Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/14/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Blast Pruitt's Directive For Advisory Boards
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Scientists yesterday blasted U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's directive barring members of science advisory boards from receiving agency grants. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Industry Set to Ride High: 5 Stocks for 2018
Dec 13, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The American chemical industry is riding an upswing of the major world economies with growth rate for the industry surpassing the 20-year average - according to the recently published "Year End 2017 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook" by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) November US and Canadian Polyethylene Production At Eight-Month High: ACC
Dec 14, 2017 | Platts
By Chris Ferrell
Polyethylene production in the US and Canada was at the highest level in eight months in November as the impact of new startups and post-Hurricane Harvey restarts were felt in the market, according to preliminary data released Wednesday by the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Bottle Recycling 'Strong' In 2016, But Down 2.4%
Dec 14, 2017 | Recycling International
By Kirstin Linnenkoperc
United States: Over 2.9 billion pounds worth of plastic bottles were recycled in the US last year, according to figures released jointly by the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council. -
Environmentalists Urge EPA To 'Suspend' New Chemicals Plan Pending Comment
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are urging EPA to “suspend” implementation of its proposed framework for reviewing “new” chemicals, at least until it has considered comments it receives in a still-open docket, charging that several approaches the agency is already implementing violate both the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s E.P.A. Chemical Safety Nominee Withdraws
Dec 13, 2017 | The New York Times
By Sheila Kaplan and Eric Lipton
President Trump’s nominee to oversee the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety division on Wednesday withdrew his name from consideration for the post in the face of mounting opposition. -
(ACC Mentioned) Correspondence With Chemical Industry
Dec 13, 2017 | The New York Times
Emails sent or received by Michael L. Dourson and his team at University of Cincinnati, which show his regular interaction with the American Chemistry Council and other chemical industry players, even after he learned he was to be nominated to oversee toxic chemical regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Facing Senate Rejection, Controversial Pick To Head EPA Chemical Office Bows Out
Dec 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Michael Dourson, whose nomination to become the Environmental Protection Agency’s top chemical safety official drew widespread criticism, withdrew from consideration Wednesday after it became clear the Senate probably would not confirm him. -
Embattled EPA Chemical Safety Nominee Withdraws After Criticism
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Michael Dourson, a former chemical industry consultant who was tapped to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew his nomination after Republican senators raised concerns about his past work and possible conflicts of interest, according to a Trump administration official. -
Nominee For EPA Chemical Safety Withdraws: Bloomberg
Dec 14, 2017 | Reuters
By Roberta Rampton and Valerie Volcovici
A former chemical industry consultant nominated by the Trump administration to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety and pollution prevention office has withdrawn his nomination, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday. -
Dourson, Stalled EPA Toxics Nominee, Asks Trump To Withdraw Nomination
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Michael Dourson, the Trump administration's stalled nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, is expected to soon ask President Trump to withdraw his nomination, an informed source tells Inside EPA. -
Dourson Withdraws Nomination For EPA's Chemicals Office
Dec 14, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Michael Dourson has withdrawn his nomination to run EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, according to a Senate source. -
Dourson Withdraws Nomination To Lead US EPA's Chemical Policy Office
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Michael Dourson reportedly withdrew his nomination to lead the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention on 13 December. -
Chemicals Nominee Dourson Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program, has withdrawn from consideration amid bipartisan concerns about his background. -
Trump’s EPA Chemical Safety Nominee Withdraws Nomination
Dec 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
President Trump's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical safety office has withdrawn his nomination amid criticism from lawmakers about his ties to the chemical industry. -
EDF Applauds Dourson’s Reported Withdrawal from Chemical Safety Position
Dec 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
According to press reports, the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead EPA’s toxics office is being withdrawn. -
Controversial Trump Nominee for Top Chemical Safety Position at EPA Withdraws from Consideration
Dec 13, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
Michael Dourson, who President Trump nominated to run the chemical safety division at the Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew his name from consideration after it was clear there were not enough votes in the Senate to confirm him. -
Vermont Governor Proposes Weaker Reporting For Chemicals In Children's Products
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Vermont's Republican Governor Phil Scott has proposed changing the state's law on children's products so that businesses will only have to report items containing toxic chemicals every two years. -
Avoiding Common Household Asthma Triggers
Dec 13, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Violet Batcha, and Tasha Stoiber
According to the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in ten school-age children in the U.S. has asthma. -
EU Provisionally OKs Ways to Tag Pesticides That Affect Hormones
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Proposed European Union criteria for identifying endocrine-disrupting substances in pesticides produced by such companies as BASF SE and Monsanto Co. moved a step closer to adoption Dec. 13. -
Thresholds For Genotoxic Carcinogens: Rac and Scoel Agree Approach
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Committees from Echa and the European Commission have reached agreement on how to calculate "mode-of-action (MoA) based thresholds" for genotoxic carcinogens, traditionally considered not to have thresholds. -
Member States Give Green Light To Commission’s Plan On Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 13, 2017 | Euractiv
EU member states backed on Wednesday (13 December) the European Commission’s new plan to regulate endocrine disruptors, disappointing environmentalists. -
Scott Pruitt And A Crew Of EPA Aides Just Spent Four Days In Morocco Promoting Natural Gas
Dec 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt returned Wednesday from a trip to Morocco, where he talked with officials about their interest in importing natural gas as well as other areas of “continued cooperation” between the two countries. -
Ohio Congressman Introduces Bills to Expedite U.S. LNG Exports
Dec 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A Congressman representing Ohio's Utica Shale region has introduced a pair of bills designed to help significantly expedite U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). -
NAFTA Withdrawal Would Risk U.S. Oil Production
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Withdrawing from NAFTA would devastate oil and gas trade and threaten U.S. production, energy leaders said, arguing that the Trump administration should “modernize” the pact, not jettison it. -
Why Modernizing NAFTA Could Be A Boon For The US Economy
Dec 13, 2017 | The Hill
By Chet Thompson
Negotiations to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are a chance to boost the competitiveness of U.S. companies in Canada and Mexico and solidify the preeminent role U.S. refiners and petrochemicals producers play in enabling global transportation and manufacturing. -
Fracking Sites May Raise The Risk Of Underweight Babies, New Study Says
Dec 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Living within half a mile of a hydraulic fracturing site carries a serious risk for pregnant women, a new study has found. The drilling technique, also known as fracking, injects high-pressure water laced with chemicals into underground rock to release natural gas. -
Fracking Linked to Negative Health Effects in Infants, Study Says
Dec 14, 2017 | TIME
By Justin Worland
Babies born to mothers who lived near fracking wells during pregnancy are more likely to experience negative health effects than babies born elsewhere, according to new research. -
(ACC Mentioned) Fueling Dissent: How The Oil Industry Set Out To Undercut Clean Air
Dec 14, 2017 | The Guardian
By Jie Jenny Zou and Tom Dart
On sunny days, when his classmates run out to play, Gabriel Rosales heads to the school nurse for a dose of Albuterol. -
Occidental to Join Exxon in Reporting Climate Risks to Investors
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Occidental Petroleum Corp. plans to report early next year on risks to its business from climate change, a step sought by more than 60 percent of its investors. -
Environmentalists Vow To Fight Retroactive Application Of Pruitt's NSR Memo
Dec 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Environmentalists are vowing to fight any EPA effort to retroactively apply its controversial new source review (NSR) applicability test to ongoing enforcement actions, including the pending case against Michigan utility DTE Energy whose stance Administrator Scott Pruitt has now adopted despite judicial support for the agency's prior policy. -
EPA Faces 'Intense' Workload For Air Toxics Rule Reviews
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA faces an “intense” workload for undertaking dozens of Clean Air Act-mandated reviews of existing air toxics regulations, agency officials say, but they are vowing to meet legally binding deadlines for performing the overdue risk and technology reviews (RTRs) to determine whether to revise any of the rules.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Blast Pruitt's Directive For Advisory Boards
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Scientists yesterday blasted U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's directive barring members of science advisory boards from receiving agency grants.
When issuing the sweeping directive in October, Pruitt said it would ensure the independence of science advisers and guard against conflicts of interest (E&E News PM, Oct. 31).
But scientists — including those who lost their roles on the advisory boards because of the directive — roundly criticized the EPA chief's reasoning at a Society for Risk Analysis conference yesterday in Washington.
Joe Árvai, a University of Michigan professor who served on the Science Advisory Board (SAB) for six years before his position was terminated at the end of September, said EPA already has procedures in place to prevent conflicts of interest.
"We don't need to create new, haphazard conflict-of-interest rules at any agency, including EPA," Árvai said.
"There's the Administrative Procedure Act, which is the law of the land," he said. "And there's the Office of Government Ethics, which is charged with enforcing and maintaining the law of the land."
Richard Denison, a lead scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the new policy will have a "chilling effect" on scientists and is based on false assumptions.
"Pruitt's directive is based on the premise that somehow EPA funds research in order to find problems that it can then regulate, and hence an EPA-funded researcher has an incentive to find the problem in order to ensure that they continue to get funding," Denison said.
"This theory imagines that there's kind of a grand conspiracy between researchers and the agency," he said. "It's inherently flawed."
But Kimberly White, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council who was recently appointed to the SAB, defended the directive, saying scientists who receive EPA grants still have other channels for providing input to the agency.
"I don't think that precludes the agency from seeking out those individuals for advice," White said. "In the past, agencies have reached out directly to scientists and had them provide specific advice."'Those pesky, tree-hugging, liberal scientists'
Árvai told E&E News after the panel discussion that he thinks Pruitt's directive was calculated to rile up President Trump's base.
"I think it was to energize his base and to show people they were following through on their promises to clean house of all those pesky, tree-hugging, liberal scientists and bring some industry balance back to the EPA," Árvai said in an interview.
While science advisory board members have traditionally been named to a second three-year stint, Pruitt broke with that custom earlier this year in opting against renewing the terms of members of the Board of Scientific Counselors (E&E News PM, May 8). He appears to be following suit with the SAB and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Robyn Wilson, a professor at Ohio State University's School of Environment and Natural Resources who had served on the SAB for about two years, told E&E News she wants to fight the new policy but fears repercussions.
"I had a year left on my current term. I would've been up for renewal in September of 2018," assuming that renewal was an option, Wilson said in an interview.
After receiving an email about the new policy from EPA, Wilson said she responded, "I'm not stepping down. You're welcome to fire me, and I will go quietly if you fire me. But I think that's the appropriate way to enact the policy."
She hasn't decided yet whether to attend the SAB's next meeting.
Nancy Beck a no-show
Nancy Beck, a former chemical trade association official who now plays a key role at EPA, was scheduled to speak on the panel about science advisory boards. But she didn't show up.
An EPA spokeswoman said Beck attended the conference's morning session but had a conflict during the afternoon panel.
Beck has come under fire from top Democrats for reshaping EPA regulations required under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act that related to her former employer (E&E Daily, Oct. 31).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060068911/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Industry Set to Ride High: 5 Stocks for 2018
Dec 13, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The American chemical industry is riding an upswing of the major world economies with growth rate for the industry surpassing the 20-year average - according to the recently published "Year End 2017 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook" by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The Washington, DC-based chemical industry trade group said that chemical output continued to improve this year notwithstanding the disruptions from Hurricane Harvey with strong gains expected continue in the next two years. "Manufacturing has turned a corner, business investment is on the rise, and domestic oil and gas production is on the rebound. It all sets the stage for tremendous momentum, expansion and capital investment," ACC chief economist Kevin Swift noted.
U.S. Chemical Industry Set for Solid Growth
The outlook for the American chemical industry paints an encouraging picture. The ACC envisions national chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to rise 0.8% in 2017, further accelerating to a 3.7% growth in 2018 and a 3.9% growth in 2019. The growth is expected to be spurred by higher demand across light vehicles and housing markets, capital investments and improved export markets.
The trade group also expects basic chemicals production to expand 4.7% in 2018 and further gain steam with a 5.2% rise in 2019 on the heels of new capacity additions. Major export markets such as Latin American and Asia are expected to play a significant role in production growth. The specialty chemicals segment is also expected to see production growth of 3% in 2017 and 2.3% in 2018, per the ACC.
Surging Capital Spending
According to the ACC, the United States remains an attractive investment destination for chemical investment and domestic chemical makers continue to enjoy the advantage of access to abundant and cheaper feedstocks and energy. This is driving investment in chemical production projects.
The trade group noted that roughly 320 chemical projects have been already announced worth more than $185 billion, 62% of which is foreign direct investment. Moreover, roughly 65% of the chemical investment announced since 2010 are complete or under construction. New capacity is expected to provide a boost to chemical production as these investments come on stream.
Chemical industry capital spending also continues to go up, clocking $38 billion this year, per the ACC. This also accounts for one-half of overall construction spending by the manufacturing sector. The trade group expects capital spending to rise 6.3% in 2018 and 6.8% in 2019 and eventually reach $48 billion by 2022.
Strengthening Export Markets
The ACC expects improving export markets to contribute to solid growth of the domestic chemical industry. Strengthening export markets and increasing capital spending are driving chemical demand across key end-use markets such as light vehicles and housing.
Total chemical exports went up 4.9% to $127 billion this year while imports rose 2.8% to $96 billion, the trade group noted. Higher exports will result in the United States having a $32 billion trade surplus in chemicals (barring pharmaceuticals) in 2017. Moreover, the ACC sees two-way trade between the United States and its foreign partners to expand 4% year over year and reach $223 billion this year.
5 Chemical Stocks for 2018
The U.S. chemical industry's upturn is expected to continue next year on continued demand strength across major end-markets and significant capital investment. Amid such a backdrop, it would be a prudent idea to invest in chemical stocks with compelling growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio in 2018.
We highlight the following five stocks with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or 2 (Buy) that are good options for investment right now. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. KRO
Texas-based Kronos is a solid choice, with a Zacks Rank #1. The company has expected earnings growth of 41.1% for 2018. It also delivered an average positive earnings surprise of 58.8% over the trailing four quarters. Moreover, the company has long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth of 5%. The stock has also gained roughly 116% year to date.
Kronos is witnessing strong demand for titanium dioxide (TiO2) products across most segments. The company is also gaining from higher pricing and implementation of certain productivity-enhancing improvement projects at some of its facilities.
Westlake Chemical Corporation WLK
Headquartered in Houston, TX, Westlake sports a Zacks Rank #1. The company has expected earnings growth of 25.7% for 2018. It also has an expected long-term EPS growth of 10.6%. Moreover, Westlake has topped the Zacks Consensus Estimate in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 23.5%. The stock has also gained roughly 80% year to date.
Westlake is gaining from higher demand for all major products in both Vinyls and Olefins segments and synergies of the Axiall acquisition. The Axiall acquisition has diversified the company's product portfolio and geographical operations, creating a North American leader in Olefins and Vinyls.
Kraton Corporation KRA
Our next pick in the space is Houston, TX-based Kraton, armed with a Zacks Rank #1. The company has expected earnings growth of 30.6% for 2018. It also delivered average positive earnings surprise of 32.9% over the trailing four quarters. Moreover, the stock has gained around 67% year to date.
Kraton is benefiting from the acquisition of Arizona Chemical in the form of cost reduction and operational improvements. The company also remains committed to steer organic growth in key markets through state-of-the-art innovation and infrastructure. It should also gain from its sustained efforts to reduce debt.
Albemarle Corporation ALB
Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, Albemarle carries a Zacks Rank #2. The company has an expected earnings growth of 16.9% for 2018. It delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 4.3%. The company also has an expected long-term EPS growth of 14.8%. The stock has also returned roughly 51% year to date.
Albemarle is seeing significant momentum in its lithium business and is well placed to leverage strong expected growth in the battery-grade lithium market. The company is executing a number of projects that should boost its global lithium derivative capacity.
Celanese Corporation CE
Irving, TX-based Celanese carries a Zacks Rank #2 and has long-term expected EPS growth of 9%. The company also has expected earnings growth of 11.7% for 2018. Moreover, it delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 2.5%. The stock has also gained 36% year to date.
Celanese's strategic measures including operational cost savings through productivity actions and efficiency enhancement should lend support to its earnings in 2018. Further, the company should benefit from capacity expansion actions, acquisitions and its acetate tow joint venture with Blackstone.
Will You Make a Fortune on the Shift to Electric Cars?
Here's another stock idea to consider. Much like petroleum 150 years ago, lithium power may soon shake the world, creating millionaires and reshaping geo-politics. Soon electric vehicles (EVs) may be cheaper than gas guzzlers. Some are already reaching 265 miles on a single charge.
With battery prices plummeting and charging stations set to multiply, one company stands out as the #1 stock to buy according to Zacks research.
It's not the one you think.http://www.nasdaq.com/article/us-chemical-industry-set-to-ride-high-5-stocks-for-2018-cm891400
-
(ACC Mentioned) November US and Canadian Polyethylene Production At Eight-Month High: ACC
Dec 14, 2017 | Platts
By Chris Ferrell
Polyethylene production in the US and Canada was at the highest level in eight months in November as the impact of new startups and post-Hurricane Harvey restarts were felt in the market, according to preliminary data released Wednesday by the American Chemistry Council.
Total polyethylene production for November topped 3.55 billion lb, up from almost 3.28 billion lb in October and the most since producers made more than 3.62 billion lb of pellets in March. Total sales were at almost 3.5 billion lb, down 1.96% from October's total of more than 3.4 billion lb.
Overall producer stocks increased by 206.4 million lb due to a build in high density polyethylene grades. HDPE stocks rose by 236.26 million lb, while low density polyethylene sales outpaced production by almost 23 million lb and linear low density sales were almost 7 million lb above production levels.
Domestic sales were at almost 2.66 billion lb, down from 2.77 billion lb in October and slightly below the 2017 monthly average of almost 2.68 billion lb.
The overall build was the first since July, adding fuel to talk of potential contract price decreases in December. November contracts rolled over after a combined 10 cents/lb was added over August, September and October.
Exports, meanwhile, were at the highest mark since July, the month before Harvey hit the Texas Coast causing massive production disruptions, some of which are still being worked out. Total exports were at almost 692 million lb, accounting for just more than 20% of total sales.
By grade, HDPE production was at more than 1.77 billion lb, with sales at 1.535 billion lb as almost 1.3 billion lb went to domestic customers while more than 242 million lb went to traders and buyers outside the US and Canada. LLDPE production was at more than 1.26 billion lb, with sales topping 1.27 billion, including 957.3 million lb for domestic buyers and 314.3 million lb designated for export. LDPE production was at 519.4 million lb, with sales of almost 542.4 million lb, including 407 million for the domestic market and 135.3 million lb for export.
The preliminary data showed just more than 79.3% of total sales going to the domestic market, the lowest percentage since July when domestic buyers consumed 78.9% of all PE sold.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/houston/november-us-and-canadian-polyethylene-production-21817870
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Bottle Recycling 'Strong' In 2016, But Down 2.4%
Dec 14, 2017 | Recycling International
By Kirstin Linnenkoperc
United States: Over 2.9 billion pounds worth of plastic bottles were recycled in the US last year, according to figures released jointly by the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council.
Plastic bottle recycling in the US ‘remained strong’ in 2016, but declined slightly, slipping 2.4% compared to the previous year. This means that the overall recycling rate for plastic was 29.7% in 2016, down from 31.1% in 2015.
In 2016, PET recycling decreased by 44 million pounds. The collection of high-density polyethylene bottles, which includes bottles for milk, household cleaners, and detergents, fell by 31.7 million pounds (2.8%) to just over 1.1 billion pounds for the year.
The recycling rate for HDPE bottles slipped from 34.4% to 33.4%.
New data also revealed that the collection of polypropylene bottles rose nearly 15.3% to reach 36.6 million pounds, as the PP collection rate climbed to over 20%. The five-year compounded annual growth rate for plastic bottle recycling in general was 2.1%.
Following more than 20 consecutive years of growth, factors that contributed to the recent decline include a small drop in material collected for recycling, changing export markets, lightweighting and increased contamination of recyclables.
‘Some US recyclers are seeing these short-term challenges as opportunities to innovate and invest in our plastics recycling infrastructure,’ comments Steve Alexander, president of APR. ‘The key to continued growth lies in improving our sorting and collection technologies to deliver consistent, high-quality yields that strengthen our global competitiveness,’ he points out.
https://www.recyclinginternational.com/recycling-news/10973/plastic-and-rubber/united-states/us-bottle-recycling-039-strong-039-2016-down-2-4
-
Environmentalists Urge EPA To 'Suspend' New Chemicals Plan Pending Comment
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are urging EPA to “suspend” implementation of its proposed framework for reviewing “new” chemicals, at least until it has considered comments it receives in a still-open docket, charging that several approaches the agency is already implementing violate both the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
EPA should “suspend implementation of the framework indefinitely and instead . . . review and respond to the public comments and reevaluate the far-reaching changes in the [pre-manufacture notice (PMN)] program under consideration,” environmentalists say in a Dec. 11 letter to Jeff Morris, director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
The letter -- which raises procedural and substantive concerns -- signals environmentalists' strongest indication yet that they will sue the agency over its new chemicals program, which has only recently addressed a backlog of applications after the reformed TSCA law imposed a host of new requirements on the agency without a phase-in.
“Obviously, the possibility of a challenge is in our thinking but how you would file that challenge and what theory you would use are under consideration,” says a source close to the groups that signed the letter.
Environmentalists' concerns center largely on EPA's working framework for reviewing industry applications to approve “new” chemicals, which has dropped the use of enforcement orders as an interim step the agency had previously used for regulating and approving the substances.
Under the new law, EPA is required to make a definitive finding regarding the safety of each “new” chemical that it reviews and approves in a PMN, a change from the prior version of the law where EPA could allow some chemicals to enter the market without comment.
It also introduces a new concept, conditions of use, under which chemicals’ risks are to be evaluated, including in the PMN program. The law also requires that EPA consider “reasonably foreseeable” uses -- such as uses of the chemical that are not included in a PMN application but could transpire once a chemical is added to the TSCA inventory.
Because PMNs apply to specific uses, agency officials as recently as last summer also planned to write some voluntary consent orders, using authority in section 5(e) of the new law, under which manufacturers agreed to limits on “new” chemical uses or additional environmental safety and health testing until the agency finalized significant new use rules (SNURs), formal regulations that can require lengthy notice-and-comment rulemakings.
EPA officials had committed to the consent order approach last summer but have dropped it, Morris told the Dec. 6 meeting, to ensure more efficient reviews of industry applications and prevent future backlogs while still providing equivalent health protections.
In another step aimed at speeding reviews, the new working framework also indicates that the agency plans to issue SNURs as direct final rules and allow only 15 days for filing adverse comments.
EPA has announced a Jan. 20 deadline for public comment on the framework document. But during the Dec. 6 meeting, officials said they are implementing it even before weighing public comments. “We need to make decisions,” Morris said, citing the 100 decisions on PMNs per month that the agency faces.
“We are acting on that framework, but to the extent that we should clarify [it], we should do that and be transparent,” he added.
'Alarming Indifference'
But the environmentalists describe the circumstance as “an alarming indifference to public input” and at odds with TSCA's requirements.
They have previously warned the approach is not protective because of the time it takes to craft broader SNURs barring uses beyond those approved by the agency.
In their latest letter, they detail a series of legal arguments that could be used to challenge the framework's provisions and its implementation.
For example, they charge that the revised TSCA statute requires EPA to issue a 5(e) consent order, and that there are several reasons why SNURs alone are insufficiently protective of public health and the environment.
Calling the framework an “effort to radically deconstruct the PMN program to appease industry at the expense of public health,” environmentalists protest its approach of “radically reducing the use of section 5(e) orders, the principal tool under the old and new laws to address the risks of new chemicals of concern.”
They say the law requires EPA to use 5(e) orders. They add there is no legal obligation for EPA to issue a SNUR unless there is a consent order and there is no trigger for further safety testing unless there is a consent order.
“In the past, section 5(e) consent orders have required both exposure controls and testing so that EPA can assess whether additional protections are needed based on fuller information,” the letter states.
Further, environmentalists argue that TSCA requires the EPA issue consent orders for PMNs that would not meet the unreasonable risk standard without the conditions in the consent order, and that SNURs “are not a lawful or adequately protective substitute” for the orders.
“If EPA identifies a reasonably foreseeable future use of the PMN substance raising concerns that meet the criteria for action under section 5(e), the law states that the Agency 'shall' issue an order under that provision, whether the use is intended by the PMN submitter or not.”
The letter adds that the 5(e) orders are not only required by statute, they also place a “legal obligation” on EPA to issue a follow-up SNUR . . . in contrast to orders, there is no requirement to put SNURs in place before a new chemical raising concerns is commercialized. Orders must be based on and incorporate explicit conclusions about the nature and magnitude of the new chemical's risks but no such findings are required in SNURs.”
The orders “must prohibit or limit activities … 'to the extent necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.'”
Even as environmentalists say the agency should suspend implementation of the framework, they also say the agency should drop its plan to issue SNURs as direct final rules with only 15 days of public comment.
Such rules, which are usually intended for relatively uncontroversial items, are issued alongside proposed rules and take effect unless the agency receives adverse comments. In those cases, the agency is then forced to take comment on the proposed version before proceeding to a final rule.
But environmentalists say the agency's decision to allow only 15 days for parties to signal opposition is at odds with the APA, as well as the agency's 1989 rules governing SNURs, which they say requires at least 60 days.
The 1989 rules require the agency to provide “30 days for interested parties to signify an intent to submit comments, withdraw the direct final rule and publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register, allow 30 additional days for submission of comments, and then either withdraw or finalize the SNUR together with a response to the comments received. It will be unlawful if EPA deviates from this process,” the letter adds.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-urge-epa-suspend-new-chemicals-plan-pending-comment
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s E.P.A. Chemical Safety Nominee Withdraws
Dec 13, 2017 | The New York Times
By Sheila Kaplan and Eric Lipton
President Trump’s nominee to oversee the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety division on Wednesday withdrew his name from consideration for the post in the face of mounting opposition.
The nominee, Michael L. Dourson, a longtime researcher whose studies often bolstered safety claims by manufacturers of pesticides, flame retardants and other products under federal scrutiny as possible public health hazards, had been working as an adviser to the agency while awaiting confirmation.
But the Senate never scheduled a confirmation vote for Mr. Dourson, who resigned from his job at the University of Cincinnati in October. And in recent weeks, two Republican senators came forward to say they would not support him.
Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware and a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, had pushed his colleagues to reject Mr. Dourson. He said Wednesday that his objections were not partisan.
“I sincerely believe he is the wrong person to hold this important position, and it’s become clear that, even with a Republican majority in the Senate, he could not be confirmed,” Mr. Carper said in a statement. “Dr. Dourson, an individual who has spent most of his career promoting less protective chemical safety standards, had no business overseeing our nation’s chemical safety laws.”Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGECorrespondence With Chemical Industry DEC. 13, 2017TRUMP RULESWhy Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots OCT. 21, 2017The E.P.A.’s Top 10 Toxic Threats, and Industry’s Pushback OCT. 21, 2017Under Trump, E.P.A. Has Slowed Actions Against Polluters, and Put Limits on Enforcement Officers DEC. 10, 2017Chemical Industry Ally Faces Critics in Bid for Top E.P.A. Post SEPT. 19, 2017
Mr. Dourson notified the White House late on Wednesday of his decision to withdraw his name, according to a Senate aide, adding that Mr. Dourson would not remain at the agency.
The decision was welcomed by environmental and public health advocates.
“It’s very good news that Michael Dourson won’t be deciding which chemicals are and aren’t safe for our kids,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group. “He was a particularly toxic choice for the job, with his long record of mercenary science. His presence would also have undermined implementation of the historic chemical safety reforms passed by Congress last year.”
Mr. Dourson declined to respond to a request for comment sent to the agency’s public affairs office.
His withdrawal followed the release of several hundreds of pages of his correspondence with chemical industry officials while he was being considered for the E.P.A. job. The New York Times obtained the emails from Greenpeace, which received them in response to a Freedom of Information request to the University of Cincinnati. A lawyer for the university confirmed their provenance.
The emails detail an unusually close relationship with the American Chemistry Council and with individual companies whose products are scheduled for priority review by the E.P.A., among them trichloroethylene, known as TCE, a volatile organic compound widely used in industrial and commercial processes, and flame retardants. The E.P.A., citing the significant health hazards of the chemical TCE, which is widely used as a degreasing agent and a spot cleaner on clothing, had proposing banning it. If he led the division, Mr. Dourson would have had to finalize that plan, even though he had recently handled work for the industry defending the commercial use of the same substance.
The documents also show that Mr. Dourson’s center at the university, which accepted money from the trade group and other companies for research, sent a draft paper based on that research to the industry council to edit before submitting it to a journal for publication — considered by most to be an unacceptable practice in academia.
“There is a conflict of interest if industry lawyers are vetting papers,” said Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “All in all, an industry trade group role in writing a paper is a mountain of conflict of interest.”
Mr. Dourson did not respond to a request for comment on the emails.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/science/epa-chemical-safety-trump.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Correspondence With Chemical Industry
Dec 13, 2017 | The New York Times
Emails sent or received by Michael L. Dourson and his team at University of Cincinnati, which show his regular interaction with the American Chemistry Council and other chemical industry players, even after he learned he was to be nominated to oversee toxic chemical regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency. The emails were obtained by Greenpeace and shared with The New York Times.
For complete correspondence see attached file.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/us/document-Dourson-University-of-Cincinnati-Emails.html?_r=0
-
Facing Senate Rejection, Controversial Pick To Head EPA Chemical Office Bows Out
Dec 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Michael Dourson, whose nomination to become the Environmental Protection Agency’s top chemical safety official drew widespread criticism, withdrew from consideration Wednesday after it became clear the Senate probably would not confirm him.
Dourson’s decision, which was confirmed by two senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters, prevents him from likely becoming the first Trump nominee rejected by the Senate.
A University of Cincinnati professor and longtime toxicologist who worked at the EPA from 1980 to 1994, Dourson was closely tied to the chemical industry through a nonprofit consulting group he founded shortly after leaving the agency. Over the years, it produced research for chemical companies that consistently showed little or no human health risks from their products.
Dourson’s critics argued that he had too many conflicts of interest to be considered for the EPA post. If he were confirmed to head the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, they noted, he potentially could oversee the review of chemicals produced by companies he once represented.
“The withdrawal of Michael Dourson’s nomination is good news for the health of American families,” Richard Denison, lead scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “It was clear from the beginning that Dr. Dourson was a dangerous choice . . . He would have undermined public health and damaged the historic chemical safety reforms passed by Congress last year.”
In October, a Senate committee narrowly advanced Dourson’s nomination along party lines. But some Senate Republicans began voicing reservations about confirming him to the high-level post.
Both of North Carolina’s GOP senators, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, indicated that they could not support his nomination. Burr said he was most alarmed about Dourson’s work on a case involving contaminated water at a North Carolina military base and an unregulated compound known as Gen X, used to produce Teflon and other products, that was discovered in the Cape Fear River. Tillis voiced concerns about Dourson’s “body of work.”
When Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said she shared those concerns and that it was “safe to say that I am leaning against him,” the nomination was all but doomed.
“Dr. Dourson, an individual who has spent most of his career promoting less protective chemical safety standards, had no business overseeing our nation’s chemical safety laws,” Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), who sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement. “I hope that we can all learn from this moment, and I hope the administration will work swiftly to find an independent, credible chemical safety regulator — one who will protect public health.”
Dourson has been serving as a senior adviser at EPA while the Senate has been weighing his nomination. He will seek work opportunities outside the agency, according to a senior administration official. Dourson could not immediately be reached for comment on Wednesday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/13/facing-senate-rejection-controversial-pick-to-head-epa-chemical-office-bows-out/?utm_term=.4eb1fa7f3774
-
Embattled EPA Chemical Safety Nominee Withdraws After Criticism
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Michael Dourson, a former chemical industry consultant who was tapped to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew his nomination after Republican senators raised concerns about his past work and possible conflicts of interest, according to a Trump administration official.
Dourson notified the Trump administration Dec. 13 he was abandoning his bid to lead the EPA chemicals office, according to the official, who asked not to be identified speaking about a personnel move before an announcement was made.
Dourson, who already spent nearly 15 years working at the EPA, drew fire for his later work consulting for chemical companies. Several Republicans had balked at supporting Dourson, including the two Republican senators from North Carolina—Richard M. Burr and Thom Tillis—who raised concerns about contaminated water at the Camp Lejeune military base. Other Republicans also expressed misgivings about his nomination.
Had he been confirmed, Dourson would have been in charge of overseeing EPA decisions about whether and how to review thousands of chemicals.
Chemical Risks Downplayed
Critics focused on Dourson's leadership of the not-for-profit Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, where he made determinations that often downplayed the risks of chemicals. Senate Democrats said Dourson too often recommend thresholds for chemical exposure well below levels deemed safe by the EPA and state regulators.
Supporters highlighted Dourson's pro-bono work and his expert testimony describing how vapors from the solvent trichloroethylene were intruding into 130 homes and jeopardizing the residents, providing the foundation for a later settlement.
Dourson already left his position as a professor of risk assessment and environmental health at the University of Cincinnati to serve as an adviser at the EPA. According to the Trump administration official, he is now looking for work outside the agency.
Dourson is one of just a few Trump nominees to withdraw from consideration after running into opposition in the Senate. Last month, Sam Clovis abandoned his bid to be a top Agriculture Department official after it was revealed he received emails from a Trump campaign adviser about meetings with Russian representatives.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125095979&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125095979&jd=125095979
-
Nominee For EPA Chemical Safety Withdraws: Bloomberg
Dec 14, 2017 | Reuters
By Roberta Rampton and Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former chemical industry consultant nominated by the Trump administration to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety and pollution prevention office has withdrawn his nomination, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday.
Michael Dourson notified the administration of his decision on Wednesday after Republican senators raised concerns about his past work and possible conflicts of interest, said Bloomberg, which cited an unnamed official for the report.
Dourson, a professor at the University of Cincinnati who has worked as a consultant for chemical companies, was one of several people whose nominations for top EPA positions were approved by the Senate environment panel in October in a 11-10 vote along party lines.
Bloomberg said several Republican senators refused to support Dourson, including Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both of North Carolina, who raised concerns about contaminated water at the Camp Lejeune military base in their state.
The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. A spokeswoman for Burr said she could not confirm that Dourson had withdrawn.
Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Senate environment panel, said in a statement, “Dourson, an individual who has spent most of his career promoting less protective chemical safety standards, had no business overseeing our nation’s chemical safety laws.”
Environmental group Earthjustice hailed the news as a “victory for all children, workers and communities who deserve the strongest protections from exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides.”
Dourson, while a consultant, had assessed some chemicals, including PFOA, used to make Teflon non-stick surfaces, to be safe at levels far higher than considered acceptable by the EPA.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-nominee/nominee-for-epa-chemical-safety-withdraws-bloomberg-idUKKBN1E806R
-
Dourson, Stalled EPA Toxics Nominee, Asks Trump To Withdraw Nomination
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Michael Dourson, the Trump administration's stalled nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, is expected to soon ask President Trump to withdraw his nomination, an informed source tells Inside EPA.
The source says that the reason for the request is the politicized nature of Dourson's nomination process, which was distracting from EPA's work.
It is unclear if Dourson will remain at the agency in an unconfirmed role; he has been serving as an adviser to Administrator Scott Pruitt while awaiting a confirmation vote.
The withdrawal of Dourson's nomination marks the first major defeat for a Trump administration environmental nominee, though Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, has said his withdrawal could clear the way for approval of several other nominees.
The news is being welcomed by environmentalists, who have have fought to kill Dourson's nomination, fearing his close industry ties would undermine efforts to implement the revised toxics law the agency is implementing.
“The withdrawal of Michael Dourson’s nomination is good news for the health of American families,” Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “The administration should now nominate a person of integrity, with a demonstrated commitment of protecting public health. Dr. Dourson must now leave the EPA, and the Administration should move forward to implement the new law as it was intended,” he added
But the news that Dourson was withdrawing his nomination contrasts with remarks from Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate environment committee, who told Politico Dec. 12 that he's not giving up on the nomination and downplayed his colleagues' concerns. "It's a question of how [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell chooses to prioritize them," he said.
As Inside EPA first reported, Trump nominated Dourson, a former EPA toxicologist who left the agency in the 1990s to form his own non-profit risk analysis consulting group, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), to serve as EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention last summer.
But Dourson quickly garnered strident opposition from Senate Democrats and environmentalists over his longstanding work with industry clients on numerous chemicals, including some that EPA's new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program is assessing for possible risk management.
Dourson's nomination fell into trouble last month, when both Republican North Carolina Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis announced they would not support the nomination. Burr and Tillis pointed to Dourson's consulting work on chemicals of concern in that state, perfluorinated chemicals and trichloroethylene, a solvent that once contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune, NC Marine Corps base.
When a third GOP senator, Susan Collins (ME) indicated last month that she was “leaning against” voting for Dourson, the Republicans' slim majority would be unable to approve the nomination.
Such opposition would likely have made the nomination an even harder slog for Republicans and the administration after Doug Jones (D) won Alabama's special election Dec. 12, narrowing the GOP majority to 51-49 -- although there was no indication that this factored into Dourson's decision.
TERA's Defense
In response to Dourson's nomination, EDF issued a report, “Michael Dourson: Unsafe at Any Dose,” that includes a table that lists nine chemicals where, they say, Dourson crafted less-protective risk standards than those adopted by EPA and state agencies.
But TERA, which joined the University of Cincinnati as a center in 2015, recently updated its website with a Dec. 8 document, “Example of Collaborative Work in Environmental Risk Assessment by TERA,” that pushes back against the criticisms.
For example, the document points to TERA's work on PFOA, one of the class of persistent perflourinated chemicals. Environmentalists and Democrats at Dourson's October confirmation hearing argued that PFOA manufacturer DuPont hired TERA to suggest that certain levels of the chemical in West Virginia water were safe -- though further research and newer standards from New Jersey and Minnesota suggest otherwise.
The TERA document argues that the reality was different. “In 2002, 4 governments and one industry recommended TERA as the independent and neutral party to assist in a PFOA evaluation. A West Virginia judge agreed. TERA, unaware of this agreement, was hired by the State of West Virginia.”
The document says a West Virginia environmental agency employee chaired an expert panel, half of whom were government employees. The panel “made a unanimous determination of a safe water level [for PFOA] of 150 [parts per billion (ppb)].” EPA last year released a health advisory for the chemical of 70 parts per trillion.
“The science of PFOA has progressed since 2002,” TERA's document says. “In light of new data, TERA would work with EPA offices to incorporate new information so that public health is protected.”
While Dourson's critics questioned TERA's industry ties, Dourson and TERA always maintained that a significant portion of the group's funding came from government sources, including states and federal agencies, including some that were regulated by EPA for environmental cleanup issues.
In a statement, Carper welcomed the withdrawal of Dourson's nomination but said his “staunch opposition” to Dourson was “never a matter of partisanship,” but rather that he has “no business overseeing our nation's chemical safety laws.”
He also reiterated his prior calls for Republicans “not to rush to approve unqualified or controversial nominees” and echoed environmentalists' calls for the administration to find “an independent, credible chemical safety regulator . . . who will protect public health and lead the implementation of the bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act reforms we worked so hard to enact last year.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dourson-stalled-epa-toxics-nominee-asks-trump-withdraw-nomination
-
Dourson Withdraws Nomination For EPA's Chemicals Office
Dec 14, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
Michael Dourson has withdrawn his nomination to run EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, according to a Senate source.
His withdrawal, first reported by Bloomberg this evening, comes after it became clear that Dourson lacked the votes to be confirmed by the full Republican-controlled Senate.
Dourson, a longtime toxicologist and university professor, was opposed by Democrats and environmental groups who said his history of studying chemicals for corporations showed he set looser safety standards than other authorities, including, oftentimes, EPA.
Although he cleared the Environment and Public Works Committee on strict party lines, Dourson’s nomination came into doubt after North Carolina Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis said they would not support him. Other Republican senators, including Susan Collins of Maine, were thought to be leaning against him as well, and Tuesday’s election of Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama made Dourson’s confirmation even more unlikely.
Dourson also drew criticism after he began working as an adviser on chemical issues to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt shortly after his confirmation hearing in October. Democrats complained that it bypassed the Senate’s confirmation process.
EPA’s chemicals office is charged with implementing the updated Toxic Substances Control Act and is reviewing several high-profile substances, including asbestos.
WHAT’S NEXT: It was not immediately clear whether Dourson would remain at EPA in his adviser role. Neither EPA nor the White House immediately returned questions.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Dourson Withdraws Nomination To Lead US EPA's Chemical Policy Office
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Michael Dourson reportedly withdrew his nomination to lead the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention on 13 December.
Earlier that day, The New York Times published hundreds of pages of emails, outlining Dr Dourson's relationship with the chemical industry. The newspaper said Greenpeace obtained the correspondence through a freedom of information request to the University of Cincinnati, where much of his work was based.
The withdrawal, reported by multiple media outlets, was not a surprise, given that the nomination was clearly in trouble even before this. Two Republican senators announced their opposition in November. They cited current local controversies over chemical contamination at the Camp Lejeune marine base and water pollution in the Cape Fear River, which has been connected to GenX – a chemical Dr Dourson evaluated for corporate clients.
Democrats have steadfastly opposed Dr Dourson, whose work on behalf of chemical companies they attacked at a hearing on 4 October. The defections by senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis mean opponents only needed to gain one more Republican "no" vote to block the nomination.
The emails show discussion between industry scientists and Dr Dourson on chemicals such as dioxane, and active collaboration on work on the flame retardant TBBPA. The ACC suggests changes to a paper on the chemical, due to be submitted to an academic journal.
They also include congratulations from ACC and industry scientists on his nomination, and promises from Dr Dourson that they could continue to work together "indirectly".
NGOs were quick to applaud his withdrawal.
"It was clear from the beginning that Dr Dourson was a dangerous choice. His record of mercenary science made clear he would have undermined public health and damaged the historic chemical safety reforms, passed by Congress last year," said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
"The administration should now nominate a person of integrity, with a demonstrated commitment to protecting public health."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62591/dourson-withdraws-nomination-to-lead-us-epas-chemical-policy-office
-
Chemicals Nominee Dourson Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program, has withdrawn from consideration amid bipartisan concerns about his background.
"My staunch objections to Dr. Dourson's nomination were never a matter of partisanship," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
"I sincerely believe he is the wrong person to hold this important position," said Carper, "and it's become clear that, even with a Republican majority in the Senate, he could not be confirmed."
Bloomberg first reported the news, citing an unnamed administration official. EPA did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Environmental groups — including the Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Environmental Health and League of Conservation Voters — opposed Dourson because of his deep ties to the chemical industry.
Through his former nonprofit, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, he often produced industry-funded studies that downplayed the dangers of certain substances, said critics. He would later do similar work at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.
Dourson's path to confirmation as head of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention was perilous and got bleaker this week. All 48 Senate Democrats opposed him, along with North Carolina Republican Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis.
Other GOP members had also expressed concerns about his assistant administrator bid. And Democrat Doug Jones' Senate victory in Alabama was another nail in the coffin for the nominee.
It's now unclear what will happen to Dourson, who left his university position to advise EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in mid-October.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) dismissed concerns that Dourson staying at the agency would violate the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on presidential nominees.
"I would say that Scott Pruitt and Ryan Jackson should sit down, and I don't mind being in on it, and say 'what should he do?'" he told reporters this afternoon. Jackson is Pruitt's chief of staff and previously held the same title under Inhofe.
"I would merely say, if he has talents that they need and they're not going to confirm him, then he ought to go ahead and take a position that does not require confirmation so that they can use his talents," Inhofe added.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060068943
-
Trump’s EPA Chemical Safety Nominee Withdraws Nomination
Dec 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
President Trump's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical safety office has withdrawn his nomination amid criticism from lawmakers about his ties to the chemical industry.
Michael Dourson, a former chemical industry consultant, had come under increased scrutiny from Democratic and Republican senators who voiced concern about his work in the chemical industry.
He notified the Trump administration of his intent to withdraw his nomination on Wednesday.
Dourson had worked for the EPA until 1995. After leaving he started a nonprofit group to evaluate chemical toxicity, mostly for the chemical industry.
He merged his firm with the University of Cincinnati in 2015, and became part of the faculty, but continued to do similar toxicology assessment work.
Democrats and environmentalists criticized his work as being friendly to chemical companies and downplaying the dangers of certain chemicals.
Dourson's nomination made it through committee, but a confirmation vote before the full Senate was never scheduled.
Two North Carolina Republicans, Sens. Thom Tillis and Richard Burr, said last month that they would not vote in favor of Dourson, pointing to water safety concerns at Camp Lejeune in their home state.
--Timothy Cama contributed to this report.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/364831-trumps-epa-chemical-safety-nominee-withdraws-nomination
-
EDF Applauds Dourson’s Reported Withdrawal from Chemical Safety Position
Dec 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
According to press reports, the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead EPA’s toxics office is being withdrawn.
Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist, said, “The withdrawal of Michael Dourson’s nomination is good news for the health of American families. It was clear from the beginning that Dr. Dourson was a dangerous choice. His record of mercenary science made clear he would have undermined public health and damaged the historic chemical safety reforms passed by Congress last year.
“The administration should now nominate a person of integrity, with a demonstrated commitment to protecting public health. Dr. Dourson must now leave the EPA, and the Administration should move forward to implement the new law as it was intended. Communities from California to North Carolina will be able breathe easier knowing Dr. Dourson will not be at EPA.”
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/12/13/edf-applauds-doursons-reported-withdrawal-from-chemical-safety-position/
-
Controversial Trump Nominee for Top Chemical Safety Position at EPA Withdraws from Consideration
Dec 13, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
WASHINGTON – Michael Dourson, who President Trump nominated to run the chemical safety division at the Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew his name from consideration after it was clear there were not enough votes in the Senate to confirm him.
Since Trump tapped Dourson in July to be in charge of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevent at EPA, his decades-long career green washing chemicals as a scientist-for-hire for the chemical industry has been the focus of public health advocates, lawmakers and the media.
Several members of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, led by the panel’s Ranking Member, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., helped expose Dourson’s long history of significantly downplaying the risks of a number of toxic chemical contaminants at the behest of industry.
The consistent and vocal resistance from lawmakers and local activists like retired Marine Corps master sergeant Jerry Ensminger and grassroots groups and public interest organizations all played critical roles in this major victory on behalf of public health, said EWG’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber.
“Without the steady, unshakable leadership from Sen. Carper and his allies in the Senate, and those critical voices on the ground who have seen their communities and loved ones harmed by toxic pollution, this significant win on behalf of human health and the environment would not have happened,” Faber said. “The demise of the Dourson nomination shows party allegiance has it limits when it comes to protecting our drinking water and children’s health from dangerous pollutants linked to serious and lasting health problems.”
The cracks of support among Republicans for Mr. Dourson began after both Republican Senators from North Carolina, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis publicly opposed Dourson’s nomination over concerns about his position about the risks of certain chemicals that have plagued the drinking water at Camp Lejeune.
“Every American should applaud Sens. Burr and Tillis for placing public health above partisan politics and standing up against President Trump’s attempt to install Mr. Dourson into a job his uniquely unfit to hold,” added Faber.
Following the announcement by Burr and Tillis, Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine told reported she would likely not support Mr. Dourson.
https://www.ewg.org/release/controversial-trump-nominee-top-chemical-safety-position-epa-withdraws-consideration#.WjJtp_mWaUk
-
Vermont Governor Proposes Weaker Reporting For Chemicals In Children's Products
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Vermont's Republican Governor Phil Scott has proposed changing the state's law on children's products so that businesses will only have to report items containing toxic chemicals every two years.
The current law, enacted in 2015, says manufacturers of such products containing any of 66 "chemicals of high concern" must file reports with the state before they go on sale.
By the initial deadline of 1 January this year, Vermont had received more than a million manufacturer reports.
But the governor's proposed switch to a biennial reporting scheme has led to criticism.
Lauren Hierl, political director of Vermont Conservation Voters, told Chemical Watch: "Instead of getting information right away to parents about chemicals in kids' products, a product could be on the shelves for two years before you have to report on it."
The proposal would require the next set of reports by 31 August 2018, and then every two years.
Ms Hierl said the statute does not specify timing or reporting methods, so the Scott administration can change the rules without consultation. However, she said a public hearing is planned for 22 January.
Industry groups have been lobbying for this change since the summer, she said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62575/vermont-governor-proposes-weaker-reporting-for-chemicals-in-childrens-products
-
Avoiding Common Household Asthma Triggers
Dec 13, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Violet Batcha, and Tasha Stoiber
According to the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in ten school-age children in the U.S. has asthma. Symptoms include a tight feeling in the chest, shortness of breath, coughing and wheezing. During an asthma attack, the smooth muscles that line the airways to the lungs suddenly become swollen and inflamed and tighten, obstructing or blocking the flow of air, which can be life threatening for both children and adults.
Asthma can be caused by outdoor air pollution, but also by indoor emissions of chemicals, strong odors, mold, smoke or other factors. The air inside homes can be two to five times as polluted as outdoor air. So while there is no cure for asthma, you can help manage the disease by avoiding indoor triggers, known as asthmagens.
Here are some quick tips on avoiding indoor asthmagens commonly found in household products and home materials:
1. Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is not only an asthmagen, but a carcinogen. It is often used in glues that hold together composite wood items for furniture, counter tops and cabinets and can be released from preservatives that are commonly added to multi-use cleaning products as well as some paints.
2. Glycol ethers
Glycol ethers, such as ethylene glycol, is used as a solvent in some water-based paints and finishes. In addition to being a respiratory irritant, ethylene glycol can cause headaches and nausea as well as reproductive and developmental problems.
3. Quaternary ammonia compounds
Quaternary ammonia compounds, or quats, are disinfectants often added to cleaning supplies. Quats are asthmagens that have also been associated with reduced fertility and birth defects.
4. Phthalates
Phthalates are found in PVC plastics, vinyl flooring and some paints and cleaning products. They can trigger asthma, disrupt hormones and have been linked to birth defects.
5. Fragrance chemicals
Scented products such as air fresheners, cleaning supplies and personal care products can trigger asthma symptoms.
Here are things you can do to avoid these chemicals:Choose solid wood furniture or look for composite wood products labeled “No Added Formaldehyde.”Look for Green Seal 11 certified paints and finishes that do not contain formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, ethylene glycols and certain phthalates.Avoid PVC in flooring, ceiling tiles, carpet backing and mattress covers.Use EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning to screen products for these asthmagens as well as other harmful chemicals.
Visit EWG’s Healthy Living: Home Guide for more information on asthmagens in your home.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/12/avoiding-common-household-asthma-triggers#.WjJUVvmWaUk
-
EU Provisionally OKs Ways to Tag Pesticides That Affect Hormones
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Proposed European Union criteria for identifying endocrine-disrupting substances in pesticides produced by such companies as BASF SE and Monsanto Co. moved a step closer to adoption Dec. 13.
A regulatory committee of EU member country representatives voted in favor of the criteria, which are needed for the implementation of the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation ((EC) No 1107/2009).That regulation prohibits pesticides containing endocrine disrupters—substances that act on the hormone system and can harm growth and development—unless there is a negligible chance of exposure for non-target organisms.
Companies that manufacture pesticides have said overly restrictive criteria to identify endocrine disrupters could lead to the removal of many pesticides from the EU market, which would threaten crop yields.
Difficulty Agreeing
EU members have had difficulty agreeing on criteria. The European Parliament in October rejected proposed criteria after lawmakers objected to an exemption for substances that inhibit growth and reproduction in target insects.
Subsequently, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm in charge of drawing up the criteria, removed the exemption and proposed revised criteria for the Dec. 13 regulatory committee meeting.
Under the latest proposal, an active substance in a pesticide would be considered an endocrine disrupter if it has an “endocrine mode of action” that leads to an adverse impact on “an intact organism or its progeny.”
Although the regulatory committee approved the latest draft criteria, the European Parliament still has three months to object. If the parliament doesn't object, the commission can formally adopt the criteria.
“Given that the amended proposal takes into account the parliament's views, we expect the parliament to endorse it,” European Commission spokeswoman Anca Paduraru told Bloomberg Environment Dec. 13.
‘Growing Inconsistency’
The regulatory committee vote was “another step forward towards the final adoption and application of endocrine disrupter criteria for pesticides,” but there is “growing inconsistency” in how the EU deals with endocrine disrupters, the European Crop Protection Association said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg Environment Dec. 13.
The association represents pesticide companies, including ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Ltd., BASF, and Monsanto.
In particular, the EU has finalized slightly different criteria for products covered by the EU Biocidal Products Regulation ((EU) No 528/2012), the association said.
The latest draft criteria are “only one step in the right direction,” Genon K. Jensen, founder and executive director of the Health and Environment Alliance, which campaigns for the phase-out of health-harming substances, said in a statement Dec. 13.
Although the exemption that the parliament had opposed had been removed, regulators still would have difficulty rapidly removing from the EU market any pesticides containing endocrine disrupting substances.
The European Chemicals Agency has begun to draft guidance on implementing the criteria for biocides and pesticides. The consultation is open through Jan. 31, 2018.
The guidance would be “essential to provide applicants and regulatory authorities with a clear framework” for evaluating potential endocrine disrupters, the European Crop Protection Association statement said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125095996&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125095996&jd=125095996
-
Thresholds For Genotoxic Carcinogens: Rac and Scoel Agree Approach
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Committees from Echa and the European Commission have reached agreement on how to calculate "mode-of-action (MoA) based thresholds" for genotoxic carcinogens, traditionally considered not to have thresholds.
A joint task force from the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (Scoel) and Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) compared their approaches to dealing with genotoxic substances.
The conventional wisdom is that genotoxic carcinogens have simple, linear dose–response relationships, meaning they lack thresholds below which no toxicity is expected.
"Recent science suggests more and more that within the mode of action of a limited number of these substances, there are thresholds," explains Rac chair, Tim Bowmer.
"What we are saying is that the methodology that Scoel has developed [for MoA-based thresholds] is also usable for REACH."
The agreement could in future allow Rac to consider MoA-based thresholds for other workplace proposals such as under REACH Authorisations or Restrictions, if appropriate, and "if such a threshold can be clearly demonstrated from the evidence available," he added.Future work
The joint task force was set up in 2015 at the request of the European Commission, which has been looking into the relationship between occupational safety and health (Osh) OELs and the derived no-effect limits (Dnels) used in REACH.
The Commission is modernising OSH legislation and amending the CMD, setting binding OELs for carcinogens. As part of this, Rac is evaluating dossiers on worker exposure for a number of genotoxic carcinogens.
The joint task force's work on thresholds is "task two". In February, it published its Opinion on tasks one and three. Task one was 'a comparative critical assessment of REACH DNEL and OEL methodologies'; task three was a 'comparative assessment of the Echa and Scoel methodologies for dermal route exposure, skin notation and dermal Dnel'. The Opinion highlighted a number of technical differences between Scoel and Rac approaches.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62566/thresholds-for-genotoxic-carcinogens-rac-and-scoel-agree-approach
-
Member States Give Green Light To Commission’s Plan On Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 13, 2017 | Euractiv
EU member states backed on Wednesday (13 December) the European Commission’s new plan to regulate endocrine disruptors, disappointing environmentalists.
The Commission won support to regulate chemicals which can potentially disrupt the body’s hormones, expressing hope it can take effect next year.
Member state experts endorsed a proposal from the commission, the EU executive, that revises criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in products used to protect farm animals and plants from disease and insects.
The Commission said the proposal targeted concerns of the European Parliament, which in October blocked a previous list of identification criteria.
“I now call on Council and the European Parliament to give their green light on this text to ensure a swift implementation of the criteria in the course of 2018,” Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis said.
The council groups ministers from the 28 European Union member states.
Endocrine disruptors are believed to have a role in many health conditions, from obesity to infertility, and are found in many common goods such as cosmetics or even toys.
Activist group Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said the new criteria fall short, reiterating concerns about the “very high burden of proof required in the criteria.”
Génon K. Jensen, HEAL’s Executive Director, said: “Today member states failed to seize the opportunity offered by the European Parliament decision to significantly improve the criteria in order to really protect human health from toxic endocrine disrupting pesticides.”
“Removing the exemption that would have left numerous endocrine disrupting substances off the hook is only one step in the right direction.”
The body’s endocrine system — in the ovaries and testes, as well as the adrenal, pituitary and thyroid glands — produce hormones that are secreted into the bloodstream to control and coordinate a range of critical body functions.
These hormones help regulate energy levels, reproduction, growth, development, as well as our response to stress and injury.
The disruptors issue has pitted industry and agriculture against consumer and environmental groups for many years.
The EU announced last year that it had reached a broad agreement on what substances were involved but had to go back to the drawing board because of the controversy around the issue.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/endocrine-disruptors/news/member-states-give-green-light-to-commissions-plan-on-endocrine-disruptors/
-
Scott Pruitt And A Crew Of EPA Aides Just Spent Four Days In Morocco Promoting Natural Gas
Dec 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt returned Wednesday from a trip to Morocco, where he talked with officials about their interest in importing natural gas as well as other areas of “continued cooperation” between the two countries.
The EPA disclosed the trip late Tuesday, issuing a media release that included photos and a statement from Pruitt saying that the visit “allowed us to directly convey our priorities and best practices with Moroccan leaders.”
“We are committed to working closely with countries
The purpose of the trip sparked questions from environmental groups, Democratic lawmakers and some industry experts, who noted that EPA plays no formal role in overseeing natural gas exports. Such activities are overseen primarily by the Energy Department and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Pruitt took along seven aides and an undisclosed number of staff from his protective detail. The group included four political aides, including Samantha Dravis, associate administrator of the Office of Policy, and senior advisers Sarah Greenwalt and Lincoln Ferguson, as well as one career official, Jane Nishida, principal deputy assistant administrator of the Office of International and Tribal Affairs. Pruitt’s head of security determines how many advance staffers travel on any given trip, EPA officials said, and in this instance it was two.
At the request of Senate Democrats, the EPA inspector general is looking into Pruitt’s use of military and private flights, as well as his frequent visits to his home state of Oklahoma during his first few months on the job.
“It seems strange that Administrator Pruitt would prioritize a trip to Morocco to discuss natural gas exports while there is no shortage of more pressing issues here in the U.S. that actually fall within the jurisdiction of the agency he leads,” said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “I presume Mr. Pruitt is aware his agency’s inspector general is conducting an investigation into his questionable travel, which makes his decision to take this trip an odd choice at best.”
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement that Pruitt “acts like he is a globe-trotting salesman for the fossil fuel industry who can make taxpayers foot the bill.”
Pruitt traveled in business class for three flights, according to an individual who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an internal agency matter, and in economy class for two flights. Asked about the travel arrangements, EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox replied in an email, “Due to concerns from our security team, Administrator Pruitt was granted a waiver by EPA’s Chief Financial Officer to fly business-class.”
Wilcox said he could not provide the trip’s total cost because the travelers’ arrangements were booked through their respective departments.
Pruitt met with three top Moroccan officials, according to the agency statement, including the minister of energy, mines and sustainable development; the minister of justice and liberties; and the secretary of state to the minister of foreign affairs. Wilcox said Pruitt “discussed our bilateral free trade agreement, solid waste response, disaster relief and communications with top Moroccan officials.”
His visit came shortly after the EPA held a workshop in Rabat about solid waste management, public participation and crisis communication.
Morocco, the only African country with which the United States has a free-trade agreement, is a signatory to the 2015 Paris climate agreement and has collaborated in the past with U.S. officials on its push to expand domestic solar energy production. During the trip, Moroccan officials took Pruitt on a tour of the IRESEN Green Energy Park, which the EPA said showed the administrator “firsthand the work being done to promote environmental innovation, including solar energy across Morocco.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/13/scott-pruitt-and-a-crew-of-epa-aides-just-spent-four-days-in-morocco-promoting-natural-gas/?utm_term=.531942985ecb
-
Ohio Congressman Introduces Bills to Expedite U.S. LNG Exports
Dec 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A Congressman representing Ohio's Utica Shale region has introduced a pair of bills designed to help significantly expedite U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
On Monday, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) introduced bills HR 4605 and 4606. Under the former, officially titled the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act, domestic suppliers would be allowed to export LNG cargoes immediately upon completion of the review process conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Suppliers would no longer be required to wait for additional approval from the Department of Energy (DOE).
Meanwhile, the latter, also known as the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, calls for codifying DOE's recent efforts to encourage quicker approval of small-scale LNG exports, especially to countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
Both bills have been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration. HR 4605 was co-sponsored by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH). Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill similar to HR 4606 last October.
"The U.S. is currently the world's largest producer of natural gas, with trillions of cubic feet of recoverable natural gas beneath our feet," Johnson said. "We should be doing all we can to take advantage of this abundant resource, and it is my hope that these bills will help further that goal.
"It's critical that we take advantage of this opportunity we've been blessed with. There is no doubt that LNG exports are creating opportunities and improving the quality of life for hard working families in Eastern and Southeastern Ohio."
Last October, the Regulatory Reform Task Force reaffirmed a rule it first proposed last September, which called for DOE to issue an export authorization for any complete application that proposes exports of up to 140 MMcf/d, and which do not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Similarly, the Cassidy-Rubio bill calls for DOE to expedite any application to export up to 51.1 Bcf of natural gas per year, or 140 MMcf/d. The bill does not discriminate between countries that have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S. and non-FTA countries.
The DOE task force's recommendation stems from an executive order (EO) signed by President Trump in late March. The EO called for, among other things, DOE and other government agencies to review all existing regulations and orders that could potentially hamper domestic energy development, including oil and natural gas.
Johnson's district covers the bulk of Ohio's portion of the Utica Shale. Specifically, the district includes all of 13 counties -- Belmont, Columbiana, Carroll, Gallia, Guernsey, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, Noble and Washington -- as well as parts of Athens, Mahoning, Muskingum, Scioto and Tuscarawas counties.
Morocco Interested in U.S. LNG
In related news, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt attended bilateral meetings in Morocco this week, in part to discuss the capital city of Rabat's interest in importing LNG from the U.S.
"These meetings allowed us to directly convey our priorities and best practices with Moroccan leaders," Pruitt said, adding that the meetings were also an opportunity to further talks around an environmental work plan between the two countries. "We are committed to working closely with countries like Morocco to enhance environmental stewardship around the world."
Morocco is the only African country with which the U.S. has an FTA.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112739-ohio-congressman-introduces-bills-to-expedite-us-lng-exports
-
NAFTA Withdrawal Would Risk U.S. Oil Production
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Withdrawing from NAFTA would devastate oil and gas trade and threaten U.S. production, energy leaders said, arguing that the Trump administration should “modernize” the pact, not jettison it.
“Withdrawing from NAFTA would impose unacceptably high costs on the United States when we are engaged in historic tax reform and regulatory reform to get our economy growing above 3 percent,” Karen Alderman Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute told a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Dec. 13.
Changes that threaten certainty provided by the North American Free Trade Agreement, its investor protections or Mexico's recent energy reforms would threaten U.S. oil and gas production by preventing it from finding “its natural markets” and “undermine current investments planned for Mexico,” Harbert said.
NAFTA is essential to furthering U.S. energy security, along with the nation's plentiful resources and the industry's ingenuity, Chet Thompson, president of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, told the panel.
A key oil industry concern is maintaining existing investor-state dispute settlement provisions that allow companies to sue countries over discrimination, seizures and other injustices. Those investor protections should be strengthened consistent with other recent U.S. trade agreements, or at least maintained, Thompson said.
A renegotiated pact could also encourage harmonized regulation of cross-border energy infrastructure and streamline customs procedures, Thompson added.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125095990&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125095990&jd=125095990
-
Why Modernizing NAFTA Could Be A Boon For The US Economy
Dec 13, 2017 | The Hill
By Chet Thompson
Negotiations to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are a chance to boost the competitiveness of U.S. companies in Canada and Mexico and solidify the preeminent role U.S. refiners and petrochemicals producers play in enabling global transportation and manufacturing. A smart modernization of NAFTA would amplify trilateral trade benefits that have accrued for so many economic sectors since the agreement took effect in 1994.
Few industries better illustrate this than American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers. Today, these industries are among the largest contributors to GDP, supporting more than 3 million U.S. jobs and contributing nearly $570 billion to the economy each year. The expansion of free trade across North America has put us on a path toward energy independence by stimulating billions of dollars in new capital investment, helping keep energy prices affordable for consumers, providing more well-paying jobs, and creating space for businesses to innovate.
Our energy trade relationships with Canada and Mexico made possible by NAFTA have helped the United States become the world’s largest refiner, home to 20 percent of global refining capacity. Canada and Mexico supply nearly half of all U.S. crude imports, loosening the grip that the OPEC cartel once had over our country. Indeed, today, Canada supplies us with more oil than all the OPEC countries combined.
NAFTA has also opened markets for refined petroleum and petrochemical products. Combined, exports of petroleum products to Mexico and Canada have gone from essentially zero in 1995 to more than 1.4 million barrels per day. That’s about 7 percent of our total production and about a third of our exports just to those two countries. In fact, Mexico is the largest buyer of U.S. petroleum products, with energy accounting for almost 20 percent of U.S. trade with Mexico.
The story for chemicals is similar. Trade in chemicals more than tripled since NAFTA was enacted in 1994.
Increased trade has spurred hiring. U.S. demand for skilled workers — from electricians and pipefitters to boiler makers and welders — is expected to grow 12 percent by 2024 thanks to $185 billion in committed investment in the fuels and petrochemical manufacturing industries.
The industry’s ability to sustain this momentum — and build on existing progress — is dependent on the strength of the United States’ relationship with Canada and Mexico, our two largest energy-trading partners. As our policymakers assess ways to modernize the agreement, I urge them to weigh the current cohesiveness of the North American commodities market. Our policies should deepen economic ties, not give up gains that could leave businesses and consumers worse off.
Efforts to modernize NAFTA should strengthen the ability of businesses to operate efficiently and deliver the products on which American consumers rely. As part of this, there should be a fresh focus on generating new investment in physical infrastructure so that trade can fully flourish with greater speed and connectivity.
Policymakers should also look to ensure foreign direct investment and U.S. companies operating abroad are treated fairly. This means facilitating cooperation and alignment, advocating on behalf of U.S. businesses when necessary, and implementing disclosure rules that ensure transparency while still reflecting the reality of an integrated energy and petrochemical market.
Let’s focus on adding to the impressive accomplishments of NAFTA by keeping the core tenets of free energy trade in place while making improvements that will enhance outcomes for all.
Chet Thompson is the president and CEO of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/364762-why-modernizing-nafta-could-be-a-boon-for-the-us-economy
-
Fracking Sites May Raise The Risk Of Underweight Babies, New Study Says
Dec 13, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Living within half a mile of a hydraulic fracturing site carries a serious risk for pregnant women, a new study has found. The drilling technique, also known as fracking, injects high-pressure water laced with chemicals into underground rock to release natural gas.
Women who lived within that distance to fracking operations in Pennsylvania were 25 percent more likely to give birth to low-weight infants than were mothers who lived more than two miles beyond the sites.
The five-year study of more than 1.1 million births in the state between 2004 and 2013, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, also found lower birth weights, although not as low, in infants whose mothers lived between half a mile and two miles from a fracking site. Beyond two miles, there was no indication of any health effect to newborns, a significant drop-off, the study said.
“I think I was surprised by the magnitude of the impact within the half-mile radius,” said Michael Greenstone, a professor and director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, and one of three authors of the study.
There are about 4 million births per year in the United States. According to the study’s research, about 30,000 births are within half a mile of a fracking site and 100,000 are within two miles. “I don’t think that’s an insubstantial number,” Greenstone said.
Greenstone said it’s important not to read too much into the study’s conclusion. “I like to joke that there’s a little bit for everyone to hate in this paper,” he said. “There’s a big effect within one kilometer of sites, which the oil and gas industry dislikes, but the impact on the population beyond that may not be massive, which opponents of fracking won’t like.”
Reid Porter, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, an advocacy group for the oil and gas industry, condemned the study, saying that while it addresses a legitimate health issue in the United States, it “fails to consider important factors like family history, parental health, lifestyle habits” and other factors that lead to low birth weight.
In his emailed statement, Porter did not address why those factors might have led to underweight babies near the sites but not farther from them.
Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit environmental group, referred to the study in calling on Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who wants to expand hydraulic fracturing in the state, to reverse course.
“This study adds to existing scientific literature that tells us the serious health consequences linked to fracking,” the group’s executive director, Wenonah Hauter, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Gov. Wolf [is] encouraging news drilling and expanding fossil fuel operations. We call on him to heed the science.”
When Greenstone and his co-authors — Janet Currie, a Princeton University economics professor, and Katherine Meckel, an assistant professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles — embarked on the research, he said, the aim wasn’t to condemn fracking, which is a relatively new method of drilling vertically underground, then switching to a horizontal direction to reach gas trapped in shale rock formations.
The practice has come under scrutiny because of the potentially toxic chemicals used to crack the shale and the amount of water used to force out natural gas. State health officials and residents near fracking operations have complained that wastewater from fracking taints local drinking water. Companies in some cases have been forced to provide bottled drinking water for residents who relied on underground wells. A number of states, such as Maryland and New Jersey, have banned fracking.
A U.S. Geological Survey study in 2014 said pumping wastewater into deeply buried storage wells was probably why Oklahoma was experiencing more small earthquakes than California. The sites are also known to leak methane, a gas that’s up to 100 times more harmful than carbon dioxide in causing global warming in the atmosphere.
But those drawbacks are offset by the benefits of natural gas, Greenstone said. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas “has led to a sharp increase in U.S. energy production and generated enormous benefits, including abruptly lower energy prices, stronger energy security and even lower air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal in electricity generation.”
The authors hope that policymakers will use the study’s finding as a talking point in a robust debate over fracking. They chose to study Pennsylvania because they got access to birth record data that identified “the exact locations of the mothers and the wells,” Greenstone said. “This was like a great success of big data.”
Most drilling operations sit in remote areas where they have little chance of harming pregnant women.
But some sites in Pennsylvania are near Pittsburgh, and others in Texas are inside heavily populated Fort Worth.
“Different communities are going to feel differently about this,” Greenstone said. “If you’re in Fort Worth, where fracturing is occurring in a dense area, you’re probably going to feel differently about it than if you’re in rural North Dakota.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/13/fracking-sites-raise-the-risk-of-low-birth-weight-babies-new-study-says/?utm_term=.415417774956
-
Fracking Linked to Negative Health Effects in Infants, Study Says
Dec 14, 2017 | TIME
By Justin Worland
Babies born to mothers who lived near fracking wells during pregnancy are more likely to experience negative health effects than babies born elsewhere, according to new research.
Researchers behind the study, published in the journal Science Advances, found that living within 1 km (0.6 miles) of a fracking well during pregnancy increased odds of low birth weight by 25%. Low birth rates are associated with a slew of different health effects later in life, including various illnesses and developmental problems. The effect was lower but still significant in babies whose mother lived between 1 and 3 km (1.9 miles) from a well during pregnancy, according to the study. Researchers found little effect beyond 3 km.
Fracking, which is short for hydraulic fracturing, has transformed the U.S. energy system in recent years by opening vast reserves of oil and natural gas once thought to be unreachable or too costly to exploit. That change has helped keep energy prices low and pushed coal, which is among the dirtiest fuels, out of top slot for energy in the U.S.
But lingering concerns about the health risks posed by fracking, as well as worries about natural gas’s contributions to climate change, have prompted widespread opposition from lawmakers and activists alike. New York, Maryland and Vermont have all banned the extraction process.
“Hydraulic fracturing has brought a series of benefits to the United States,” says Michael Greenstone, director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, in a video accompanying the study. “Ultimately whether or not we as a society will have access to those benefits in the long run is going to rest on those local communities… judging whether the local benefits exceed the local costs.”
The authors of the new study relied on data from more than 1.1 million births between 2004 and 2013 in Pennsylvania, where fracking wells pepper the state. When applied to the entire country, the findings suggest that annually some 29,000 newborns could be affected.
Research into the effects of fracking on human health remains in early stages, but public health experts say fracking can damage health in a variety of ways. Chemicals used in the fracking process may seep through rocks into underground drinking water, according to a report from the National Institutes of Health. Fracking can also diminish local air quality as the process releases a slew of toxic chemicals into the air.
http://time.com/5062700/fracking-health-effects/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fueling Dissent: How The Oil Industry Set Out To Undercut Clean Air
Dec 14, 2017 | The Guardian
By Jie Jenny Zou and Tom Dart
On sunny days, when his classmates run out to play, Gabriel Rosales heads to the school nurse for a dose of Albuterol.
The fine mist opens his airways, relaxing the muscles in his chest. Without it, recess could leave the nine-year-old gasping for breath. He gets a second dose at the end of the day before heading home from St John Bosco Elementary School, in San Antonio, Texas.
Over the past year, Gabriel’s asthma has worsened. Visits to the emergency room, shortened trips to the park and reliance on inhalers have become his new norm. “It got to the point where I couldn’t even leave him with anybody,” said his father, Gabe, who works as a consultant to the National Association of Public Employees, a workers’ advocacy group, and a seasonal field director of the Bexar County Democratic Party. “One time he almost looked blue.”
Gabriel’s health is deteriorating alongside air quality in San Antonio, where oil and gas development, a hotter climate and a growing population have combined to spell misery for a city that once boasted clean air compared to other Texas metropolitan areas. Part of the problem lies southeast of the city in the Eagle Ford Shale,a 400-mile-long hub of hydraulic fracturing that unleashes microscopic particles and smog-causing, ground-level ozone.
The state’s environmental regulator – the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – has been criticized for not making things better. In fact, it’s followed in the footsteps of Big Oil’s biggest lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, which has forestalled progress on ozone for decades. Using consultants also hired by API, the commission has spent millions of taxpayer dollars in an effort to question scientific evidence linking particulate matter and ozone with bronchitis, asthma and premature death.
Air quality is the new frontier for climate-change skeptics long tied to API. The institute has fueled uncertainty on climate by producing what critics call misleading scientific and economic studies. Now, by attempting to discredit established research on ozone and fine particles, API and its cadre of doubters are trying to undermine the Clean Air Act – the landmark US law credited with saving millions of lives. Working in concert with other free-market groups, they’re taking their message to Capitol Hill. API officials did not grant interview requests from the Center for Public Integrity.
Residents of San Antonio’s low-income, mostly Latino neighborhoods – like Hillcrest, where Gabriel Rosales lives – bear the brunt of poor air quality even if they aren’t in ozone hot spots, said Mario Bravo, an outreach specialist with the Environmental Defense Fund. “They have less access to healthcare,” Bravo said. “They have less access to transportation to get to the health-care providers.”Dangerous and under dispute
In June, two peer-reviewed studies trumpeted a conclusion at odds with years of solid science: fine-particle pollution long linked to premature death and chronic illness isn’t as dangerous as health advocates contend. If true, the findings would call into question health benefits claimed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which has set ever-tightening air-quality standards.
There was a catch, however. The articles – which were published within a week of one another – appeared in Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, two journals favored by industry consultants. And both studies were funded by API, a trade group that has spent $40m since 2013 to lobby Congress on topics ranging from taxes to global warming.
“Our study is published ... air quality does not kill. $600m of EPA junk science up in smoke,” Steve Milloy, a climate change skeptic and Donald Trump acolyte, tweeted in June, linking to the Regulatory Toxicology article. During a congressional luncheon a month later, the former coal executive took credit for conceiving the study before turning it over to friend, S Stanley Young, and two other statisticians, who authored the final article. No mention of Milloy’s involvement is made in the publication.
Some of the same data was used in the Critical Reviews article published by Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr, which also disputed the link between fine particles and mortality. Cox, a biostatistician from Colorado, started consulting for API in 1988. Cox disclosed that his paper “benefited from close proofreading and copy editing suggestions from API” but denied in an interview that his findings were influenced. In November, he was named the next chair of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, drawing criticism from groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The science on particle pollution, much like the science on global warming, is exhaustive and widely accepted, with thousands of studies pointing to serious health implications. The World Health Organization notes that particulate matter “affects more people than any other pollutant”, with effects observed at even “very low concentrations”. The particles – found in automotive and industrial exhaust and smaller than one-fifth of the width of a strand of hair – form a toxic mix with ozone that lodges deep in the lungs. Unlike Cox, most researchers are no longer fixated on whether this form of pollution is fundamentally dangerous; they worry instead about whether it can cause – not just exacerbate – chronic illness.
Attacking the science is one way of undermining the Clean Air Act, said John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which advocates for more protective air-quality standards. The Clean Air Act is routinely hailed as one of the most cost-effective federal laws, even by business groups. In 2015, the EPA estimated that the law will have saved the US economy $2tn by 2020 while costing $65bn to implement. About 85% of the act’s benefits come from reducing fine-particle pollution, which raises the risk of early death. Opponents of the law “deny that air pollution is deadly … or even harmful in order to try to pretend that no benefits are delivered,” Walke said.
Milloy’s July congressional luncheon at the Rayburn House Office Building – billed as a “congressional staff and media briefing” – helped him plug his latest book, Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA, which condemns the “echo chamber of deceptive science” on ozone and fine particles. Copies of the book were on a table at the side of the room.
The event was hosted by Myron Ebell, who chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, a climate skeptics’ group that began as an alliance of free-market think tanks. “It’s a lot like climate,” Milloy told the audience. “This stuff is pulled out of thin air.”
Reached for comment, Milloy said the study is not an attack on the Clean Air Act but part of his 20-year effort to expose the EPA’s “garbage-in, garbage-out” air pollution research. He denied having any formal ties to API. “I am very, very disappointed in the American Petroleum Institute and all the oil companies for not defending their products, for leaving the science to people like me,” he said.
Young, who authored the study, stood behind its findings and disputed the idea that industry funding presents ethical conflicts. His study data are publicly available, he said, but the EPA isn’t as transparent. Ebell agreed, accusing the agency of using “junk science” to justify air-quality and greenhouse-gas regulation.
Despite their misgivings about the EPA, all three men have become tethered to the agency. Earlier this year, Ebell oversaw the EPA transition for Trump, leading a group that included Milloy. Young was named to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board in October.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, co-founder of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, complained that such appointments have become all too common. “These people were fringe fanatics and industry stooges fighting on behalf of the industry a propaganda war against science,” he said.
Milloy and Ebell were listed among the authors of a $2m plan to amplify uncertainty in climate science – as revealed in a 1998 API memo leaked to The New York Times. Both say the memo grew out of an API brainstorming session that never resulted in concrete action, with Milloy calling it “just a big joke”.
Years before, API had refuted the very concept of global warming under its president, Charles DiBona, who joined the institute shortly after a stint as energy policy advisor to Richard Nixon in the 1970s. White House communications show that DiBona regularly met with then president Frank Ikard, a close friend of Nixon’s, before becoming Ikard’s deputy in 1974.
In recent years, fringe views espoused by API have found a receptive audience inUS Representative Lamar Smith, whose climate-denial credentials rival those of Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Since Smith became chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in 2013, the panel has handed out dozens of subpoenas – many to scientists at regulatory agencies and environmental groups – aiming to debunk climate research.
Smith – whose district includes San Antonio – has opened the committee’s hearing rooms to Cooler Heads Coalition events such as Milloy’s book promotion and briefings that urged the United States to drop out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In February, he reissued a controversial subpoena to New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who is investigating ExxonMobil’s historical knowledge on climate change. Since he joined Congress in 1989, Smith’s top campaign donors have been from the oil and gas sector, which gave him at least $764,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Smith did not respond to requests for comment.
In 2016, Influence Map, a nonprofit environmental research group, estimated that ExxonMobil had spent about $27m on “climate obstruction” lobbying and advertising campaigns. That amount was dwarfed by the $65m API spent on similar efforts, the group found. ExxonMobil is one of the oldest and largest API members.‘Tired, old industry argument’
In July, the House passed a bill targeting what its proponents called “job-killing regulations” – namely, bedrock air-quality standards. Its lead author wasRepresentative Pete Olson, a Republican from the ozone-plagued Houston area. All but four of the 229 “aye” votes were cast by Republicans, Lamar Smith among them.
Under Olson’s bill, states would have until 2025 to meet the EPA’s latest ozone limit, which was supposed to take effect in October. The agency, which is legally required to update air standards to keep pace with evolving science, would be obligated to review rules for pollutants once a decade, as opposed to once every five years.
The 2017 bill is the latest iteration of a proposal Olson first floated in 2015, seeking to delay regulation of ozone. The same day his bill passed, 144 trade groups, including regional offshoots of API, pledged their support in a letter to Congress. Oil and gas interests have been Olson’s top political contributors, donating more than $1m to his campaigns since 2007. A Senate version of the bill has not come up for a vote.
In an email, Olson’s office wrote that the congressman “believes the Clean Air Act is critically important” but has “fundamental concerns” about Texas’ ability to meet tighter standards. Pollution control, the email said, “can be done rationally and with an eye on our economy”.
By law, the EPA is not allowed to consider cost when setting ozone standards, but that hasn’t stopped API and other industry groups from injecting economics into the policy debate.
Economics, like some controversial science, has provided API with grist to challenge regulations.
Armed with seemingly authoritative studies from firms such as NERA Economic Consulting, the institute has recast issues such as action on climate change as reckless moves that could tank the US economy. NERA, whose clients include API collaborators such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council, was co-founded by Irwin Stelzer, an economist who works at the Hudson Institute, a free-market think tank.
Such studies, like the NERA report Trump cited when he announced the US exitfrom the Paris climate agreement earlier this year, can be “extremely misleading”, often tallying every conceivable cost and ignoring every possible benefit, said Ben Franta, a Stanford University researcher investigating API’s climate activities. Because data underlying these reports are proprietary, Franta said, in many cases they can neither be verified or debunked. What’s left are unsupported arguments: “New ozone rules could be the most expensive ever,” reads an API webpage linking to dozens of NERA findings.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has taken a tack similar to API’s. Since 2013, the TCEQ has paid NERA more than $870,000 for economic research on ozone – a topic the firm studied earlier for API. More than $2.2m in taxpayer funds have also been spent on contracts with Gradient – a consultancy previously hired by API to question the benefits of a stricter ozone limit. The TCEQ declined to comment on this story but on its website describes its mission as protecting the “state’s public health and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development”.
Anne E Smith, a managing director at NERA, did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking comment. She was among several industry-friendly voices at a 2015 TCEQ ozone workshop in Austin led by Michael Honeycutt, the agency’s director of toxicology. Other speakers included Gradient scientists, the editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, industry toxicologist Michael Dourson and air researcher Robert Phalen, known for saying the air “is a little too clean for optimum health”.
Speakers at the Austin workshop have risen to prominence in the Trump administration. This fall, Honeycutt, Anne Smith, Dourson and Phalen were all named to key EPA science positions as either advisers or staff.
Economics has long figured into API’s strategy to derail ozone rules. In 1971, the newly formed EPA set the ozone standard at 80 parts per billion, but in 1979 took an unexpected U-turn and weakened it to 120 ppb – angering industry and environmentalists alike. The latter called the reversal scientifically indefensible and accused the EPA of prioritizing economics over health. API promptly sued the EPA, with DiBona claiming the relaxed standards would still cost “billions of dollars without significantly improving the quality of the environment or the health of the public”.
Spurred by lawsuits from the American Lung Association that compelled it to update air standards based on the latest science, the EPA reverted to its original 80 ppb ozone limit in 1997. The cap is now at 70 ppb, though even that number may not be protective enough, as some research has found health effects at 60 ppb.
Nonetheless, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt – a former Oklahoma attorney general with deep ties to oil and gas – tried to keep the 70 ppb standard from taking effect. He backed off on the delay after 16 state attorneys general sued the agency in August. In a lawsuit filed this month, however, environmental groups accused the EPA of failing to enforce the rule.
Pruitt had put forth what Dr Greg Diette – a lung specialist at Johns Hopkins University who has testified in favor of tighter ozone standards – calls “a tired, old industry argument. They say, ‘It’s going to put us out of business,’ and it doesn’t,” Diette said. “All this stuff always comes down to who has to pay.”
But not all costs are economic. High ozone days are the hardest for Diette’s patients. “It can be terrifying – it’s the sensation of not being able to breathe,” he said. “Some feel as if they’re going to pass out. Some feel as if they’re going to die.”
Asthmatics can do little more than hide indoors in an air-conditioned environment. The only other option, Diette said, is to move.
Relocating isn’t possible for the Rosales family of San Antonio, who are uninsured and struggling to keep up with the cost of Gabriel’s medications. The air he breathes is expected to degrade further as oil prices rebound and drilling picks up in the Eagle Ford.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/14/fueling-dissent-how-the-oil-industry-set-out-to-undercut-clean-air
-
Occidental to Join Exxon in Reporting Climate Risks to Investors
Dec 14, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Occidental Petroleum Corp. plans to report early next year on risks to its business from climate change, a step sought by more than 60 percent of its investors.
The company joins oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. and electric utility PPL Corp. in yielding to a shareholder push for more disclosure on how carbon curbs could affect them in the long term.
“We have been productively engaging with our shareholders and other stakeholders on climate-related disclosure and expect to publish a report in early 2018,” Melissa Schoeb, Occidental's vice president of corporate affairs, said in a statement to Bloomberg Law. The oil and gas explorer's pledge to provide added disclosures on how it's assessing and managing climate-related risks was first mentioned in the appendix to a quarterly earnings presentation in August but no timeline was given for that reporting.
Three Majority Votes
Exxon Mobil said Dec. 11 it would likewise expand its climate risk reporting after a similar shareholder proposal passed over board opposition, thanks to unprecedented backing from investing giants like BlackRock Inc. and Vanguard Group.
A third climate disclosure request won support from a majority of shareholders this year at PPL Corp., which has already published an assessment of potential impacts from a low-carbon future. New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, who submitted the proposals at PPL and Exxon, is reviewing that report, a spokesperson said.
“Exxon's decision demonstrates that investors have the power to hold corporations accountable and to compel them to address our very real climate-related concerns,” DiNapoli, overseer of the nation's third-largest public pension plan, said in a statement Dec. 12. “We will continue to monitor Exxon's response to climate change as we urge the company, and others in the energy sector, to find ways that they can adapt to the growing lower carbon economy.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125095991&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125095991&jd=125095991
-
Environmentalists Vow To Fight Retroactive Application Of Pruitt's NSR Memo
Dec 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Environmentalists are vowing to fight any EPA effort to retroactively apply its controversial new source review (NSR) applicability test to ongoing enforcement actions, including the pending case against Michigan utility DTE Energy whose stance Administrator Scott Pruitt has now adopted despite judicial support for the agency's prior policy.
“We don't think the Pruitt memo should dictate in this case because the thought that the EPA has adopted DTE's litigation position after fighting for six years and winning twice at the 6th Circuit” is unconscionable, one environmentalist involved in the litigation says.
Pruitt, in a Dec. 7 memo dropped the agency's long-running stance that it can use its own projections of a facility's potential to emit (PTE) to trigger NSR permitting requirements -- which generally mandates that new and modified sources install the latest pollution controls if emissions are expected to increase -- and will now adopt DTE's approach and will defer to companies to assess whether they believe NSR applies as long as the companies follow EPA guidance for how to do the calculations.
The agency also signaled that it could apply the policy retroactively, though it indicated it would do so on a case-by-case basis. The Dec. 7 memo is intended for future actions but its effect on ongoing matters will be determined on a case-by-case basis, an EPA spokeswoman says.
“The memo describes EPA’s current intended approach for future matters. Decisions about how to proceed in ongoing enforcement matters will be made on a case-by-case basis,” the spokeswoman says. “The memo clarifies that so long as a company complies with the procedural requirements of a preconstruction analysis, then EPA will not come in and second guess that analysis. Providing certainty and clarity on this issue is an important first step to encouraging investments across all industrial sectors to move forward with incorporating new technologies and improving operational efficiencies yielding both economic and environmental benefits.”
The agency's position appears to be consistent with the Bush administration's approach when it undertook NSR reforms in the early 2000s, where it sought to apply its reforms retroactively to Clinton-era enforcement cases. But the Bush administration's efforts drew significant controversy throughout the president's first term and the issue was narrowed after a federal appellate court blocked one of its most controversial rules that had sought to redefine when equipment “replacement” was subject to NSR.
William Wehrum, the Trump administration's air chief who was a top air official in the Bush administration, said Dec. 12 that Pruitt's PTE policy was likely the first of a series of piecemeal reforms that would continue throughout the Trump administration, unlike the prior effort when the administration presented a broader programmatic reform.
Wehrum said he foresees “a series of actions that will last for the indefinite future,” such as the recent memo changing the policy on the PTE of power plants. “We will continue to chip away at it” in a “one-by-one-by-one” approach, and “not in large chunks in a flagship reform effort.”
Early Test
As such, the pending DTE case could provide an early test for the administration's reforms, given its pending return to litigation in a federal district court. The Supreme Court announced Dec. 11 that it will not review EPA v. Detroit Edison (DTE), letting stand a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit which backed the agency's prior policy stance that regulators can determine facilities' PTE -- and their potential NSR liability.
DTE had asked the Supreme Court to overturn the most recent 6th Circuit ruling upholding EPA's previous position but the high court denied the request, sending the matter back to the lower courts just days after Pruitt signed the memo.
One source following the DTE litigation says “we'll have to see” what EPA does in the case, and notes that the position in the memo is “helpful to the position that DTE has taken, and so it will be interesting to see” if EPA drops its prosecution when the case lands back in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in coming weeks.
Additionally it is unclear what the judge will do after the 6th Circuit twice ruled that EPA could enforce using its own projections of a project's emission increases rather than the company's, but in split appellate decisions that the source says lack clarity and offer the judge little guidance.
The district judge could seek briefing on the impact of the memo on the case, the source notes.
The source is unaware of other pending NSR enforcement cases that could be affected by the Pruitt memo, and sources generally note that the Trump EPA is thought to have pursed few new NSR enforcement actions, particularly against coal-fired power plants, since taking office early this year.
The environmentalist points out the case includes additional claims against other DTE units that increased post-project emissions and would be subject to NSR enforcement even under the lax terms of the memo, but that what EPA opts to do on those claims is also unknown.
Whatever position EPA and the Department of Justice take, the source notes, environmentalists intend to continue to pursue the claims.
The environmental groups involved in the case said in a Dec. 11 statement that the high court's rejection “makes the Pruitt EPA's adoption of that position even more appalling. The new Pruitt approach appears to be little more than an attempt to give coal utilities a sense of empowerment to ignore the critical public health protections of the Clean Air Act [NSR] program. Such approach should not stand as it is contrary to law, public health, and common sense."
DTE Unit
At issue in the Pruitt memo is the identical issue at DTE's Monroe Unit 2 where the company notified the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that its $65 million upgrade would increase emissions only because of demand growth, not because of the project, and as such NSR did not apply.
After DTE implemented the project, emissions decreased at the plant, due to factors including decreased demand and the installation of pollution controls for other reasons, the environmentalist explains.
However, EPA under the Obama administration, joined by environmentalists, pursued an NSR action against the company because of the projected increase and sought to enforce NSR requirements even though the actual increase did not occur.
The environmentalist says that NSR is a preconstruction permit program intended to prevent excess emissions so enforcing after-the-fact defeats the purpose. The source adds that DTE is exploiting the demand growth exclusion for NSR, noting that “it appears that's what they do in every situation. We have multiple letters” from DTE to state regulators citing demand growth as reason for an NSR exemption that the source says lacks evidence of such demand growth.
“One of our concerns about” the Pruitt memo “is it gives a path to utilities to turn preconstruction projections into a complete sham.”
However, the second source following the case says the Pruitt memo simply clarifies that the 2002 Bush-era NSR reform on how to project preconstruction emissions will be followed, saying that if industry uses those calculation procedures, then the agency will not “second guess” their conclusions. The change sought to give industry more flexibility in projecting a project's emissions impact, but the Obama administration disregarded it, industry sources charge.
Yet environmentalists say the change in the Pruitt memo also explicitly allows companies to “manage” emissions -- or artificially keep them low -- during the five-year statute of limitations for NSR enforcement.
One industry source says that is a false charge and that it would not be economical for a facility to undertake a capital-intensive project and then not run a plant to take advantage of the upgrades. “The idea that companies would spend a bunch of money so . . . years from now they can increase emissions is not the way things work in the real world.”
The source adds that the Obama EPA had been ignoring the 2002 rule and instead using a methodology that “finds everything will increase emissions. . . . This goes back to the intent of the 2002 reform rule. . . . And the Pruitt memo does a pretty good job of explaining all that.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-vow-fight-retroactive-application-pruitts-nsr-memo
-
EPA Faces 'Intense' Workload For Air Toxics Rule Reviews
Dec 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA faces an “intense” workload for undertaking dozens of Clean Air Act-mandated reviews of existing air toxics regulations, agency officials say, but they are vowing to meet legally binding deadlines for performing the overdue risk and technology reviews (RTRs) to determine whether to revise any of the rules.
At a Dec. 12 meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) in Washington, D.C., EPA air official Bill Harnett outlined the daunting schedule facing EPA to complete dozens of risk-and-technology-reviews (RTRs) in the next few years. EPA must conduct RTRs eight years after setting air toxics standards for industry sectors under the Clean Air Act. If the agency finds “residual” health risks, or cost-effective new control technologies, or both, it can tighten the standards.
However, EPA has fallen years behind schedule, drawing lawsuits from environmentalists that have resulted in hard deadlines to issue many RTRs.
“We have seen nothing like this level of volume” before, and EPA staff is “hard pressed,” but “we are expecting to hit all of the deadlines as they stand now,” Harnett said. He said that “lots of resources are being expended” on the RTR program, which is “a fairly intense program now."
Harnett underscored that meeting court-ordered deadlines takes priority over other work. He acknowledged major uncertainty over EPA's budget, however. Even under cuts proposed by Congress that are less steep than those sought by the White House, the agency is still facing a likely substantial cut.
According to Harnett, RTRs are required for about 58 additional source categories. Of these, 33 are subject to court orders, two are subject to consent decrees and nine are subject to ongoing litigation. Of the 33, seven must be completed by Dec. 31, 2018, 20 must be finalized by March 13, 2020, and the remaining six by June 30, 2020.
Among the sectors covered by the RTRs are those for asphalt manufacturing; boat manufacturing; hydrochloric acid production; municipal solid waste landfills; cellulose products manufacturing; and reinforced plastics and composite production.
Under consent decrees, EPA must finalize the technology review portion of the RTR for wool fiberglass technology review by Dec. 15, 2017, for which the residual risk review is already finalized, and must finalize the RTR for Portland cement by July 15, 2018.
EPA is further reconsidering RTRs for petroleum refineries, amino-phenolic resins, secondary lead, and off-site waste recovery operations.
Meanwhile, EPA's Science Advisory Board is evaluating EPA's “screening” methods used to prioritize industry sectors requiring more in-depth, resource-intensive risk reviews. Members of the board have expressed concerns that EPA's current methodology might make conservative assumptions that leave the agency with too many in-depth reviews to complete.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-faces-intense-workload-air-toxics-rule-reviews
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested