG emissions will remain above the 30 million tons level. "Notwithstanding quite high GHG prices, average wholesale energy prices do not increase nearly as much as they would with today's generation mix as the electric sector is significantly decarbonized by 2050," they said.
After staying at the floor of $15/ton through 2020, GHG prices will move upward under the current trends scenario, ranging from $35-$80/ton in the years leading up to 2030 and in the $95-$190/ton range between 2030 and 2050. "GHG prices are lower in [other] scenarios that assume rapid innovation of clean technologies that accelerates consumer adoption of lower-GHG alternatives," the analysts said.
While predicting some significant carbon price hikes in the CARB emissions trading program, Brattle's analyst concluded that California will not reach full decarbonization at mid-century. They think the full transformation off of fossil fuels will require storage technologies beyond those currently available and a broader market footprint by the California Independent System Operator.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112708-cost-of-california-carbon-credits-likely-to-increase-study-says
-
9th Circuit Panel Skeptical Of Dismissing Kids' Suit
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A panel of federal appeals judges today appeared wary of granting an unusual request by the federal government to halt a climate case brought by youth plaintiffs.
The Trump administration has filed a rare writ of mandamus challenging a November 2016 decision in Oregon district court denying the government's motion to dismiss the case.
But at arguments today, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals raised concerns about stepping into the litigation before it moves through trial and is completely resolved in the lower court.
A writ of mandamus is "a very delicate thing to do at this stage," Judge Marsha Berzon said.
Aided by the group Our Children's Trust, 21 youth plaintiffs and climate scientist James Hansen initially brought the suit against the Obama administration over the government's alleged role in causing and enhancing the danger of climate change.
Last November, Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied requests by the Obama administration and by industry groups — which have since left the case — to dismiss the complaint, finding that the kids had standing to pursue the suit and had presented valid legal arguments.
Among the claims plaintiffs have raised is that the government violated its duty to protect the public trust by ensuring that the atmosphere, water, seas, seashore and wildlife are safe for future generations. The kids claim violations of constitutional rights (Greenwire, Nov. 11, 2016).
The Trump administration, which was named plaintiff after the inauguration, has since tried various legal maneuvers to scuttle the suit, first asking Aiken to certify her November decision, a necessary step toward appealing it in the 9th Circuit.
Aiken, though, denied the request. She wrote that 9th Circuit review was "not warranted" before the district court completes its consideration of the case.
In turn, the Trump Justice Department took the unusual step of appealing Aiken's decision to allow the case to proceed directly to the 9th Circuit.
DOJ in June filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, a rarely used legal tool that asks a higher court to circumvent a lower court's decision.
The lawsuit "is distracting the executive branch from the discharge of its constitutional duties," Eric Grant, an attorney at DOJ, argued today. "This court should grant the writ and put an end to this case."
Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Berzon, both Clinton appointees, are hearing the case with Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee.
The panel of judges noted several times today that the writ of mandamus is considered extraordinary relief in the court system and should be used sparingly.
Thomas expressed concern that if the 9th Circuit grants the government's request, other parties would see it as a precedent for overturning decisions by district judges to let cases move forward.
"We'd be absolutely flooded with appeals from people who think that their case should have been dismissed by the district court," Thomas said. "If we set the precedent on this kind of case, there's no logical boundary to it."
Berzon suggested that the case should proceed through the typical route of full resolution by the district court followed by an appeal to the 9th Circuit.
"There's been no order issued," she said, adding, "The problem is why can't, as in any other case, they simply go through the district court proceedings?"
Aiken and Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who has been handling the day-to-day activity on the case in the district court, have also fought the administration's request. They argue that the appeals court would benefit from having a trial proceed first in lower court (Greenwire, Aug. 28).'Unprecedented'
Grant, though, sought to convince the judges that the case is novel, that its claims are meritless and that the discovery process leading up to trial would place heavy burdens on the government. The bifurcated trial would likely feature at least a dozen expert witnesses on each side, he said.
Grant added that the remedy sought by the children — a governmentwide plan for addressing climate change — is infeasible.
"Plaintiffs seek unprecedented standing to pursue unprecedented claims in pursuit of an unprecedented remedy," said Grant, a recent addition at DOJ's environment division who serves as a deputy assistant attorney general supervising appeals.
But Thomas noted that it's not unusual for plaintiffs to file lawsuits against multiple government agencies and for parties to be subject to discovery requests leading up to an extensive trial.
"How is that different from an antitrust case or securities case or the ordinary products liability case?" he asked. "What you describe is what happens in courts all the time."
Kozinski, the panel's lone Republican appointee, agreed that novel claims themselves are not enough to grant the government's petition.
"There always has to be a first case. Twenty years ago, there was no right to same-sex marriage," he said.'Serious doubts'
Of the judges, Kozinski seemed most sympathetic to the government's arguments. He appeared concerned about the broadness of the remedy sought by the plaintiffs.
Kozinski was also wary of conscripting the executive branch to a broad plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions, noting that the party in charge could have different views on whether and how to address climate change. He appeared concerned about potential future disagreements between the judicial and executive branches.
"How can we have the two branches coming up with different solutions to the problem, and who trumps at that point?" he asked. "Who runs the country at that point? Is it a district judge in Oregon, or is it the president?"
Kozinski also grilled Our Children's Trust attorney Julia Olson on the difference between the suit and a separate case that the group attempted to bring to compel the state of Washington to regulate greenhouse gases from its oil refineries. In that case, the 9th Circuit found that the youth plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their suit.
"We addressed the question of global warming ... and said there's no standing," Kozinski said. "I just don't see how this case is different."
Olson countered that the cases are different in scope. In Washington, she said, the litigation involved 6 percent of the state's emissions. The lawsuit here involves "emissions from the national energy system," or 16 to 25 percent of global emissions.
"What plaintiffs seek is a judicial safeguard against the further deprivation of their rights," she said.
If the 9th Circuit allows the case to go forward, it's almost certain that it would end up in front of the appeals court again.
While they both appeared to be in favor of letting the district court hash out the legal issues, comments from Thomas and Berzon indicated that the youth plaintiffs may face an uphill battle in getting approval for a broad court order aimed at addressing climate change.
"I have serious doubts about whether the harm is redressable within the context of this case," Thomas said.
Berzon suggested she would be in favor of narrowing the case but said that district courts have control over relief and scope.
"I would hope if this case did go forward, it would be pared down and focused and directed at particular orders or agencies," she said, "but to stop it now when there's all kinds of ways that things could develop — it's not very unusual to have a case that is filed very broadly but decided very narrowly."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/12/11/stories/1060068681
-
Pruitt Says EPA To Weigh Limiting Oil & Gas Methane In Pollutant 'Bundle'
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the agency plans to weigh the “significant” question of whether to regulate oil and gas methane emissions directly or as part of a “bundle” of emissions including conventional air pollutants, the latter of which likely would foreclose any future standards of the potent greenhouse gas for existing equipment in the sector.
Pruitt during a House hearing last week noted that much of the current administration’s work to date on the Obama EPA's first-time methane rules for new and modified oil and gas facilities has sought to pause looming compliance deadlines.
However, “as we go forward, the focus will be whether it needs to be part of a bundle or not” with other pollutants emitted by the sector such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), he told a Dec. 7 hearing of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel.
The statement came in response to questions from Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), who called the 2016 methane new source performance standards (NSPS) a “common-sense rule” because it simultaneously would boost energy supplies while reducing emissions of GHGs and other pollutants.
Pruitt noted that “historically” EPA has limited methane as a co-benefit of regulating VOCs from the sector. “What happened with that particular rule is the EPA for the first time pulled methane from that bundle and regulated it separately.”
He added: “There is a meaningful debate and discussion that should occur as to whether the rule should be focused on a bundle approach, a VOC approach, or whether methane should be pulled out.”
The administrator later said the “distinction matters” when looking at the “statutory framework” for regulating methane, and that it is a “significant question.”
At the hearing, Pruitt did not elaborate on why the distinction is important.
He was likely referring to the fact that the NSPS, which governs new and modified facilities, creates a legal requirement for EPA to eventually regulate the potent GHG from existing sources in the oil and gas sector.
When EPA issues an NSPS under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the statute says it “shall” also promulgate existing source standards for that pollutant and sector, which environmentalists pushed the Obama EPA to do immediately after the NSPS. However, the agency instead issued an information collection request to inform such a rule -- a request that Pruitt scrapped quickly after taking office.
EPA previously regulated the sector's VOCs through an NSPS that was issued in 2012.
However, the language of section 111(d) -- which governs existing source standards -- prohibits regulation of emissions of one of six “criteria” pollutants, as well as hazardous air pollutants.
VOCs are a precursor of ozone, which is a criteria pollutant, though methane falls into neither category.
That means that a “bundle” approach as floated by Pruitt would foreclose any future methane regulation of existing sources in the sector.
'Far Greater' Impacts
Critics of the Obama EPA's approach noted that its requirements controlled both VOCs and methane, and that EPA did not set “pollutant-specific controls” for methane.
“Even if EPA is correct that methane emissions from oil and gas sources create a public health issue or cause harm to the environment, it achieves all the stated goals through the regulation and control of VOC emissions,” the Texas Pipeline Association said in comments on the proposed version of the NSPS, according to a response to comments document about EPA's decision to craft methane regulations.
And the American Petroleum Institute (API) in its comments noted that a final methane NSPS “would trigger an obligation for the Agency to issue emissions guidelines for existing oil and natural gas sources,” and that such regulations “can and likely would have far greater potential impacts than” a new source rule.
The Obama EPA in the final rule said it was moving beyond VOC-only regulation, in which methane cuts are an “incidental benefit,” because of the “current and projected future GHG emissions from the oil and natural gas industry” and the amount of emission cuts that could be achieved in a rule.
“The standards . . . will achieve meaningful GHG reductions and will be an important step towards mitigating the impact of GHG emissions on climate change,” the agency said, adding that aligning rules for VOCs and methane would promote consistency for the industry and facilitate “implementation and enforcement.”
Additionally, the group Clean Air Task Force said in its comments on the proposed NSPS that because of the structure of section 111, direct methane limits are “essential to fulfilling the agency’s statutory obligation to reduce dangerous methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, including the most significant existing sources of that pollutant.”
'Absolutely' A Pollutant
However, a different part of the House hearing exchange could also have bearing on whether EPA limits methane directly or as part of an emissions “bundle.”
Peters referenced Pruitt's March appearance on CNBC in which he said carbon dioxide is not the “primary driver” of climate change and that it is not the only contributor.
“Do you agree that methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants?” he asked.
In response, Pruitt said: “Absolutely. And more potent, actually, than CO2. Methane is more potent than CO2, as you know, in that regard.”
If the Trump EPA is reiterating past findings that methane is an “air pollutant,” that could make it more difficult to scale back the methane-specific rules.
However, API and other industry critics of the rules also argued that the Obama EPA unlawfully failed to make a source-specific endangerment finding for the oil and gas sector's methane emissions, and also failed to show that such emissions “significantly contribute” to climate change.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-says-epa-weigh-limiting-oil-gas-methane-pollutant-bundle
-
Macron to Keep Alive Paris Climate Pact as Trump Stays Home
Dec 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Deen and Ewa Krukowska
French President Emmanuel Macron this week will seek to breathe new life into the fight against global warming and sway debate away from skeptics of the process led by U.S. President Donald Trump.
At a series of events in Paris starting Dec. 11, Macron along with leaders from the U.K., Norway, Mexico and Netherlands will draw attention to a dozen major projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. They'll also give a push for increasing climate-related aid to developing nations, in step with a United Nations goal of channeling at least $100 billion a year by 2020. Trump is not scheduled to attend.
The meetings are designed to preserve the the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change sealed two years ago. That deal brought together some 200 nations including the U.S. and China in calling for limits on fossil fuel emissions everywhere for the first time. Trump's move to pull back from the accord, along with efforts to preserve coal jobs in Germany and Poland, have undercut momentum toward cleaner forms of energy.
“The Trump decision was a blow, but it hasn't killed the process,” said Herve Le Treut, a senior climate scientist at France's National Center for Scientific Research in Paris. “If the Paris climate accord accomplished one thing, it was a change of consciousness around the world. We've seen many more initiatives since then.”
For Macron, who has sought to put France at the center of issues ranging from Middle East peace to European economic rival since his surprise electoral victory last May, the meetings are part of his effort to building the standing of France in shaping world affairs. The 39-year old French president is stepping into a leadership vacuum left as Trump focuses on an “America first” foreign policy, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is mired in talks to form a new government.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire called Dec. 11 for the carbon price to triple to 30 euros a ton to provide industry a signal that it must invest in cleaning up emissions. He was speaking an in interview at the start of a day on how to boost climate-related funding and reach UN's $100 billion goal for 2020.
“We have to explain to people that some activities are not the right ones,” Le Maire said on Bloomberg Television. “Coal fired plants have to close down.”
Since the UN goal was agreed in 2009, money has started to flow from richer nations to less developed ones, with the annual total reaching $62 billion in 2014, according to the latest data available from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
“Finance will be a key topic of the event,” said Simone Tagliapietra, analyst at the Bruegel research group in Brussels. “We know that we will need more renewables and energy efficiency, but at the end of the day it will happen only if somebody puts their money in it.”
Companies from the software developer Microsoft Corp. to insurer AXA SA also plan to announce initiatives at the event, underscoring Macron's assertion that efforts to fix the climate are picking up steam.
The Paris deal called on all nations to make voluntary emissions cuts. The ambition was to keep the temperature increases well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). A degree of warming over the past century already has been blamed for stronger storms, more frequent floods and droughts and rising seas. The World Meteorological Agency has warned that without swifter action, the planet is on course for a much sharper warming by the end of the century.
“There is an urgency to do more,” said Wendel Trio, director of CAN Europe, which represents 140 environmental groups in 30 nations. “We are not on track to implement the Paris Agreement.”
Even so, doubts are rising about commitments to the Paris agenda, and Trump isn't alone in his reluctance to follow the deal.
In Germany, business leaders are concerned about rising electricity prices and the cost of renewables. Politicians there have become sensitive about the impact the upheaval in the energy industry is having on the jobs of people employed at coal mines and generation plants.
In Poland, which hosts next year's UN climate talks in the heart of lignite-mining country, the government is working to preserve mining jobs as a matter of national security.
In India, government officials have extended tax advantages to some of the most polluting fuels and questioned whether smog in New Delhi has anything to do with noxious fumes from autos and industry.
On Dec. 12, Macron will host leaders including British Prime Minister Theresa May, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Mexican President Enrique Nieto, as well as mayors of Quito, Seoul and Buenos Aires and California Governor Jerry Brown. Also attending is former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a UN envoy on climate and founder of Bloomberg LP, which owns Bloomberg Environment. They'll gather at the Ile Seguin, south west of Paris on the site of a former Renault SA car factory.
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney is due to speak about efforts to get companies to make better disclosures of climate-related risks. AXA, which two years ago vowed to divest some coal-related holdings, is due to announce further measures it's taking.
“Two years from the Paris Agreement, we're not closer to meeting its objectives,” Breugel's Tagliapietra said. Macron's effort, he said, “will help keep the momentum alive.”
—With assistance from Gregory Viscusi, Rudy Ruitenberg, Francois de Beaupuy and Francine Lacqua.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124991547&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124991547&jd=124991547
-
Big Investors Press Major Companies to Step Up Climate Action
Dec 12, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Alister Doyle
OSLO — More than 200 institutional investors with $26 trillion in assets under management said on Tuesday they would step up pressure on the world's biggest corporate greenhouse gas emitters to combat climate change.
Two years to the day since 195 governments adopted the Paris climate agreement, investors including Pacific Investment Management Co, Amundi, Legal & General Investment Management, Northern Trust and Aegon said they aimed to work with the 100 biggest polluting companies to curb emissions under a five-year plan.
That, they said, would be more effective than threatening to pull the plug on their investments in such companies, which include Coal India, Gazprom, Exxon Mobil and China Petroleum & Chemical Corp.
"We will be asking companies ... to curb emissions and bring them down in line with the Paris goals," said Anne Simpson, investment director of sustainability at the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
That would mean roughly an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, she told reporters on a teleconference, beyond the ambition of most companies.Continue reading the main story
The investors said they were also calling on companies to improve disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, including those from the use of their products, and to step up governance of climate risks and opportunities.
French President Emmanuel Macron will hold a summit in Paris on Tuesday to build on the 2015 climate accord, which has been weakened by President Donald Trump's plan to pull the United States out and instead bolster the U.S. fossil fuel industry.
Under the investors' plan, divestment would only be a last resort. If big emitters refuse to cooperate with them, shareholders could ratchet up pressure with public statements, resolutions and votes.
Such measures can work, they said. In May, for instance, 62 percent of shareholders in Exxon Mobil voted for greater transparency about climate risks of oil and gas despite opposition from the board.
"To talk about this as 'if you don't do what we want we're selling' in a way lets the companies off the hook," said Stephanie Maier, director of responsible investment at HSBC Global Asset Management.
She said it was better to cooperate with major emitters because they contributed to droughts, mudslides, heatwaves and rising sea levels that threatened investors' other holdings.
In the past, some big investors have divested from high polluting coal or from companies they judge to be out of line with the Paris agreement's goals.
Stephanie Pfeifer, chief executive of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change which is among those coordinating the five-year plan, said investors were increasingly looking for ways to align their portfolios with the Paris goals.
"We're two years on from Paris – this is a way to showcase there is momentum," she told Reuters.
Among pension funds with strong green goals, for instance, Denmark's $40 billion PKA aims to raise climate-related investments such as in wind turbines and green bonds to 10 percent of its holdings by 2020 from almost seven now.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/12/12/business/12reuters-climatechange-investors.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested