Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 14/12/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) More Than 700 Employees Have Left the EPA Since Scott Pruitt Took Over
Dec 14, 2017 | Think Progress
By Natasha Geiling
Since Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt took over the top job at the agency in March, more than 700 employees have either retired, taken voluntary buyouts, or quit, signaling the second-highest exodus of employees from the agency in nearly a decade. -
U.S. Senate Panel Approves EPA Nominees Slammed by Democrats
Dec 14, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
The U.S. Senate environment panel on Wednesday approved four nominees to top posts at the Environmental Protection Agency, including the pick to head the agency's office of chemical safety who has drawn criticism for his ties to the chemical industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) Behind the Doomed Effort to Defend, Promote Dourson
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
U.S. EPA and President Trump's pick for the agency's top chemical safety post, Michael Dourson, sought to tightly control information about the nominee and quickly rebut unflattering news reports about him, according to emails obtained by E&E News under the Ohio Public Records Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) EWire: Dourson Withdraws After Emails Show ACC Consultations
Dec 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Inside EPA's Maria Hegstad reported yesterday that Michael Dourson -- whose nomination to lead EPA's toxics office stalled over concerns about his close ties with the chemical industry -- is asking the administration to withdraw his stalled nomination to spare the agency further distraction. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Bizarre Choice to Oversee Chemical Safety Laws Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | MSNBC
By Steve Benen
If we held a contest to find the most offensive Donald Trump nominee for any post, Michael Dourson would be a very strong contender. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Choice to Head EPA Chemical Safety Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The Trump administration’s choice to head a key chemicals regulation office within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency withdrew from consideration Dec. 13 amid increased opposition among lawmakers. -
(ACC Mentioned) A Trump Environment Nominee Was So Close to Industry That Even Republicans Objected to Him
Dec 14, 2017 | Splinter News
By Eleanor Sheehan
A Trump nominee who was all but in the pocket of the chemical companies he was set to regulate at the EPA pulled off the rare feat of convincing three Republican senators he was unfit for the position. -
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Urge Greater Scrutiny of Trump’s ‘Disastrous Nominees’ After EPA Pick Withdraws Name
Dec 14, 2017 | Think Progress
By Mark Hand
Michael Dourson, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, withdrew his name from consideration late Wednesday, after key senators made it clear he could not win confirmation. -
Nominee to Lead EPA Chemicals Program Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The top spot in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s office that oversees commercial chemicals and pesticides remains vacant. -
EPA Mum on Whether Failed Trump Nominee is Still on the Job
Dec 14, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Michael Biesecker and Jill Colvin
The Environmental Protection Agency is refusing to say whether President Donald Trump’s failed pick to oversee chemical safety will continue to work there as a senior adviser, a role that doesn’t require Senate confirmation. -
Dourson’s Defeat a Big Win for Public Health
Dec 14, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
There were plenty of good reasons to oppose President Trump’s nomination of Michael Dourson to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Trump’s Controversial Pick for EPA Post Withdraws Nomination
Dec 14, 2017 | NBC News
By Suzy Khimm
Michael Dourson, President Donald Trump's controversial pick to become the nation's top regulator of toxic chemicals, has withdrawn his nomination after facing heavy criticism over his close ties to the chemical industry, according to two Senate aides. -
Victory! Monsanto Shill Michael Dourson Withdraws After Public Outcry
Dec 14, 2017 | EcoWatch
The Center for Food Safety heralded reports that Michael Dourson, President Trump's controversial nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Wednesday withdrew his nomination after senators raised concerns over his past work and conflicts of interest. -
Consumer Health Victory: Seven Major Retailers Commit to Reduce Use of Toxic Chemicals in Products and Packaging
Dec 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
Just in time for the holiday shopping season, today the Mind the Store campaign released its second annual report card on toxic chemicals in consumer products, which found that one-third of 30 major U.S. retailers are leaders, but two-thirds remain serious laggards. -
Echa Round-Up
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has received three notifications of intentions for the identification of substances of very high concern (SVHCs). -
Texas Congressmen Urge Trump to Ease Off NAFTA Renegotiation
Dec 14, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
Texas congressmen are urging the Trump administration to ease off its effort to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement, worried they could do damage to increasingly intertwined energy markets in the United States, Mexico and Canada. -
NAFTA Defended as Boon for U.S. Energy Sector in House Hearing
Dec 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Representatives from the energy, business, manufacturing and academic sectors told a House subcommittee on Wednesday to "modernize" but not blow up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), arguing that it's essential to the nation's energy growth. -
Pruitt's Morocco Trip Cost Nearly $40,000 — Employee
Dec 14, 2017 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Biesecker
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's trip to Morocco this week promoting liquefied natural gas cost nearly $40,000, according to an EPA employee with knowledge of Pruitt's travel expenses. -
Low-Weight Newborns Linked to Next-Door Fracking — Study
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
Mothers who live close to fracking wells could be as much as 25 percent more likely to give birth to low-weight babies, according to a study published yesterday in the journal Science Advances. -
No Paris Climate Accord? No Problem, Bloc of States Says
Dec 14, 2017 | AP (In The New York)
Since President Donald Trump vowed this summer to pull the United States out of an international climate accord, states looking to tackle carbon pollution have been forced to go it alone. -
State Faces 'Giant' Questions About Slashing Emissions
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California's climate regulators are set to vote today on a plan to reach the state's ambitious greenhouse gas goals through 2030, but heavy political lifting still remains to fill in the details.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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) More Than 700 Employees Have Left the EPA Since Scott Pruitt Took Over
Dec 14, 2017 | Think Progress
By Natasha Geiling
Since Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt took over the top job at the agency in March, more than 700 employees have either retired, taken voluntary buyouts, or quit, signaling the second-highest exodus of employees from the agency in nearly a decade.
According to agency documents and federal employment statistics, 770 EPA employees departed the agency between April and December, leaving employment levels close to Reagan-era levels of staffing. According to the EPA’s contingency shutdown plan for December, the agency currently has 14,449 employees on board — a marked change from the April contingency plan, which showed a staff of 15,219.
“There has been a drop of employees of 770 between April and December. While several hundred of those are buyouts, the rest of those are either people that are retiring or quitting in disgust,” Kyla Bennett, director of New England Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), told ThinkProgress. “Is that number higher than it would normally be? I think it is.”
According to the Washington Post, the agency set aside $12 million in 2017 for buyouts as part of an effort to reshape the agency under the Trump administration. Unlike in 2014, when the agency saw some 456 buyouts, the most recent buyouts were not a result of Congressional pressure or enacted cuts — rather, the buyouts were in an apparent attempt to bring the agency more in line with operations detailed in the Trump administration’s proposed budget, which suggested a 31 percent cut to the agency, including the complete elimination of several agency programs.
The EPA did not respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment.
-
U.S. Senate Panel Approves EPA Nominees Slammed by Democrats
Dec 14, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
The U.S. Senate environment panel on Wednesday approved four nominees to top posts at the Environmental Protection Agency, including the pick to head the agency's office of chemical safety who has drawn criticism for his ties to the chemical industry.
Senator Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the committee, said two of the nominees were of "grave concern" - Michael Dourson to lead the chemical safety and pollution prevention office, and Bill Wehrum for assistant administrator for the air office. They were approved 11-10 in a vote along party lines.
Carper called Dourson, a former professor at the University of Cincinnati who has worked as a consultant for chemical companies, "one of the most troubling nominees I have ever considered during my time on this committee."
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.
Wehrum, a lawyer who has represented energy companies facing clean-air regulations, served in the EPA air office under former Republican President George W. Bush.Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
Senator James Inhofe from oil-producing Oklahoma, a senior Republican on the panel, praised the vote and urged the full Senate to quickly confirm the nominees so they could "improve public health within the scope of the EPA's authority."
Republicans say the EPA under former Democratic President Barack Obama overstepped its authority to regulate.Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main storyMorning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.Sign UpYou agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump's EPA administrator, has worked to do away with regulations pushed through by the Obama administration, and has proposed scrapping the Clean Power Plan that sought to curb emissions linked to climate change. Pruitt sued the agency more than a dozen times when he was Oklahoma's attorney general.
Jeff Holmstead, a former head of the EPA air and radiation office under Bush, said Wehrum was the "ideal person to shepherd Administrator Pruitt's reforms through the regulatory process."
Senator Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat who often votes with Republicans on energy issues, voted against Dourson in part because of Dourson's support for PFOA and other chemicals that contaminated water supplies in his state of West Virginia.
Environmentalists called on the full Senate to reject the nominees. The nominees would "accelerate Scott Pruitt's mission to dismantle the EPA from the inside," said Sara Chieffo, vice president for government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters.
The other nominees approved by the panel were Matthew Leopold to head the general counsel office, and David Ross to lead the water office.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/12/14/us/politics/14reuters-usa-epa-nominees.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Behind the Doomed Effort to Defend, Promote Dourson
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
U.S. EPA and President Trump's pick for the agency's top chemical safety post, Michael Dourson, sought to tightly control information about the nominee and quickly rebut unflattering news reports about him, according to emails obtained by E&E News under the Ohio Public Records Act.
The effort fell short. Dourson withdrew from consideration for the position yesterday amid bipartisan concerns about his background. He continues to advise EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (Greenwire, Dec. 13).
The communications centered on a Sept. 20 article by Associated Press reporters Michael Biesecker and Jeff Horwitz — "EPA nominee once helped chemical industry, lobbyists" — that detailed Dourson's work criticizing studies that raised concerns about the safety of products sold by clients of his nonprofit firm.
"Please let me know if you have specific responses/push backs to this article," EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman wrote to Dourson that afternoon. "And please especially note any falsehoods or inaccuracies."
Dourson thanked her for the "the opportunity to help" and went through the article in just under an hour, adding responses to nearly every paragraph that mainly emphasized the public health mission of Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), the nonprofit he led before joining the University of Cincinnati faculty.
The only errors he flagged were that AP understated his annual university salary by $64,000 and that the industry-funded "Kids + Chemical Safety" website TERA created "is not defunct," as the story claimed.
"Related government websites are either data-dense or not user friendly; activists websites appear to be more designed to support fundraising," he wrote to Bowman. "This website is under consideration for adoption by another group."
Dourson also disputed the story's characterization of TERA's work in a study of a West Virginia town whose water was contaminated by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). His nonprofit, he said, merely convened the panel that found PFOA was safe at levels 150 times greater than Dupont's own internal safety standard.
"This is great, thank you," Bowman responded.
But Troy Lyons, who leads EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, disagreed.
"If we send it to EPW it would just be used for backup material for the majority," he wrote, referring to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that was vetting Dourson at the time.
Lyons worried the information could be "misconstrued to fit" a narrative hostile to the nominee.
Dourson also elicited feedback of his university colleagues and filled them in on EPA's internal debate over whether to publicly attack the story, as the agency had done with other stories by AP's Biesecker (Greenwire, Sept. 5).
"One side says it just feeds the other side; others are arguing that some kind of response is needed because otherwise silence appears to confirm the stories," he said. "Please maintain a radio silence, however. If we get to speak, I will ask for your help."
In the end, Bowman asked if "TERA folks would be willing to pen an op-ed on this issue?" She added, "I think it would be important to have their opinion and voice out there."
It's unclear if the op-ed ever materialized. EPA didn't immediately respond to questions about the request or comment on the email chain. AP also didn't respond.
A group tied to Richard Berman, a public affairs executive known as "Dr. Evil," also unsuccessfully sought to bolster Dourson's bid for assistant administrator (Greenwire, Nov. 15).New industry ties
Dourson's connections to industry are also more extensive than previously reported.
A separate email chain obtained by E&E News shows Dourson and his former colleagues sought to bring together chemical- and consumer-product manufacturers with animal rights advocates and federal officials.
Dourson aimed to establish a center that would enable "folks to work together that normally do not," he said in an March 12 message to officials from ANGUS Chemical Co., Unilever, PETA International Scientific Consortium Ltd., the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other groups.
The center would facilitate a "mind shift" in product testing "from hazard based, target organ toxicity, to predictive safety irrespective of target organ or effect," he said.
"I will ask the various organizations interested in being associated with this center to be part of a joint proposal," Dourson told them.
The following month, he reached out to a mix of industry officials, bureaucrats and academics to provide a "thoughtful response" to his proposal to establish the Institute of Predictive Safety Assessment. "Perhaps as important, we invite your organization to make a financial commitment to support its development," he said.
The April 10 email was sent to representatives of Dow Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Syngenta AG, and the American Chemistry Council; officials from EPA, NIH, the Food and Drug Administration; and the director of Johns Hopkins' Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing.
One of Dourson's former colleagues followed up by scheduling a phone call with Louis "Gino" Scarano, who was a senior science adviser in EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to discuss the proposal on July 21 — four days after Dourson was nominated to lead that office (E&E Daily, July 18).
It is unclear if the call or institute ever went forward. EPA didn't respond to a request for comment on the proposal, and the university said it was not affiliated with any such group.
"This appears to be something that would have been outside the university and not part of UC," Richard Puff, a spokesman for the school, said in an email.
Other emails obtained by Greenpeace and provided to The New York Times show Dourson continued to work for the American Chemistry Council after being nominated as EPA's top chemicals regulator.
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, one of two Republicans whose opposition helped to sink Dourson's nomination, told E&E News today he was confident the Trump administration would soon put forward a chemicals pick he could support.
"I feel like we've got a good bench of nominees that are going to come before us, and I look forward to the confirmation," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/14/stories/1060069049
-
(ACC Mentioned) EWire: Dourson Withdraws After Emails Show ACC Consultations
Dec 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Inside EPA's Maria Hegstad reported yesterday that Michael Dourson -- whose nomination to lead EPA's toxics office stalled over concerns about his close ties with the chemical industry -- is asking the administration to withdraw his stalled nomination to spare the agency further distraction.
But the New York Times reports that his departure came the same day that just-released emails “detail an unusually close relationship” with the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's leading voice, including on the risks of trichloroethylene (TCE), a chemical that the agency is considering banning for some uses.
The emails, obtained by Greenpeace from Dourson's former employer, the University of Cincinnati, under the Freedom of Information Act, also show that Dourson asked ACC to review a draft research paper it funded prior to publication.
One expert quoted by the Times says this shows a conflict of interest. “There is a conflict of interest if industry lawyers are vetting papers,” Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, told the Times. “All in all, an industry trade group role in writing a paper is a mountain of conflict of interest.”
A Senate aide also told the Times that Dourson would not remain at EPA, where he has been serving as an adviser to Administrator Scott Pruitt while awaiting a confirmation vote in the Senate.
That vote had become increasingly unlikely, as the two Republican senators from North Carolina, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, announced last month that they could not vote for Dourson. Burr and Tillis pointed to Dourson's consulting work on chemicals of concern in that state, perfluorinated chemicals and TCE, a common solvent that 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 Dourson's confirmation even less likely after Doug Jones (D) won the Dec. 12 special election for the Alabama senate seat Jeff Sessions vacated to become President Donald Trump's attorney general. Jones' surprising victory narrows the GOP majority to 51-49 -- although there was no indication that this factored into Dourson's decision.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-dourson-withdraws-after-emails-show-acc-consultations
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Bizarre Choice to Oversee Chemical Safety Laws Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | MSNBC
By Steve Benen
If we held a contest to find the most offensive Donald Trump nominee for any post, Michael Dourson would be a very strong contender.
The Republican president decided over the summer that Dourson should lead the Environmental Protection Agency’s office of chemical safety, which was outlandish, even by Trump World standards. Dourson has spent much of his career not only accepting money from the chemical industry, but also helping chemical companies fight against chemical safety regulations.
Making matters worse, emails recently came to public light showing Dourson maintaining correspondence with chemical industry officials – even after Trump nominated him for the EPA post in which he’d help oversee toxic chemical regulation. Released emails detailed “an unusually close relationship with the American Chemistry Council and with individual companies whose products are scheduled for priority review” by the EPA.
Yesterday, as the New York Times reported, Dourson withdrew from consideration, ending this fiasco.
[I]n 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.”
The two GOP opponents of Dourson’s nomination were Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both of North Carolina.
These developments appear to be a victory for common sense, but I’m left with a couple of questions. For example, if Burr and Tillis hadn’t balked, exactly how many Senate Republicans were prepared to confirm Dourson for this EPA post?
And second, can someone in the Trump White House explain how and why Dourson was nominated for this position in the first place?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-bizarre-choice-oversee-chemical-safety-laws-withdraws
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Choice to Head EPA Chemical Safety Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The Trump administration’s choice to head a key chemicals regulation office within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency withdrew from consideration Dec. 13 amid increased opposition among lawmakers.
Michael Dourson, a University of Cincinnati professor and consultant, had been named by President Trump to head the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
He had faced strong opposition from Democrats over what they described as too close ties to industry, but had passed a party line vote in a Senate committee in late October.
Still, his nomination began to look increasingly troubled in mid-November when Republican lawmakers started publicly opposing him, including North Carolina’s two Republican Senators, who cited concerns over water contamination in the state and how the EPA would regulate that.
The top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees the EPA, said in a statement the Dourson’s ties to industry were a concern.
“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,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.). “It’s become clear that, even with a Republican majority in the Senate, he could not be confirmed.”
Carper said the Trump administration should find an “independent, credible chemical safety regulator” to oversee implementation of the landmark reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which passed Congress by broad bipartisan margins in 2016.
Dourson’s work as a consultant had included serving on an advisory panel to the American Chemistry Council on flame retardants, and serving on scientific panels that set safety levels for a fluoropolymer chemical.
In a Senate hearing, Dourson defended his work, and some Republicans on the panel criticized what they said had been overreach on the part of the EPA under President Obama.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20171214/NEWS/171219948/trump-choice-to-head-epa-chemical-safety-withdraws
-
Dec 14, 2017 | Splinter News
By Eleanor Sheehan
A Trump nominee who was all but in the pocket of the chemical companies he was set to regulate at the EPA pulled off the rare feat of convincing three Republican senators he was unfit for the position. Before he could be rejected by the full Senate, Michael Dourson, a former chemical industry consultant, withdrew his nomination to be the EPA’s chemical safety chief on Wednesday. 00:0000:00
After leaving the EPA in 1995, Dourson led an independent consulting nonprofit, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, where he essentially tailored research to the needs of chemical companies and repeatedly downplayed chemical toxicity. On Wednesday, The New York Times obtained a cache of emails through Greenpeace that showed Dourson’s close ties with companies whose products the EPA has proposed banning in its next review cycle:
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.
Dourson’s relationship with chemical producers proved to be so egregious that GOP Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis of North Carolina forcefully opposed his nomination in November. Susan Collins of Maine effectively sunk Dourson’s nomination when she indicated she was also “leaning against him.”
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey offered a surprisingly apt characterization of Dourson’s career during his October confirmation hearing. “What you’ve been doing with your professional career...it almost seems like a scene out of a Disney movie where there’s corporate villains that do harm to our environment,” Booker said, clearly baffled.
Richard Denison, the lead scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, described Dourson’s withdrawal as “good news for the health of American families” in a statement. “He would have undermined public health and damaged the historic chemical safety reforms passed by Congress last year,” Denison said.
https://splinternews.com/a-trump-environment-nominee-was-so-close-to-industry-th-1821278780
-
Dec 14, 2017 | Think Progress
By Mark Hand
Michael Dourson, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, withdrew his name from consideration late Wednesday, after key senators made it clear he could not win confirmation.
Environmental and public health advocates welcomed the news. But they also called on Dourson to step down from his current post as adviser to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a position he accepted in October after leaving his post at the University of Cincinnati. Government ethics experts and watchdog groups contend he should not have been working at the EPA while he was going through the Senate confirmation process.
Dourson, who worked for the EPA as a staff scientist earlier in his career, drew criticism for his long-time work as a consultant for chemical companies. Several Republicans hesitated to support Dourson, including the two Republican senators from North Carolina, who raised concerns about contaminated water at the Camp Lejeune military base.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, called Dourson’s withdrawal from consideration “good news for the health of American families.” From the beginning of the confirmation process, it was clear that Dourson was a “dangerous choice” to lead the EPA’s chemical safety office, he said in a statement issued late Wednesday.
Trump EPA nominee refuses to recuse himself from cases involving chemical companies he worked for
Toxicologist will have regulatory oversight over industry that paid him for two decades.
“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,” Denison said.
If Dourson hadn’t withdrawn his nomination, a vote against him would have represented the first time the Senate rejected a Trump nominee and would have marked a significant political defeat for the administration, the Washington Post reported.
In 1994, Dourson founded the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, a group that has produced reports minimizing concerns about the safety of chemicals produced by companies like DuPont, Dow, and Boeing. As head of the EPA’s chemical and pesticides office, he would have overseen the agency’s regulation of industrial chemicals and pesticides — the same products manufactured by companies that funded much of Dourson’s private-sector work.
Dourson has spent his career downplaying the health risks of toxic chemicals to children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable communities, according to Madeleine Foote, legislative representative for the League of Conservation Voters. “This is a victory for our communities over industry special interests, and we expect Dourson to completely resign all posts at the agency,” she said in a statement Wednesday.
It’s unclear whether Dourson will stay on at the agency now that he has withdrawn his name from consideration. E&E News first reported in October that Dourson was already working at EPA as a senior adviser to Pruitt, a position that did not require him to go through Senate confirmation.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement Wednesday that Dourson’s removal from serving in his current non-confirmed position at EPA would be in the best interest of all Americans. “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,” Carper said.
Dourson was emailing with the American Chemistry Council related to research he was doing on TCE--a toxic chemical the Obama EPA proposed be banned--even after he learned he was to be nominated for EPA job overseeing toxic chemicals. @BySheilaKaplan3:36 AM - Dec 14, 2017
Even after he learned he was to be nominated for the EPA job overseeing toxic chemicals, Dourson was communicating with the American Chemistry Council, the lead chemical industry trade group, related to research he was doing on TCE, a toxic chemical the Obama EPA proposed to be banned, the New York Times reported Wednesday.
Following Dourson’s withdrawal from consideration, the Senate should now provide the same amount of scrutiny to Trump’s other “disastrous nominees” so that “the health of the American people is not sacrificed to the Trump administration’s brazen pandering to the most dangerous industries in the country,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statementWednesday.
Along these same lines, Steve Benen, an MSNBC contributor, wrote Thursday morning, “Can someone in the Trump White House explain how and why Dourson was nominated for this position in the first place?”
As for other controversial picks, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality represents another bizarre choice. The CEQ, formed in 1970, coordinates environmental policy at the White House and plays a central role in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Trump environmental nominee doesn’t believe science should ‘dictate policy’
Top Democrat accuses nominee of showing disdain for science.
The nominee, Kathleen Hartnett White, has made a career out of questioning the scientific consensus that human activities are the major driver of catastrophic climate change. She has described efforts to combat climate change as primarily an attack on the fossil fuel industry. White currently works as a senior fellow and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the fossil-fuel funded Texas Public Policy Foundation.
“Her views are so out of the mainstream, it’s almost as if she falls in kind of a flat earth category,” Christy Goldfuss, who served as managing director of the CEQ under President Barack Obama and now works as vice president of energy and environmental policy at the Center for American Progress, said in a previous interview.
https://thinkprogress.org/epa-nominee-withdraws-b8930df68134/
-
Nominee to Lead EPA Chemicals Program Withdraws
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The top spot in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s office that oversees commercial chemicals and pesticides remains vacant. President Donald J. Trump’s pick to lead the office, Michael Dourson, withdrew his nomination on Dec. 13 amid growing concerns about his ties to the chemical industry and insufficient votes to clear the Senate confirmation process.
Trump nominated Dourson, a board-certified toxicologist, in July. Dourson left his position as a professor in the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati in October and had since been working for EPA as an adviser. It is unclear where he will land now, but he is expected to leave the agency.
Dourson is best known for his work as founder and director of the Cincinnati-based consulting firm Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, where he worked from 1995 to 2015. In that role, he helped chemical and pesticide manufacturers evaluate the safety of their products. Prior to that, Dourson worked at EPA from 1980 to 1995.
The Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee approved Dourson’s nomination along party lines in late October. But following concerns raised by a few Republican senators, and an unexpected win for Democrat Doug Jones this week to fill an Alabama seat, it became clear that Dourson did not have enough votes to clear the full Senate.
Many environmental groups and Democrats are welcoming the withdrawal of Dourson’s nomination. “I sincerely believe he is the wrong person to hold this important position,” the top Democrat on the Senate EPW Committee, Tom Carper (D-Del.), said in a statement. Carper claims that Dourson “has spent most of his career promoting less protective chemical safety standards.”
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, called Dourson “a dangerous choice,” adding “he would have undermined public health and damaged the historic chemical safety reforms passed by Congress last year.”
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/12/Nominee-lead-EPA-chemicals-program.html
-
EPA Mum on Whether Failed Trump Nominee is Still on the Job
Dec 14, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Michael Biesecker and Jill Colvin
The Environmental Protection Agency is refusing to say whether President Donald Trump’s failed pick to oversee chemical safety will continue to work there as a senior adviser, a role that doesn’t require Senate confirmation.
Michael L. Dourson withdrew his nomination Wednesday to serve as head of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention amid bipartisan opposition in the Senate.
Dourson has been working at EPA for at least two months as a senior adviser to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, an arrangement Democrats have said could be illegal without Senate confirmation.
EPA did not respond Wednesday or Thursday to inquiries about Dourson’s current employment status at the agency.
The agency has also refused to disclose Dourson’s taxpayer-funded salary. Other senior advisers to Pruitt are paid more than $170,000 annually.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/epa-mum-on-whether-failed-trump-nominee-is-still-on-the-job/2017/12/14/29b9e2c4-e0f6-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_story.html?utm_term=.3267fc6bb6d0
-
Dourson’s Defeat a Big Win for Public Health
Dec 14, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
There were plenty of good reasons to oppose President Trump’s nomination of Michael Dourson to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency. Dourson, who was opposed by public health, reproductive health, labor, business and environmental organizations, withdrew his nomination Wednesday.
For decades, Dourson has been the chemical industry’s favorite scientist-for-hire. Companies like Dow, DuPont and Koch Industries know they can count on Dourson to argue for weaker safety standards for chemicals linked to cancer, infertility and brain damage. Often he has argued for safety standards that are 10, 100 or even 1,000 times weaker than the standards proposed by regulators. If confirmed, Dourson would have been reviewing many of the same chemicals he had previously defended for industry.
Many of those chemicals – including TCE, a known carcinogen – fouled the drinking water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., cited the threat posed to military families among the reasons he could not support Dourson.
It’s not the first time Burr has put public health first. When contaminated food poisoned Americans a decade ago, Burr and former Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., defied their party leadership to help Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., enact sweeping food safety reforms. When the military families threatened by water pollution at Camp Lejeune needed a champion, Burr has stepped up again and again to make sure they receive health benefits.
At a time when America is increasingly divided along party lines, Burr broke with the Trump administration to put public safety first. He deserves our thanks.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/12/dourson-s-defeat-big-win-public-health#.WjKmVlWWbIU
-
Trump’s Controversial Pick for EPA Post Withdraws Nomination
Dec 14, 2017 | NBC News
By Suzy Khimm
Michael Dourson, President Donald Trump's controversial pick to become the nation's top regulator of toxic chemicals, has withdrawn his nomination after facing heavy criticism over his close ties to the chemical industry, according to two Senate aides.
Dourson told the administration that he was withdrawing from consideration for the post at the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, the aides told NBC News. The EPA did not respond to requests for comment.
Dourson had spent decades conducting research that chemical manufacturers used to downplay the risks of hazardous substances. Critics have argued that his work on behalf of the industry posed a threat to public health and presented a conflict of interest if he were to lead the EPA office, where he would have overseen the regulation of chemicals used in everything from children's toys to pesticides.Michael Dourson University of Cincinnati
Dourson's nomination was on shaky ground in the Senate. Last month, North Carolina's two Republican senators — Thom Tillis and Richard Burr — came out against him, citing concerns about his record. Dourson had previously conducted industry-backed research on a carcinogenic chemical that contaminated the drinking water at a North Carolina military base.
A third Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine, also said she was leaning against his nomination.
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said that it had become clear that "even with a Republican majority in the Senate, he could not be confirmed,"
"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," Carper said in a statement.
During his Senate confirmation hearing in October, Dourson said he relied on "sound science" to justify his views, and Republicans praised his experience and qualifications to lead the EPA office.
The stakes for the EPA position are particularly high given the sweeping overhaul to the Toxic Substances Control Act that Congress passed in 2016 with overwhelming bipartisan support. The EPA's chemical safety office has begun the lengthy process of putting those reforms into effect.
Environmental and public-health advocates, who lobbied hard against Dourson's nomination, cheered his departure.
"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. "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."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-controversial-pick-epa-post-withdraws-nomination-n829596v
-
Victory! Monsanto Shill Michael Dourson Withdraws After Public Outcry
Dec 14, 2017 | EcoWatch
The Center for Food Safety heralded reports that Michael Dourson, President Trump's controversial nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Wednesday withdrew his nomination after senators raised concerns over his past work and conflicts of interest.
"Dourson is a long-time pesticide industry shill, with a history of manipulating scientific research to benefit corporate special interests. He was a dangerous, irresponsible choice to oversee chemical safety at the EPA," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director a Center for Food Safety.
"The Senate correctly raised important conflict of interest concerns based on the public's outcry. Make no mistake: This is your victory, food movement. The Trump Administration should now move forward to nominate someone who will put public and environmental health over the profits of chemical companies."
If confirmed, Dourson would have been in the position to set safety levels for many of the same chemicals his company was hired to defend. Multinational chemical companies like Dow, Monsanto and DuPont have routinely hired Dourson to downplay the effects of highly toxic substances linked to birth defects, developmental problems and cancer. For years, Dourson has accepted payments for "criticizing studies that raised concerns about the safety of his clients' products," according to a review of financial records and his published work by The Associated Press. In fact, Dourson has spent much of his career helping companies fight restrictions on their toxic products. Dourson even went so far as to assert that children are less susceptible to toxic chemicals, despite the widespread, verified scientific consensus that children are more susceptible.
At his committee hearing, Dourson's questionable track record and refusal to commit to recusing himself from working on chemicals he's been paid by industry to "study" in the past led Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) to tell Dourson, "You're not just an outlier on this science, you're outrageous in how far from the mainstream of science you actually are. It's pretty clear you have never met a chemical you didn't like."
"Dourson's withdrawal is another victory for the American people, sound science and the rule of law," said Kimbrell. "The food movement needs to continue to speak loudly against this Administration's efforts to promote corporate profits over the protection of farmers, food safety, public health and the environment."
Dourson is the second controversial nominee to withdraw in as many months. Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign aide, climate change "skeptic" and conservative radio talk show host, withdrew from consideration for Chief Scientist at USDA, after months of opposition and public outcry about his lack of qualification and biases. Clovis was also linked to the ongoing investigation into Russia's interference with the 2016 presidential election.
https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-michael-dourson-withdraws-2517395591.html
-
Dec 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
Just in time for the holiday shopping season, today the Mind the Store campaign released its second annual report card on toxic chemicals in consumer products, which found that one-third of 30 major U.S. retailers are leaders, but two-thirds remain serious laggards. The report, Who’s Minding the Store? — A Report Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals, includes evaluations of nineteen retailers for the first time.
Overall, eleven retailers evaluated in both 2016 and 2017 have shown substantial improvements in the past year, raising their grade from an average of D+ to C. Seven of these eleven retailers announced significant improvements over the last year alone: Albertsons Companies, Best Buy, Costco, CVS Health, The Home Depot, Target, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. released new safer chemicals policies or initiatives. This improvement shows both the impact of the Mind the Store Campaign, as well as growing consumer concern and scientific evidence of health impacts from dangerous chemicals.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store Campaign Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, and report co-author said, “We are thrilled that major retailers like Walmart, CVS Health, and Target are driving a race to the top to eliminate dangerous chemicals that threaten our families’ health. At the same time, far too many are lagging behind, failing to meet the rising consumer demand for healthy products. This holiday season, retailers should give us the gift of a toxic-free future.”
Apple, Wal-Mart Stores, CVS Health, Ikea, Whole Foods Market, and Target received the highest grades, scoring a B+ or above. These companies are setting the pace for the entire retail sector by making meaningful progress toward safer chemicals in products. Meanwhile the report reveals that some retailers like Amazon, Walgreens, and Staples are developing chemicals policies. Walgreens and Staples plan to launch their chemicals policies in 2018.
However, 70% of the retailers evaluated remain serious laggards, earning D’s and F’s, for failing to publicly announce basic safer chemical policies to ensure the chemical safety of their products and supply chain. Nine retailers received a failing grade of “F”: Ace Hardware, grocery chain owner Ahold Delhaize, Dollar General, Kohl’s, Office Depot, Sally Beauty, TJX, Toys “R” Us / Babies “R” Us, and Trader Joe’s. All of these, except for Toys “R” Us / Babies “R” Us, received 0 out of 135 possible points.
The report also found that, over the past three years, at least a dozen retailers achieved significant reductions or elimination of dangerous chemicals in the products they carry, far ahead of any government-imposed restrictions. Unfortunately, nearly one-half of the 30 retailers evaluated have not publicly reported any progress in reducing or eliminating chemicals of concern over the past three years.
For a full list of the retailers with their letter and corresponding number grades along with the methodology used, please go to: RetailerReportCard.com. This new, interactive website enables users to view and sort retailers by their grades and consumer product sector. Consumers can also use the report website to email and “Tweet” to companies, urging them to improve.
Mike Belliveau, co-author of the report and Executive Director of Environmental Health Strategy Center, said “Retailers remain on the frontline of consumer discontent with the chemical safety of everyday products. The good news is that some are making the grade, but too many are failing to take the most basic public steps to eliminate dangerous chemicals from the products they buy and sell.”
Bobbi Wilding, coordinator of the Getting Ready for Baby campaign and deputy director of Clean and Healthy New York, said “Babies are especially vulnerable to chemicals of concern. You’d expect that stores catering to their needs would be leading the pack in this report, right? But Babies”R”Us got an F, and despite some recent improvements, buybuy BABY has only earned a D+, ranking 12th of the 30 companies surveyed. We call on both companies to make 2018 a year of vast improvement. Families deserve nothing less.”
Jose Bravo, Coordinator of the Campaign for Healthier Solutions, said “It’s disappointing to see the nation’s largest dollar store chains got low or failing grades on hazardous chemicals in their products, but it probably isn’t surprising to many people. When consumers start to expect your products to be dangerous it should serve as a wake-up call that more is needed. It’s time for Dollar General and Dollar Tree to join other major retailers and enact broad corporate policies to protect their shoppers’ families from toxic chemicals, especially because many dollar store shoppers can’t always afford to make safer choices.”
Tom Hucker, Safer Chemicals Advocate for NRDC, said “The Trump Administration is not going to protect you from toxic chemicals. It’s up to retailers to disclose dangerous chemicals in products they sell and to phase them out quickly. This new report card identifies those retailers working to reduce the risk to families and others that don’t seem to care.”
To evaluate retailers’ policies, the Mind the Store campaign, the Getting Ready for Baby campaign, and the Campaign for Healthier Solutions collected and reviewed publicly available information about corporate safer chemicals programs, and shared draft findings with retailers to provide them an opportunity to review the conclusions, disclose additional information, and make new public commitments towards safer chemicals.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/consumer-health-victory-seven-major-retailers-commit-to-reduce-use-of-toxic-chemicals-in-products-and-packaging/
-
Dec 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
SVHC intentionsEcha has received three notifications of intentions for the identification of substances of very high concern (SVHCs).
Belgium notified two on the grounds of them being persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), and having very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties: benzo(k)fluoranthene; and fluoranthene. The dossiers are expected by 6 August 2018.
And Sweden notified its intention for lead on the grounds of it being toxic for reproduction. The dossier is expected on 7 February 2018.CLH intentions
The agency has received intentions to harmonise the classification and labelling (CLH) for the following substances:2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol with a proposed future entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation of reprotoxicity 1B. The expected date of submission is 1 April 2018;trichlorosilane. The dossier from Germany is expected on 31 December. It has a proposed future entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation of flammable liquid 1, pyrophoric liquid 1, acute toxicity 4 and skin corrosion 1A;methyl-1H-benzotriazole. The dossier from Germany is expected on 15 December. It has a proposed future entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation of aquatic chronic 2; and4-nitrosomorpholine. The dossier from Germany is expected on 15 December. It has a proposed future entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation of carcinogen 1B, Stot RE 1 and carcinogen 1B.
It has also received a proposal to harmonise the classification and labelling for 3-aminomethyl-3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexylamine. The dossier from Germany was expected on 6 November. It has a proposed future entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation of acute toxicity 4, skin corrosion 1B, eye damage 1, skin sensitiser 1.Call for evidence on flame retardants TCEP, TCPP and TDCP
Echa has issued a call for evidence on the flame retardant substances TCEP, TCPP and TDCP. It is aiming to collect further information in support of a possible restriction proposal, as well as comments on the draft screening report and its conclusions.
The report identified a risk for children from exposure in flexible plyurethane foams in childcare articles and residential furniture. The scope of the proposal may be broader than this, the agency says.Iuclid online tutorials
The agency says it has published five online tutorials for using Iuclid and the Iuclid Cloud. They cover:how to create, edit and delete documents in the Iuclid Cloud;exchanging information, how to import and export files in the Iuclid Cloud services;viewing substance datasets and dossiers in the Iuclid Cloud services; andhow to use the Iuclid fee calculator.Iuclid Cloud webinar for service providers
A webinar run to help service providers who work with SMEs to understand the benefits to both sides of using Iuclid Cloud, is now available online. It was hosted by Chemical Watch.Weight of evidence/uncertainty template
The agency has published a new template and a background document for reporting weight of evidence/uncertainty. They can be used for human health and environmental hazard assessments, it says.Requirements for substances in articles in a nutshell
The agency has published an updated version of Guidance on requirements for substances in articles in a nutshell. This follows the update of the main guidance in June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62588/echa-round-up
-
Texas Congressmen Urge Trump to Ease Off NAFTA Renegotiation
Dec 14, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
Texas congressmen are urging the Trump administration to ease off its effort to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement, worried they could do damage to increasingly intertwined energy markets in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
"On the one hand the White House says we believe in energy dominance for our country and North America. On the other hand the U.S. trade representative is undercutting that," Rep. Bill Flores, R-Waco, said at a hearing before House Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday, in reference to the lead U.S. negotiator on NAFTA, Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.
American business leaders, from the energy sector and beyond, have almost universally come out in support of NAFTA, arguing Mexico and Canada are vital export markets for American goods and cross-border supply chains have become critical to manufacturing here.
But Trump is riding increasing skepticism within both the Republican and Democratic parties on free-trade deals that many see as giveaways to multinational corporations at the expense of the domestic workforce.
The risk for Texas were NAFTA to be done away with - as President Donald Trump has threatened - would be the loss of business for the state's dominant oil and gas industry. Mexico is the biggest export market for U.S. natural gas producers, at the same time refineries along the Gulf Coast rely on crude from Mexico and Canada to operate.
Meanwhile, American oil companies like Exxon Mobil are eyeing Mexico's oil reserves as the government there undergoes a historic opening of its energy markets.
"The Eagle Ford shale doesn't stop at the Rio Grande waiting for a visa to cross," said Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, referring to the shale field in South Texas.
"Our first ties when discussing NAFTA should be greater ties and friendship," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Texas-congressmen-urge-Trump-to-ease-off-NAFTA-12428291.php
-
NAFTA Defended as Boon for U.S. Energy Sector in House Hearing
Dec 14, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Representatives from the energy, business, manufacturing and academic sectors told a House subcommittee on Wednesday to "modernize" but not blow up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), arguing that it's essential to the nation's energy growth.
While most of the subcommittee members from both political parties were in agreement with the witnesses, lawmakers raised concerns about the loss of U.S.-based jobs and the need for strong protections for American companies making investments in Canada and Mexico.
"A modernized NAFTA could help solidify the recent advances and create advantages for North American industry, advancing market-based integration of the energy sector, including hydrocarbons production, transportation and processing, as well as electricity generation, transmission and distribution," said Chamber of Commerce’s Karen Harbert, CEO of the Global Energy Institute.
Harbert said withdrawing from NAFTA would impose unacceptably high costs on the United States at a time when the Trump administration is pushing historic tax and regulatory reforms. Without NAFTA, she said, U.S. global energy dominance would be compromised.
The latest testimony mirrors other stakeholders who have sounded off during the NAFTA debate, including Don Santa, CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. He cautioned that any renegotiation should be handled carefully, given that natural gas exports in the wake of the shale revolution are a growing part of the "demand pie" for gas produced in the United States.
Separately, the North American Energy Ministerial in Houston last month brought together the energy policy leaders from Canada, Mexico and the United States to discuss cross-border issues, prompting Energy Secretary Rick Perry to emphasize that trilateral cooperation is imperative for the continent’s energy sector.
Talks to hammer out a revamped NAFTA began in mid-August. Advocates for renegotiation have cited the need to reflect the recent energy reforms in Mexico.
"The abundance of affordable energy in North America, led by the U.S energy revolution, has given U.S. businesses a critical leg up in today's intensely competitive global economy," said Harbert. "Lower prices for energy and chemical feedstocks bring great competitive advantages to American manufacturing.”
During the past decade, Swiss-based electrical manufacturer ABB Inc. has invested more than $11 billion in the United States where it operates plants in 23 states, said ABB’s Allen Burchett, global head of strategic products, who represented the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) at the subcommittee hearing.
"While a significant amount of manufacturing is domestic...for ABB and other U.S. manufacturers, some parts of the manufacturing process occur in Canada and Mexico," Burchett said. "Many U.S.-made products are exported to Canada, Mexico and beyond. A strong North American supply chain has supported ABB’s domestic growth and investments, enabling us to competitively manufacture here."
The U.S. refining and petrochemical industry has been enhanced by NAFTA, according to Chet Thompson, CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.
"In 2016, the United States imported $53 billion worth of energy products from Canada and exported $14 billion worth of energy products to Canada," Thompson said. "Mexico is the largest export market for refined products manufactured in the United States, with energy products accounting for almost 20% of trade with Mexico."
Advocating an "increasingly integrated North American energy market," Thompson said his association recommends that the United States build on past successes under NAFTA. That effort, he said, should "enhance and modernize" the trade agreement to create a "more harmonized and efficient" regulatory environment that provides certainty for businesses and the general public.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112746-nafta-defended-as-boon-for-us-energy-sector-in-house-hearing
-
Pruitt's Morocco Trip Cost Nearly $40,000 — Employee
Dec 14, 2017 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Biesecker
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's trip to Morocco this week promoting liquefied natural gas cost nearly $40,000, according to an EPA employee with knowledge of Pruitt's travel expenses.
That cost did not include salary and overtime pay for the security detail Pruitt travels with, said the employee, who spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.
Pruitt was in the North African kingdom to pitch American gas exports, drawing fire from Democrats and environmentalists who say the trip had nothing to do with EPA's mission of protecting clean air and water (Greenwire, Dec. 13).
EPA's inspector general is already investigating the administrator's spending on taxpayer-funded travel and a $25,000 soundproof booth he had installed at EPA headquarters earlier this year.
Pruitt's accommodations, airfare and other costs for the Morocco visit reached over $17,000, compared with Samantha Dravis, his chief policy adviser, whose expenses totaled just under $4,000 for the four-day trip.
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox did not answer questions yesterday about why costs for Pruitt were so much higher than for other employees.
For environmentalists, the trip is yet another target on Pruitt's record.
"The EPA administrator's job is to protect the health of the public and the environment, but Scott Pruitt instead acts like he is a globe-trotting salesman for the fossil fuel industry who can make taxpayers foot the bill," Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said yesterday.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/14/stories/1060069015
-
Low-Weight Newborns Linked to Next-Door Fracking — Study
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
Mothers who live close to fracking wells could be as much as 25 percent more likely to give birth to low-weight babies, according to a study published yesterday in the journal Science Advances.
Researchers from Princeton University, UCLA and the University of Chicago compared infant health data from 1.1 million Pennsylvania birth certificates to a state inventory of hydraulic fracturing sites from 2004 to 2013. Health impacts began appearing among infants born to mothers who resided within 3 kilometers (about 1.86 miles) from a fracked oil or gas well, they found, and peaked among those living within 1 kilometer (about 0.62 miles).
Several studies in recent years have examined hydraulic fracturing's possible impacts on public health, mainly addressing water pollution and air emissions near wells. The new analysis is the first to focus on infant health, which could be useful for gauging effects across a bigger swath of the public in part because the timing of exposure is easier to pinpoint, wrote the authors.
In general, people who live outside the 3-kilometer radius from a well probably shouldn't worry about exposure, said Janet Currie, the lead author of the study and a Princeton professor of economics and public affairs.
But "if I'm living within 1 kilometer, that's very close. I can probably see it. And people living at that distance might think about moving, at least temporarily," she said.
It might also mean local communities should think about restrictions on fracking within the range of impact, or compensate nearby residents who want to move, she added.
"I think it's helpful to distinguish effects at different distances, because it does suggest that keeping more of a buffer zone around fracking activities could mitigate health effects a lot," she said.
Mothers whose babies may have suffered in-utero exposure were often younger, less educated and less likely to be married when they gave birth — characteristics, the researchers acknowledged, that "might lead to worse infant health outcomes even in the absence of fracturing." Over time, a growing proportion of the mothers living 3 to 15 kilometers from wells were African-American, as drilling spread near urban areas like Pittsburgh.
One of the ways the team controlled for these potential variables was by studying babies born to mothers who lived at various ranges before wells were drilled and those born after the fact.
Still, the team's estimates for the scope of potential impact were considerable: About 29,000 infants across the country were born to women residing within the 1-kilometer radius between July 2012 and June 2013, or about 0.7 percent of the nation's newborns.
"What we're probably picking up is some kind of air pollution" — chemicals released by fracking operations as well as conventional pollution generated by heavy trucks and other traffic — rather than pollution in drinking water, said Currie.
That means it's not much different from living beside a busy highway or pollution-producing plant of any type, she added. "It's an industrial activity. It generates pollution. That can have an effect on people's health. That really shouldn't be surprising."
Energy in Depth, the research arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, disputed on several grounds the study’s claim of causality, pointing out that the authors focused on potential – not actual – exposure to pollutants.
"The study is the latest in a long list of examples of reports linking fracking to health problems based on proximity rather than measurement and quantification of actual pollution. The authors admit this is a key limitation to their study, yet also claim the study proves causation,” said Seth Whitehead, a spokesman for the group.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/14/stories/1060068995
-
No Paris Climate Accord? No Problem, Bloc of States Says
Dec 14, 2017 | AP (In The New York)
Since President Donald Trump vowed this summer to pull the United States out of an international climate accord, states looking to tackle carbon pollution have been forced to go it alone.
More than a dozen formed an alliance committed to reducing emissions in line with the Paris accord, an international agreement that aims to halt the rise in global temperatures. Several state leaders, including California Gov. Jerry Brown, were in Paris this week for a climate summit two years after the historic accord was signed. The summit offered updates on promised funding for poor countries to address climate change, the latest research on ways to cut emissions as well as the corporate world's response to the problem.
Others, wanting to be more ambitious, are taking a look at the country's only regional program that mandates emission reductions in the power sector. Known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, it covers nine states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic and is poised to expand.
"The clear signal from the Trump administration that they were going to pull back on environmental policy throws it back at the states and says, 'OK, it's your game,'" said William Shobe, a professor of public policy at the University of Virginia. "A number of states are responding, saying, 'OK, we're up to that and we're going to go ahead and implement policy.'"
The program sets limits on power plant emissions and requires them to purchase allowances equal to the amount of those emissions. Money raised through those allowances at quarterly auctions goes back to the states.Continue reading the main story
The only other program of its kind is in California , which covers the state's entire economy. It linked up with Quebec's cap-and-trade program in 2014 and will expand to include Ontario's next year.
Since it began in 2008, RGGI has led to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent in the states stretching from Maine to Maryland — 16 percent more than other states without emissions programs. The program has also sent $2.8 billion back to the states, money that has funded a range of environmental programs, including energy efficiency upgrades at a middle school and library in Massachusetts, expansion of solar power in New York, and green measures at a brewery in New Hampshire.
"Young consumers don't have any patience for companies that are not consciously involved in reducing their footprint and their impact on the planet. I think that runs pretty deep," said Peter Egelston, as he led a tour of his Smuttynose Brewing Co. in Hampton, whose facility includes solar tubes that allow more natural light into the brewery and a high-tech milling system that gets more yield out of the malted barley.
Since the November elections, Virginia announced it is taking steps to become the first Southern state to join the regional cap-and-trade program, while New Jersey has promised to rejoin the pact. If they get on board, member states would represent a combined gross domestic product of $3.9 trillion, which if they were a country would displace Germany as the fourth-largest economy, according to the Acadia Center, a nonprofit that promotes clean energy.
Virginia's climate strategy, approved last month, would limit emissions from most power plants starting in 2020, followed by a 30 percent reduction over a decade. Eligible carbon emitters would have to participate in the regional greenhouse gas program.
"We do not have the luxury of waiting for Washington to wake up to this threat — we must act now," Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe said in a statement.
New Jersey is set to rejoin the regional program when Democratic Gov.-elect Phil Murphy takes office Jan. 16, succeeding GOP Gov. Chris Christie, who pulled the state out of the regional agreement, arguing it drove up electricity costs.
Still, RGGI has its doubters, many who contend its success has more to do with the changing energy landscape than government regulations.
They argue the nine states were already switching from coal-fired to natural gas power plants when they joined the program — which, according to a Duke University study , was responsible for a third of the reductions. Several states also instituted renewable energy goals that led to a shift toward wind, solar and hydro power that reduce emissions.
Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group founded by billionaire Koch brothers, said the program has offered very few benefits and that such models can't solve the climate problem. It has called for New Hampshire to pull out and opposes New Jersey rejoining.
"Our view is that RGGI and other ideologically driven energy policies cause energy prices to go up, which disproportionally impacts the poor," said Levi Russell, an Americans For Prosperity spokesman.
Still, supporters say the program has been a force for good — reducing emissions and improving air quality without hurting economic growth.
And with its emission cap set to become more stringent in 2020, said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at the research institution Resources For The Future, RGGI could be even more ambitious than Obama's signature climate plan if ever went national. Obama's Clean Power Plan called for cutting emission in the power sector by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. It was put on hold by the Supreme Court and is being scrapped by Trump.
"We have a great success story to tell," said Katie Scharf Dykes, who chairs the RGGI board and the Connecticut public utilities agency. "At this moment, this story is more relevant than ever before."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/12/14/us/ap-us-climate-change-regional-solutions.html
-
State Faces 'Giant' Questions About Slashing Emissions
Dec 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California's climate regulators are set to vote today on a plan to reach the state's ambitious greenhouse gas goals through 2030, but heavy political lifting still remains to fill in the details.
The state's "scoping plan," which is updated every five years, envisions continued progress on California's targets for renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternative fuels and vehicles, plus the continuation of the state's greenhouse gas market. Carbon trading is seen as the backstop to ensure that the state actually meets its goal of reaching 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) predicts that "direct" regulations — including the state's renewable portfolio standard, low-carbon fuel standard and new rules to slash methane, refrigerants and soot from fuel combustion — will account for 62 percent of the cumulative reductions needed through 2030.
Cap and trade is intended to fill in the gap, or roughly 38 percent of cumulative reductions. That's a far bigger share than it has contributed to date. The state originally estimated that cap and trade would account for 20 percent of reductions through 2020. Estimates based on recent data find that it may have spurred much less than that so far, due to complementary policies like the renewables target as well as a generous cushion of excess allowances (Climatewire, Nov. 15).
The large role reserved for cap and trade hints at policy fights yet to come, say observers. The market is due for substantial revisions, and tough decisions remain about how to balance the program's environmental stringency with the need to keep allowance prices manageable for covered businesses. The fact that ARB expects cap and trade to account for nearly 40 percent of reductions in the 2021-30 period, but also for supplies to remain high through mid-decade, indicates that a steep share of the reductions would need to happen in the final years of the program.
"That's the unanswered question," said Danny Cullenward, a research associate at the think tank Near Zero, who was named by state California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (D) earlier this year to a committee that tracks the economic and environmental performance of the cap-and-trade market. "It is the giant, gaping analytical problem that needs to be resolved."
The tussle over the specifics of the plan will play out over the next year, through rulemaking mandated by A.B. 398, a bill by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D) enacted earlier this year that authorizes the use of cap and trade through 2030. The law requires ARB to install a price ceiling for allowances and to at least consider what to do about the cushion of excess allowances that are projected to persist into the mid-2020s.
While regulators aren't required to take action on the projected oversupply, some market analysts are hoping that they will.
"I expect it's going to be a continuing topic of interest, and my belief is that eventually CARB is going to want to make some adjustments," said Chris Busch, director of research at the advisory firm Energy Innovation. The firm released a report earlier this week calling for ARB and other jurisdictions linked to California's market to reduce the allowance budget after 2020 in order to account for the current oversupply.
The state's Legislative Analyst's Office also issued a report yesterday recommending that the Legislature keep an eye on ARB's decisionmaking. Depending on decisions made about the price ceiling, the oversupply and the amount of allowances given away versus auctioned, revenues could range from $2 billion to $7 billion in 2030, the report says.
An October workshop on the post-2020 program provided some early indicators of the battle lines.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility, filed comments arguing that oversupply is not an issue because demand is projected to eventually exceed supply before 2030. Reducing the supply could cause "greater negative impacts to household income," PG&E's Nathan Bengtsson wrote.
Oil industry representatives warned that tightening the supply could come at the expense of the stringency of other state programs. "If ARB desires to have more emission reductions occur under the cap-and-trade program, it may want to consider, where feasible, reducing the stringency of complementary measures such as the LCFS [low-carbon fuel standard]," wroteCathy Reheis-Boyd, president of the trade group Western States Petroleum Association.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/14/stories/1060069001
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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