Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clear Vista for Chemicals
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
The U.S. chemical industry is on the cusp of a strong 2018, while its counterparts in Europe, including Germany,are expecting a good but not spectacular year. -
OMB Reviewing Pruitt's Plan To Replace EPA Regions With State Offices
Dec 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is said to have submitted to the White House a plan for shuttering the agency's regional offices and replacing them with smaller offices in all 50 states, a knowledgeable source says, which could revive controversial debates over possible regional office closures that drew bipartisan push-back earlier this year. -
EPA Cuts Could Risk a Public Health Emergency
Dec 17, 2017 | CNN
By Fred Krupp
With time running out for Congress to reach an agreement on the budget, lawmakers are advancing a quiet but crippling assault on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has already suffered years of hollowing out from budget cuts. -
Democratic Senators Query 'Sue-And-Settle' Directive's Scope, DOJ's Role
Dec 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Two key Democratic senators are seeking detailed answers from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on the scope of his “sue-and-settle” directive aimed at curbing settlements with groups that sue the agency, including how it alters the longstanding process for crafting consent decrees and whether the Justice Department (DOJ) had any role in drafting the order. -
Industry Group: US EPA Should Cede Workplace Hazard Regulation to Osha
Dec 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
An industry group has argued that the US EPA should avoid issuing orders to mitigate workplace risks associated with new chemicals. -
Brazil Asbestos Ban Impacts U.S. Imports
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The U.S. chlor-alkali industry is feeling the hit from a Nov. 29 ruling of the Brazil Supreme Federal Court that bans the mining, use, and commercialization of asbestos in Brazil. -
(ACC Mentioned) Long Island Residents Worry Their Tap Water is Unsafe
Dec 16, 2017 | PBS News Hour
By Sam Weber and Laura Fong
While most of the country’s tap water is tested for hundreds of pollutants, including volatile chemicals, pesticides, metals and bacteria, it is not always safe to drink. -
(ACC Mentioned) A Parting Gift from Dourson: A Trove of Revealing Emails
Dec 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported on the withdrawal of the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical safety office – which we applauded as a win for public health. -
Victory! EPA Nominee Michael Dourson Withdraws
Dec 15, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
In a year like 2017, it’s more important than ever to celebrate the victories. -
Controversial Ohio Nominee for EPA Job Withdraws from Consideration
Dec 16, 2017 | Cleveland.com
By Sabrina Eaton
A former University of Cincinnati professor has withdrawn his nomination to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's chemical safety and pollution prevention office after senators from both political parties expressed concern that he's too close to the industries he'd regulate. -
Americans to Trump: We Will Not Stand By as You Bulldoze the EPA
Dec 17, 2017 | Las Vegas Sun
The outcome of the Senate race in Alabama wasn’t the only victory last week for Americans fighting back against President Donald Trump’s destructive and divisive agenda. -
EWG’s News Roundup (12/15): EPA Toxics Nominee Bows Out, Cell Phone Safety in Calif., Pruitt’s “Partnership” with Toyota and More
Dec 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
From the moment President Trump nominated Michael Dourson to run chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency, EWG has been pushing back by documenting his decades-long work as a chemical industry apologist. -
California Will Not List Coumarin as Prop 65 Carcinogen
Dec 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California will not list coumarin, a fragrance ingredient sometimes derived from plants, under Proposition 65 as a carcinogen. -
Children’s Lead Exposure: Relative Contributions of Various Sources
Dec 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Last week, we noted in our blog that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dropped the statement that paint, dust and soil are the most common sources of lead in its “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home” booklet. -
Regulators, Industry Identify Challenges Ahead for EU Biocides
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The biggest challenges facing the EU biocides industry over the next few years include the 2024 review programme completion deadline, implementation of the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors (EDs) and Brexit, a panel of experts at the 20th Chemical Watch biocides conference in Vienna has concluded. -
Impact Study: REACH Authorisation 'Achieving' Its Objects
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission's final report on the impact of the REACH authorisation system has found it is "achieving its objectives" in terms of substitution and improvements in the way SVHCs are used. -
EU’s Chlorine Makers End Mercury-Based Production
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
European Union regulations requiring companies to stop making chlorine via a process that involves mercury came into effect last week. -
(ACC Mentioned) Venue of Last Resort: The Climate Lawsuits Threatening the Future of Big Oil
Dec 17, 2017 | The Guardian
By Jie Jenny Zou and Chris Young
In early October, 22 state and federal judges hailing from Honolulu to Albany got a crash course in scientific literacy and economics. -
EPA to Kick Off Clean Power Plan Replacement Squabble
Dec 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The fate of the first-ever carbon limits for power plants will get clearer soon, as the EPA invites recommendations on how or whether to replace one of the Obama administration's signature environmental regulations. -
Tax Bill Boosts Oil, Gas Drilling — and Renewable Energy
Dec 16, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Daly
The Republicans’ tax package would boost traditional forms of energy such as oil and gas while also supporting renewable energy such as wind and solar power — and even extend a hand to buyers of electric cars. -
Energy Department Reorganizes, Moving Energy, Science Offices
Dec 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department is making broad changes with a reorganization that shuffles offices under two new undersecretaries—one for energy and one for science—in what agency leadership calls an effort to improve efficiency. -
The World's Largest Oil and Gas Companies are Getting Greener After Fighting with Shareholders for Months
Dec 17, 2017 | Business Insider
By Jeremy Berke
The world's largest oil-and-gas companies are going green. -
U.S. Chemical Safety Board Sued for Not Creating Emissions Reporting Rule
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Several nonprofit organizations sued the U.S. Chemical Safety Board earlier this month for failing to establish a national reporting system to collect data on air pollution emissions from accidents by U.S. companies. -
New York Mayor, NY Attorney General to Hold ‘People’s Hearing’ on Climate Rule Repeal
Dec 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
New York City’s mayor and the state’s attorney general are planning a hearing of their own on the Trump administration’s plan to repeal former President Obama’s climate change rule for power plants. -
California Adopts Landmark Regulatory Plan To Meet 2030 GHG Target
Dec 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California air regulators have adopted a landmark, multi-faceted regulatory plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the state's 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels, marking another milestone in the Golden State's ongoing effort to lead the nation in fighting climate change.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clear Vista for Chemicals
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
The U.S. chemical industry is on the cusp of a strong 2018, while its counterparts in Europe, including Germany,are expecting a good but not spectacular year. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) trade association is calling for an increase in U.S. chemical production of 3.7% in 2018 after an estimated 0.8% increase this year, when Hurricane Harvey hampered production along the Gulf Coast. “Manufacturing has turned a corner, business investment is on the rise, and domestic . . .
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i49/Clear-vista-chemicals.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
OMB Reviewing Pruitt's Plan To Replace EPA Regions With State Offices
Dec 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is said to have submitted to the White House a plan for shuttering the agency's regional offices and replacing them with smaller offices in all 50 states, a knowledgeable source says, which could revive controversial debates over possible regional office closures that drew bipartisan push-back earlier this year.
The viability of such a fundamental proposed change to the agency's office structure remains unclear, given that some members of Congress are already fighting against proposed Trump administration budget cuts at the agency, and EPA also previously dismissed the idea that plans to close regional offices are under discussion.
But the knowledgeable source says that Pruitt has included a proposed closing of agency regional offices, in tandem with establishing agency offices in state capitals, as part of a reorganization plan submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “It's in the plan,” the source says.
EPA was required to submit the plan to OMB in September as part of a Trump administration executive order directing OMB to develop broader plans for restructuring federal agencies.
The agency did not respond to multiple queries from Inside EPA seeking comment on the issue.
There have been persistent questions throughout 2017 about what changes the Trump administration intends to pursue at EPA regional offices -- and how hard Congress would push back in response -- amid multiple reports the Trump administration has been considering possible regional office closures.
Such reports include March coverage from Inside EPA on a directive included in a preliminary Trump administration budget document for fiscal year 2018 that directed EPA to develop a plan for consolidating 10 regional offices into eight.
But EPA has publicly downplayed such notions, including when Pruitt at a subsequent June House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the agency's EPA's FY18 budget request called rumors of the planned closure of EPA's Region 5 office “pure legend,” in response to queries from lawmakers.
An EPA union official previously suggested to Inside EPA that the idea of shuttering Region 5 was a “trial balloon” that was scrapped after major bipartisan push-back from lawmakers in states that the region covers.
Regional Changes
Nevertheless, the idea of potentially major changes to EPA regions surfaced roughly a month later when Pruitt in a July meeting with Oklahoma farm interests reportedly floated the idea of closing EPA regions and replacing them with offices in each of the states.
A tweet about the idea from a farm group, since deleted, sparked coverage of the issue in outlets including Mother Jones, and prompted a statement by EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman that the agency has no plans to close regional offices “in the foreseeable future.”
An agency source opposed to scaling back EPA regions expresses skepticism that the idea of closing regional offices in favor of moving EPA staff to each state is actually workable from a simple budgetary standpoint. “That would be expensive” in practice, the source says.
But the source nevertheless believes that even if such a regional office closure plan does not come to pass, the Trump EPA will embark on a new round of agency buyouts that includes the regions. The source cites still pending FY18 EPA spending bills appearing to sign off on $79 million in funding for workforce restructuring.
“I think the approach is going to be to offer more buyouts, target them towards certain regional offices,” the source says.
The source adds that the Trump administration presumably does not have to push any regional office changes in a single year, but can seek to spread out its efforts across several years.
Major changes at regional offices are not likely to go unnoticed by Congress, which is considering significant cuts to EPA's FY18 budget but also has also not embraced a massive 31 percent cut that the Trump administration proposed.
While many lawmakers may be critical of specific agency programs, they also represent districts or states where current EPA regions are housed. Hill Democrats have also been pushing back against the threat of regional office closures, with efforts including the introduction by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and others of legislation that would prohibit the closure, consolidation or elimination of EPA offices.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/omb-reviewing-pruitts-plan-replace-epa-regions-state-offices
-
EPA Cuts Could Risk a Public Health Emergency
Dec 17, 2017 | CNN
By Fred Krupp
With time running out for Congress to reach an agreement on the budget, lawmakers are advancing a quiet but crippling assault on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has already suffered years of hollowing out from budget cuts. At stake is the EPA's fundamental ability to carry out its most basic public health and environmental missions. Without full funding for the agency, the health of our children, our seniors and our communities are at risk.
President Donald Trump, who pledged as a candidate to reduce EPA down to "little tidbits," asked for around 30% cuts to the agency this spring — deeper than any other agency and enough to cut its funding to 1970s levels in real dollars. The potential real-world result will be more asthma attacks, more heart attacks, and more pollution in our lives. And if all that isn't enough, the administration also wants to cut support for critically needed research into alternative energy sources and innovations to protect the water we drink from physical, chemical, and biological threats.
Congress, which has traditionally provided bipartisan support for environmental safeguards that protect constituents, is falling out of step with public support for a fully capable EPA. In September, the House of Representatives voted to cut the EPA budget by $528 million in 2018 , less radical than Trump's proposal but deeply damaging. And just days before Thanksgiving, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee hustled through cuts of his own, choosing to "release" the chairman's recommendation, without so much as a public hearing.
This kind of secrecy is not surprising when you consider what is being proposed. Remarkably, the Senate proposal would eliminate EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, which provides foundational assessments of chemical toxicity needed to protect American families. And it would cut "green chemistry" research designed to produce safer chemicals while improving the safety of production and disposal of chemicals.
Congress is also proposing major cuts to EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder to hold polluters accountable when they use hazardous pesticides inside nursing homes, release dangerous chemicals into the air, dump oil and hazardous waste into the ocean and sludge into storm drains. The EPA already has about 50 fewer criminal investigators than the 200 required by law. Further cuts would send the wrong message to polluters who flout the law—and be a slap in the face to the majority of businesses who work hard to deal properly with hazardous materials.
The hazardous nominee who could lead the EPA's chemical safety program
Also on the chopping block are critical clean-air programs, like pollution monitoring, that have helped states and communities make historic strides in fighting air pollution. Congress would also cut support for monitoring of greenhouse gases, harmful particulates, and other pollutants.
The White House, House and Senate budget cuts all would require EPA to continue to lay off public health experts, environmental engineers, scientists, and other vital staff members. They would also slash the agency's science and technology work, which helps states and localities fight and clean up pollution. They would even cut support for environmental justice efforts that help the country's most disadvantaged communities whose children are at a disproportionate risk of health problems like asthma, lead poisoning, and other serious ailments.
As William Ruckelshaus, EPA's administrator under Presidents Nixon and Reagan, put it, in response to Scott Pruitt's secrecy in managing the agency under Trump, "It appears that what is happening now is taking a meat ax to the protections of public health and environment and then hiding it."
In addition to worrying about our children's health, members of Congress ought to consider the effects of rolling back environmental safeguards on their political health as the voting electorate grows younger and greener. More than 85% of Americans call the environment a top or important priority, according to Pew Research Center, and over 60% want the EPA preserved or strengthened. And as former GOP Governor Thomas Kean pointed out recently, as of August, fewer than 1 in 4 independents approve of President Trump's handling of environmental issues.
Whether lawmakers strike a deal now, or delay decisions until early in the new year, it's time to pick a side. The frightening truth is this: If the EPA is forced to continue cutting corners, the chances of a horrifying environmental disaster will only grow. Every child, from Alaska to Maine to Tennessee, and everywhere in between, deserves to grow up with clean water, food and air.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/16/opinions/epa-cuts-make-public-health-emergency-krupp-opinion/index.html
-
Democratic Senators Query 'Sue-And-Settle' Directive's Scope, DOJ's Role
Dec 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Two key Democratic senators are seeking detailed answers from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on the scope of his “sue-and-settle” directive aimed at curbing settlements with groups that sue the agency, including how it alters the longstanding process for crafting consent decrees and whether the Justice Department (DOJ) had any role in drafting the order.
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-DE) and the panel's clean air subcommittee ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sent a Dec. 13 letter to Pruitt asking for a response by Jan. 19 to a series of pointed questions about the directive. They note that it could be read “as a refusal by the EPA to settle any matter going forward, a position that would sharply contrast with national judicial trends” and could cause “unnecessary delays and extra costs.”
They also sent a Dec. 11 letter to Jeffrey Wood, assistant attorney general at DOJ's Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENDR), seeking answers by Dec. 22 on the department's role -- if any -- in the directive. Pruitt's order “should be of significant concern” to ENRD, “given its role representing the EPA in litigation and related settlement negotiations,” they write.
The questions signal the senators are ramping up their oversight of the directive Pruitt issued in October to address what he claimed were repeat instances of EPA under the Obama administration colluding with environmentalists in settling lawsuits that resulted in agreements to craft new rules by binding deadlines. Pruitt said the directive shows he has fulfilled “his promise to end the practice of regulating through litigation that has harmed the American public.”
But the senators have a host of concerns about the order, for example asking the administrator whether he communicated with DOJ before crafting the directive. They note that since 1977 EPA and ENRD have operated under a memorandum of understanding that makes clear “the Attorney General [AG] shall retain control over the conduct of all litigation” and that the negotiation of any agreement filed in court requires AG authorization. “The new Directive appears to infringe upon the long-standing prerogatives of DOJ to conduct litigation and settlement negotiations in the matter it sees fit” and also appears to limit DOJ's ability to negotiate attorneys' fees,” the letter says.
Senators' Questions
The senators ask a dozen detailed questions, including how EPA will seek to “receive the concurrence of any affected states and/or regulated entities before entering into a consent decree” and who at EPA will determine who needs to be consulted. It notes that federal rules already exist to determine who can intervene in lawsuits and asks how the directive will be implemented in light of that rule. It asks how EPA's concurrence requirement is related to the agency's obligation to provide notice and comment on proposed settlements, and how it will weigh the affected states' and regulated entities' comments compared to public comments received under the Administrative Procedure Act process.
The letter to Wood also asks numerous questions, including whether ENRD had any role in drafting or reviewing the directive. It asks if ENRD entered into any settlements during the Obama administration that were “the result of collusion with outside groups,” referring to language in the directive, and that if the answer is no, then “does DOJ believe there is a basis for the collusion assertion?”
The letter also seeks information since Oct. 16 about any pending or resolved matter where EPA or ENRD has sought to achieve the participation of affected states. And it asks him to anticipate how the directive will change ENRD's litigation costs, including personnel costs. “Do you anticipate that you will have to hire additional attorneys and other staff in order to respond to increased case loads?”
EPA did not respond to requests for comment and a DOJ spokesman would only confirm receipt of the letter.
Setting Deadlines
Much of the criticism from Pruitt and others of so-called sue-and-settle pacts resulted from court findings that state and industry groups lacked standing to intervene, because setting a schedule does not necessarily harm their interests.
But environmentalists reject the term “sue-and-settle,” saying such agreements do not result in anything more than setting a deadline for the agency to decide whether to regulate -- which could include a decision not to issue a rule -- and that if EPA does go forward, then the third parties can participate in the rulemaking process.
The Pruitt directive lays out a 10-step process that EPA must follow when considering a settlement agreement or consent decree, with one of those steps requiring EPA to meet with states and industry groups that could be affected by a settlement and seek to win their concurrence.
But the directive was met by immediate concern from industry attorneys and skepticism by environmentalists who say the order could make settlements impossible, even when the agency has a mandatory duty to act, and will likely result in more litigation that provides the agency with less time to act.
The new process Pruitt has created “paralyzes EPA from responding to these kinds of cases [and] probably makes almost every single case go to actual full-scale litigation and go all the way to judgment when these cases have merit, one industry attorney told Inside EPA recently. “That's probably not a good thing.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democratic-senators-query-sue-and-settle-directives-scope-dojs-role
-
Industry Group: US EPA Should Cede Workplace Hazard Regulation to Osha
Dec 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
An industry group has argued that the US EPA should avoid issuing orders to mitigate workplace risks associated with new chemicals. Instead, it says, it should turn over that regulatory responsibility to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Osha).
The TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (NCC), a group of companies represented by the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, hopes to build on a provision in the new TSCA requiring the EPA to "consult" with Osha before imposing workplace conditions.
In a letter and position statement, published as comments on the EPA's new chemical evaluation policy, the NCC argues the agency "should disfavour" issuing consent orders that mandate workplace-specific measures.
Once Osha is informed of the concern, the NCC says the EPA should "no longer engage but instead rely on the employers responsibilities mandated by Osha, as well as Osha’s established expertise and robust existing regulatory programme, to ensure worker protection."
The EPA's duty to protect workers applies "to the extent necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk," the coalition argues. "When this duty is juxtaposed with the mandatory consultation requirement, it is clear that EPA is required to evaluate the adequacy of the existing Osha regulatory scheme and to adopt additional restrictions or prohibitions only when needed to protect against unreasonable risks not otherwise addressed."
In a blog post Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), wrote that this represents a fresh attempt to replace TSCA's "no unreasonable risk" standard with the "vastly more lenient standard [of] no significant risk of material harm" applied by Osha. He said this is something industry had argued for unsuccessfully in the TSCA reform debate.
"The chemical industry is apparently not content with bullying EPA to move away from carrying out its statutory duty to issue orders to mitigate potential risks arising from reasonably foreseen conditions of use of new chemicals," Dr Denison said. "It’s now trying to extend that victory and compel EPA to abandon issuing orders even where EPA finds a company’s intended conditions of use may present unreasonable risks to workers."
Congress not only did not intend to remove the EPA’s overlapping jurisdiction on workplace chemical exposure, Dr Denison said, but the TSCA amendments strengthened it by explicitly identifying workers as a "potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation" due special protection.
A requirement to consult "does not mean merely to inform someone else and then wash one’s hands of the matter," he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62554/industry-group-us-epa-should-cede-workplace-hazard-regulation-to-osha
-
Brazil Asbestos Ban Impacts U.S. Imports
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The U.S. chlor-alkali industry is feeling the hit from a Nov. 29 ruling of the Brazil Supreme Federal Court that bans the mining, use, and commercialization of asbestos in Brazil. About 95% of the asbestos used in the U.S. in 2016 was imported from Brazil, with the rest coming from Russia. The chlor-alkali industry used nearly all of the material, or about 340 metric tons, according to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Much of the U.S. chlor-alkali industry still uses asbestos diaphragms to produce chlorine. The industry is phasing out such diaphragms and replacing them with more expensive ion-exchange membranes as has been done in Europe to replace mercury cells (see page 12), but not all companies have made the switch.
Some members of Congress are raising concerns about having Russia as the sole supplier of asbestos to the U.S. By continuing to allow industrial use of asbestos, a known carcinogen, the Environmental Protection Agency “is protecting Russian mining at the expense of American workers,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said during a Dec. 7 subcommittee hearing of the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee. Pallone and other Democrats are urging EPA to use its new authorities under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act to ban the use of asbestos in the U.S.
EPA announced in June that it would evaluate asbestos manufacturing, processing, and distribution as part of an upcoming risk assessment. Pallone asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt why the agency is not also considering the use and disposal of the mineral.
“The use and disposal of asbestos is the main source of risk from asbestos,” Pallone said. “If you ignore those things, you will produce a risk assessment that fails to capture the risks to workers and ordinary Americans and, in my opinion, will not be scientifically valid and will not be protective of public health.” Pruitt agreed, saying disposal of asbestos is a “very important factor that we need to consider.”
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), an advocacy group, welcomes the Brazil court ruling. “This decision sounds a clarion call reaffirming there is no safe or controlled use of asbestos,” says ADAO cofounder Linda Reinstein.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i49/Brazil-asbestos-ban-impacts-US.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Long Island Residents Worry Their Tap Water is Unsafe
Dec 16, 2017 | PBS News Hour
By Sam Weber and Laura Fong
While most of the country’s tap water is tested for hundreds of pollutants, including volatile chemicals, pesticides, metals and bacteria, it is not always safe to drink. In the first of a two-part series, NewsHour Weekend’s Hari Sreenivasan reports from Long Island, New York, on worries about the presence of 1,4-dioxane, a chemical the EPA says it’s “likely to be carcinogenic,” but is almost completely unregulated.
Read the Full Transcript
Hari Sreenivasan:
Imagine the water filter on your kitchen counter, what we’re standing next to are just a few thousand times bigger.
Jason Hime, Suffolk County Department Of Health:
This is raw water going out to each of these two vessels that are filled with virgin, granular activated carbon.
Hari Sreenivasan:
We’re at a water treatment well in Greenlawn, New York and my guide is Jason Hime, a public health engineer with the Suffolk County Department of Health.
This is the last step before it is sent out to thousands of homes. But even before it gets here, the water, which is pumped from more than 300 feet underground, is treated with chemicals like chlorine and is adjusted for the correct pH level.
Jason Hime:
This equipment here monitors the pH level as it goes out to the consumer,
Hari Sreenivasan:
This is monitoring the chlorine going in the system and this is just trying to hit 7 exactly. Less than 7 is acidic. Over 7 is where—
Jason:
Slightly basic. Just over 7 is the goal.
Hari Sreenivasan:
Right, basic high school science class
All the county well water is regularly tested here at the public health lab. Suffolk County goes far beyond the nearly 100 contaminants regulated by the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act.
But despite the treatment and testing, there is at least one important, unregulated chemical sliding through. And the Environmental Protection Agency says it’s “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
Jason Hime:
We’re analyzing for close to 300 different parameters including volatile organic chemicals, semi-volatile organic chemicals, pesticides, radionuclides, inorganics, metals, bacteria, pharmaceutical and personal care products and several emerging contaminants of concern such as 1,4 dioxane.
Hari Sreenivasan:
1,4 dioxane is a chemical found in degreasers, paint strippers, and household products. And it’s one of about 85,000 chemicals in use in the United States that are not regulated in drinking water.
In 2009, the EPA added 1,4-dioxane to a list of contaminants to possibly regulate and required every large water provider in the country test for it. It’s the first step in regulating a new contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and tests between 2013 and 2015 showed 1,4-dioxane is in drinking water around the country.
In fact, water systems in 27 states, serving more than 7 million people, had levels of 1,4-dioxane above 0.35 parts per billion, that’s the level that the EPA calculates poses a lifetime, one in a million increased chance of developing cancer.
Adrienne Esposito, Citizens Campaign For The Environment:
People say it’s one in a million chance. Well maybe that sounds great, unless you’re the one. Or your family member is the one.
Hari Sreenivasan:
Adrienne Esposito runs Citizens Campaign for the Environment, it’s based on Long Island, which was found to be a hot spot for 1,4-dioxane.
73 percent of water authorities here had levels of 1,4-dioxane above that long-term cancer risk, compared with just 7 percent nationwide.
Long Island’s industrial legacy, with its 34 Superfund sites, is partly to blame; it can take decades for pollution to make its way down to the underground aquifer that supplies Long Island’s water.
The majority of Suffolk County is also unsewered, and household products like detergents where smaller amounts of 1,4-dioxane are present as an unlabeled byproduct, end up in septic tanks and can leach into the groundwater.
Adrienne Esposito:
ADRIENNE ESPOSITO: There unfortunately and alarmingly is a gigantic gap between what we know and what we don’t know. We have a lot of water suppliers. They’re very judicious. They follow the law. They test more frequently than they’re required to. But there’s literally thousands of chemicals that are not being tested for and may or may not be in our drinking water.
Hari Sreenivasan:
The Personal Care Products Council, a trade group that represents cosmetic and personal care companies, declined an interview request but said in a statement, in part, 1,4-dioxane “is a byproduct that can form in trace amounts during the manufacturing process” but that “levels present in finished products are minimized and do not present a hazard under conditions of use.”
The American Chemistry Council, an industry group representing chemical companies, declined an interview request, but said in a statement to NewsHour Weekend, in part, “where detected, [1,4-dioxane] has been found in low levels that do not present significant risk or cause for alarm.”
Adrienne Esposito takes issue with that, in part, because 1,4 dioxane is present in so many places.
Adrienne Esposito:
We’re getting an exposure level through water, but then also an additional exposure to other products that we’re using every day. It’s the multiple exposure through many sources that we believe puts us at risk.
Hari Sreenivasan:
The EPA declined PBS NewsHour Weekend’s interview request, but said in a statement, in part, “EPA will consider occurrence data along with health effects information as part of the agency’s regulatory determinations process” for 1,4-dioxane. Adding, “EPA anticipates completing the next regulatory determinations in 2021.”
Remember, the EPA identified 1,4-dioxane as a chemical it may regulate in 2009, and won’t rule on it until at least 2021. History suggests regulation is unlikely. In the 21 years since the Safe Drinking Water Act was updated, the EPA’s process has not led to the regulation of a single new contaminant.
Judith Enck, Former Epa Regional Administrator:
We have 85,000 chemicals used in commerce today. How many are we going to have in the next five or ten years?
Hari Sreenivasan:
Judith Enck was an EPA regional administrator from 2009 to 2017 under President Obama.
Judith Enck:
The dirty little secret in the drinking water area is that for most of the chemicals used in commerce our water supply is never tested it’s never monitored. It’s a short list of what is looked at and it’s impossible to test for all of them, but I think we can be sensible about it.
Hari Sreenivasan:
Enck is not inspired by the direction the EPA is headed. In July, President Trump nominated toxicologist Michael Dourson to lead the EPA’s chemical safety program, while working as a consultant for a manufacturer that uses 1,4-dioxane, Dourson co-authored a 2014 paper that found the safe level for the chemical was 1,000 times higher than the EPA’s one in a million cancer risk. A point that was raised during his confirmation hearing.
In late October, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works narrowly approved Dourson’s nomination on a partly line vote. But earlier this week, Dourson withdrew himself from consideration after it appeared he might not win full Senate confirmation.
Judith Enck:
Given the situation in Washington, it’s imperative that the states act.
Hari Sreenivasan:
Which is exactly what’s been happening: 6 states have already regulated 1,4-dioxane, and New York may be the next.
In October, the New York Drinking Water Quality Council met for the first time. It’s made up of state environmental and health officials, scientists, and water providers. The Council is required to recommend a maximum allowable level of 1,4-dioxane and two other contaminants by next year.
Brad Hutton is the Deputy Commissioner of Public Health for the New York Department of Health.
Brad Hutton, New York Department Of Health:
While we’ve requested strongly for the federal government to establish a unified national standard, which would be preferable, in the absence of one, New York has stepped up to establish its own level.
Hari Sreenivasan:
HARI SREENIVASAN: But deciding how much of a contaminant like 1,4-dioxane is safe, and how to potentially remove it isn’t easy.
Brad Hutton:
So everyone has a different perception of risk. If we could wave a wand and spend a dime, we would we would do it to prevent all of those cancers but it’s typically much more complicated.
Hari Sreenivasan:
And once New York figures out the maximum contaminant level, potentially treating it won’t be cheap.
Dennis Kelleher, Long Island Water Conference:
I could see our water rates going up 50 percent. If they set it as low as some other states have actually looked at.
Hari Sreenivasan:
Dennis Kelleher is an engineer who represents the Long Island Water Conference, an association of public water providers and drinking water professionals. He says water authorities are caught in the middle when it comes to unregulated contaminants like 1,4-dioxane.
Dennis Kelleher:
The public is hearing about it and saying ‘I don’t want it in my drinking water’ and we’re saying ‘well we don’t know at what level is acceptable’ and to make things even worse, there isn’t an acceptable, approvable treatment system that we can install if we needed to put something in.
Joe Roccaro, Suffolk County Water Authority:
So as the water is flowing through, the radicals are destroying the contaminant, immediately.
Hari Sreenivasan:
Joe Roccaro is a water quality engineer for the Suffolk County Water Authority. This is one of the first, full-scale pilot projects in the country to remove 1,4-dioxane from water.
1,4-dioxane passes through traditional treatment and filtering technologies, so the utility has been testing a method called advanced oxidation process. A chemical is added to the water and it is then run past 72 u-v lamps, which strips out the 1,4-dioxane… while the state and county have yet to officially give the go-ahead to put it online, tests show it reduces 1,4-dioxane below detectable levels.
But The System Isn’t Cheap:
treating just the Suffolk County wells that are above the one in a million cancer risk level, it would cost about $155 million.
Activists working to limit this chemical see the costs differently, and a need for federal and state regulators to take a more active role.
Adrienne Esposito:
We need a public health standard, not one driven by the economy, or the economics of the filtration. We need one driven by what protects us from getting cancer. The goal is to keep people healthy and that’s going to cost money. I’m sorry but it’s not free
Hari Sreenivasan:
While this UV filtering system may work for 1,4-dioxane, for water authorities like Suffolk County, it’s not easy keeping up with new threats to drinking water.
Joe Roccaro:
As we move forward there’s no black box, you know, there’s no magic treatment that’s going to remove everything. And I mean that’s the bottom line.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/long-island-residents-worry-their-tap-water-is-unsafe
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Parting Gift from Dourson: A Trove of Revealing Emails
Dec 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported on the withdrawal of the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical safety office – which we applauded as a win for public health. The Times article mentioned and provided a link to a 400-page trove of emails to and from Dourson that were obtained through a FOIA request filed in August by Greenpeace to the University of Cincinnati, where Dourson previously worked.
The emails shine a rare spotlight on a network, of which Dourson and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) are a part, that operates largely out of public view. It involves a coordinated effort between the chemical industry and its private and academic consultants to generate science that invariably supports the safety of the industry’s chemicals, and pushes back against any regulatory and academic science that indicates otherwise. The emails make for very interesting reading, if you can skip through the myriad emails about scheduling calls and meetings (which make up the bulk of any of our inboxes, I suspect).
To pique your interest, let me start with one email relating to Dourson’s nomination.
His nomination was publicly announced by Scott Pruitt on July 17. But nearly two months earlier, in an email (see page 178) dated May 23 and marked confidential, Dourson wrote to Kimberly White at ACC to let her know of his “appointment,” and also alluding to the possibility (which came to pass) that he would be hired as an advisor before being confirmed:
Based on the recommendation of EPA Administrator Pruitt, President Trump has appointed me as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Safety Assessment and Pollution Prevention. EPA wants to get my senate confirmation scheduled before the August recess. They may also want to hire me into the Agency in July, which apparently they can do as soon as the announcement is made. The announcement is made after background checks are completed (40 days is typical). At this point, please keep news of this appointment under wraps.
Now, ACC is no doubt upset by the Dourson withdrawal, having hired Dourson repeatedly to help defend its companies’ chemicals and never wavering in support of his nomination. So it should come as no surprise that ACC is also unhappy with the Times’ release of the emails, especially given that a large fraction of them involve communications that include Dourson and ACC employees.
Yesterday ACC took to its blog to object to the Times article as “misleading.” The only specific it takes issue with, however, is that the article “paints a dubious picture of emails between one of our employees and Dr. Michael Dourson.”
ACC’s specific beef is that the Times flagged emails showing that Dourson and his University colleagues had exchanged drafts of a paper they were working on with an ACC staffer. ACC pointed out that the staffer in that case was a co-author of the paper. Fair enough.
But ACC’s nit conveniently ignores other emails. One chain shows direct communications between Dourson and ACC involving another paper he co-authored that was in the final stages of publication in Dourson’s go-to journal . Even though no one from ACC is a co-author on this paper, Dourson’s emails indicate not only that ACC had the galley proofs of the paper, but that ACC staff seemed to be the keeper of them (see chain around page 213).
ACC’s blog post goes on to cite its policy that scientific conclusions and judgments drawn by outside parties ACC hires are not subject to its control. But that policy goes on to state that “the Council shall have the right to review such judgments and conclusions” for “clarification, and format and editorial comments.” Seems like an elephant could slip through that opening.
Recall that ACC recently embraced EPA Administrator Pruitt’s new directive that bars EPA-funded scientists from serving on any agency advisory panel. The outlandish premise behind the directive is that EPA and the extramural researchers it funds are somehow in cahoots to find problems the agency can then regulate. So it’s worth noting that, unlike ACC’s contracts, EPA grants have no allowance for EPA to pre-review or edit the papers of researchers it funds.
But back to the emails, when ACC says there’s no there there in them, don’t believe it.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/12/15/a-parting-gift-from-dourson-a-trove-of-revealing-emails/
-
Victory! EPA Nominee Michael Dourson Withdraws
Dec 15, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
In a year like 2017, it’s more important than ever to celebrate the victories.
This week we learned that Michael Dourson has withdrawn from consideration for Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. This great news followed a persistent campaign to defeat his nomination by numerous environmental health organizations and activists across the country.
The victory reflects the work that public health groups did together to sound the alarm on how uniquely unqualified Dr. Dourson is—particularly as EPA establishes new frameworks for evaluating and regulating chemicals under the newly reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. It also reflects the determination of our allies in Senate offices on both sides of the aisle, who would not accept this nomination. As EPW Ranking member Tom Carper (Del.) said after Dourson’s announcement, “When you think the nominees are just totally inappropriate for a particular position, fight it with everything we have.”As EPW Ranking member Tom Carper (Del.) said after Dourson’s announcement, “When you think the nominees are just totally inappropriate for a particular position, fight it with everything we have.”
In October, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and our partners sent a letter to the Environment and Public Works Committee urging them to reject the Dourson nomination. The Trump administration has certainly not hesitated to install representatives of polluting industries in the agencies responsible for protecting public health and the environment, so we knew we had our work cut out for us.
Before the EPW committee met with Dourson in October, we worked with colleagues at Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group and the Environmental Defense Fund to accompany people from communities across the U.S. who have been affected by the harms of chemicals under EPA review as they told their stories in Senate offices. Senators heard story after story of real-life impacts of hazardous chemicals in their communities – from Hoosick Falls, NY water contamination to cancer clusters in Indiana tied to chemicals like TCE and PFOA in drinking water.
The evening before the EPW vote, Center for Environmental Health’s Ansje Miller and I delivered messages to Senate offices from more than 100,000 people urging them to reject the nomination.
After the EPW committee’s party-line vote to advance Dourson’s nomination, our partners in communities across the country turned up the heat in local media outlets, making sure their neighbors knew how high the stakes are for this office. Thanks to notable work from North Carolina groups, that state’s Republican Senators publicly declared their opposition to the nomination—and more may have followed with time. Feeling the heat, Dourson withdrew his name for consideration on Wednesday!
This certainly won’t be the last we see of chemical industry insiders at EPA, so we’ll keep monitoring and exposing their influence over chemical policy.
But today we savor and celebrate the victory.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/12/15/victory-epa-nominee-michael-dourson-withdraws/
-
Controversial Ohio Nominee for EPA Job Withdraws from Consideration
Dec 16, 2017 | Cleveland.com
By Sabrina Eaton
A former University of Cincinnati professor has withdrawn his nomination to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's chemical safety and pollution prevention office after senators from both political parties expressed concern that he's too close to the industries he'd regulate.
Michael Dourson founded a Cincinnati-based nonprofit group called Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, whose work to assess chemical risks was partially funded by industry interests, chemical manufacturers and tobacco companies, leading to questions about the objectivity of its conclusions.
Although the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works signed off on Dourson's nomination in an October party-line vote, his approval by the full U.S. Senate appeared unlikely after North Carolina's two Republican senators said they wouldn't support him.
Senate committee approves controversial Ohio nominee for EPA post
The pair - Richard Burr and Tom Tillis - noted that their state has a history of contamination at the Camp Lejeune military base, as well as water issues in Wilmington. They said those concerns kept them from supporting Dourson.
Dourson's backers, including the environmental committee's chairman, Wyoming Republican John Barasso, argued his years of experience in assessing toxic chemicals made him well qualified for the job.
But Democrats and environmental groups argued that he had no business overseeing the nation's chemical-safety programs.
"The withdrawal of his nomination and his removal from serving in a non-confirmed position at EPA is in the best interest of all Americans," said a release from the top Democrat on the environmental committee, Delaware's Tom Carper.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/12/controversial_ohio_nominee_for.html
-
Americans to Trump: We Will Not Stand By as You Bulldoze the EPA
Dec 17, 2017 | Las Vegas Sun
The outcome of the Senate race in Alabama wasn’t the only victory last week for Americans fighting back against President Donald Trump’s destructive and divisive agenda.
The day after watching Republican candidate Roy Moore lose the election despite Trump’s endorsement, the president suffered another setback when his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety division backed out of consideration
The nominee, Michael L. Dourson, was a galling choice for the position. A close ally of the chemical and tobacco industries, Dourson is a toxicologist who’s produced a string of studies backing safety claims by those industries on toxic chemicals, including pesticides and flame retardants. Google his name, and you’ll see the word “shill” pop up more than once.
As was the case with Trump’s EPA director, Scott Pruitt, a longtime enemy of the agency, choosing Dourson to lead the chemical safety division was a textbook case of trying to let the fox guard the hen house.
So after months of watching Trump destroy years of progress on environmental stewardship with his slap-in-the-face appointments and rollbacks of regulations, it was refreshing to see Dourson back out.
Dourson had been the subject of an intense campaign aimed at putting public pressure on senators not to vote for his confirmation. A particularly clever approach came from Clean Air Moms Action, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, which distributed a package for mythical Dourson-brand cigarettes containing the warning “EPA nominee Michael Dourson may be hazardous to your health.”
Clever, but it was true. Among the alarming items from Dourson’s past, he had argued for far looser protective standards for perchlorate, a chemical component of rocket fuel that has been linked to serious impairment of brain development in children. Southern Nevadans know all too well about the stuff, as the nation’s largest perchlorate plume is in our backyard and has contaminated Lake Mead. Since 1997, the plume has been the subject of a multibillion-dollar cleanup effort that has reduced its level in the lake.
Given that perchlorate was only one chemical for which Dourson sought a scaleback of protection, seeing him withdraw was reason for celebration.
Those who opposed him set a good example for all Americans, especially those who are justifiably horrified by Trump’s assault on the environment.
With Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, it’s been a painful year for those who care about reversing global warming, protecting our lands and waterways and reducing pollution.
Even with a nominee as lousy as Dourson, it took an intense effort to keep him out of the position. His withdrawal apparently was triggered by the publication of documents showing the closeness of his ties with the chemical industry. Greenpeace obtained the documents and shared them with The New York Times.
Those involved with fully exposing Dourson deserve a bravo, as do two Republican senators who had announced their opposition to him — Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both of North Carolina. In breaking party ranks, they had left Dourson without a safety net, as one more no vote from Republicans would have sunk his nomination.
Unfortunately, Dourson was the tip of the iceberg in terms of Trump’s dismantling of the EPA, so there’s much more work to be done by advocates and concerned Americans.
But those who tripped up his nomination offered inspiration and hope. As they showed, Americans who aren’t afraid to stand in front of Trump’s bulldozer can make good things happen.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/dec/17/americans-to-trump-we-will-not-stand-by-as-you-bul/
-
Dec 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
From the moment President Trump nominated Michael Dourson to run chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency, EWG has been pushing back by documenting his decades-long work as a chemical industry apologist. This week, Dourson announced that he was giving uphis EPA bid after it became clear that he didn’t have the Senate votes to be confirmed.
“The demise of the Dourson nomination shows party allegiance has its limits when it comes to protecting our drinking water and children’s health from dangerous pollutants linked to serious and lasting health problems,” EWG’s Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Scott Faber said of the bid being defeated.
We also took time to applaud the state of California for providing its residents with guidelines for safe cell phone use. Many of the tips align with what EWG has been saying for years.
Following up from our discovery last week that 31 members of Congress collecttraditional farm subsidies – we did some fact checking of recent claims by Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., trying to dismiss our findings.
Never too far from our sights, we dug into the recent news that the Inspector General at EPA has launched an investigation into $25,000 in taxpayer dollars to purchase his soundproof phone booth. We also sent a letter urging Toyota North America to turn down any offers to partner with Pruitt’s EPA – something Pruitt mentioned during a House hearing last week.
By partnering with Mr. Pruitt’s EPA, you are aiding and publicly aligning yourself with his irresponsible agenda…I urge you to completely disassociate Toyota from Mr. Pruitt’s testimony and any “partnership” in his relentless campaign to “manage” EPA into the ground,” wrote EWG President Ken Cook to the head of Toyota North America.
For coverage on these developments and more, here’s some news you can use going into the weekend.
Congress and Farm Subsidies
Des Moines Register: Grassley netted nearly $370,000 in farm subsidies, environmental group says
Grassley and six U.S. House and Senate leaders sit on agriculture committees that draft farm bill policies every five years, the Environmental Working Group said. Reprinted by USA Breaking News and the Wisconsin State Farmer.
Chico Enterprise-Record: Rep. LaMalfa highest earner of farm subsidies in Congress, report shows
Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, received over $1.7 million in traditional farm subsidies from 1995 to 2016, the most of current members of Congress, according to a report released Thursday by the Environmental Working Group, a not-for-profit organization. Reprinted by Oroville Mercury Register.
Billings Gazette: Tester and Gianforte among 33 members of Congress who got farm subsidies in the past 21 years
Montana’s congressional delegation landed two lawmakers on the farm subsidy database of the conservation watchdog Environmental Working Group. Reprinted by the Helena Independent Record, the Missoulian, the Montana Standard and Ravalli Republic.
Huffington Post Blog: Rep. Kristi Noem is Fudging About Estate Taxes While Cashing $3.7 million in Taxpayer-Funded Farm Subsidies
Between 1995 and 2016, her family-owned Racota Valley Ranch in Hazel, South Dakota deposited over $3.7 million in government farm subsidies. In 2012 alone, they cashed $232,707 in subsidy checks, according to the Environmental Working Group Farm Subsidy Database.
Environmental Protection Agency and Michael Dourson
Washington Examiner: Trump's controversial pick to lead EPA chemicals office withdraws nomination
Watchdog groups American Oversight and the Environmental Working Group announced this month a joint investigation to determine if Dourson has violated ethics rules by advising the agency before being Senate confirmed.
EPA and Scott Pruitt
Government Executive: EPA Promises Not to Silence Scientists, Pushes Review of Climate Change Assumptions
Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said Pruitt will have to turn to elementary school students to staff his team of climate change deniers. “Just off the top of our heads, we know some first graders who, like Pruitt, don't understand why if the climate's heating up, it can still snow during Christmas break," Cook said. "With the promise of snacks and a chance to get a peek of Pruitt’s secret phone booth, I’m sure they could be lured off their scooters and swing sets to help.”
EPA and TSCA
Chemical Watch: TSCA: work plan process likely to serve as basis for chemical prioritisation
"The driving force behind TSCA reform was frustration around the thousands of existing high priority chemicals that really had not undergone any meaningful evaluation in the last 40 years," said Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
Letter to Toyota on EPA Partnership
POLITICO: Don’t Do It!
The Environmental Working Group is urging Toyota in a letter not to enter into a management partnership with EPA as Pruitt suggested the automaker was going to do at a congressional hearing last week. “By partnering with Mr. Pruitt’s EPA, you are aiding and publicly aligning yourself with his irresponsible agenda,” EWG President Ken Cook wrote, warning Toyota it risked “irreparable harm” to its brand by pairing with Pruitt.
CleanTechnica: Environmental Working Group Warns Toyota About Its Promise To Clean The Environment On Its Website
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is urging Toyota to reject a partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency. The EWG sent a letter to James Lentz, chief executive officer of Toyota Motor North America saying: “We were shocked to learn that Toyota is “partnering” with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and his staff “to begin a lean process at the agency to evaluate management practices.”
EcoWatch: Toyota Urged to Reject Tainted 'Partnership' Claimed by Destructive EPA Chief
The Environmental Working Group is urging Toyota to reject a partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, because EPA chief Scott Pruitt's plan to "evaluate management practices" is cover for his real agenda of destroying the agency's ability to do its job. Reprinted by EnvironmentGuru.
California Cleaners Disclosure Bill
Santa Fe New Mexican: Manufacturers backing California chemical label law
According to the Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of the California legislation, only 7 percent of cleaning products adequately list ingredients. Originally published by Bloomberg News.
Personal Care Products
Buzzfeed: 30 Gifts For Anyone Who Wants Better Skin
"I only use natural beauty products and I check all my products on EWG.org, a website that rates beauty products based on harmful ingredients such as synthetic fragrances and artificial colors.”
Reader’s Digest: Your Beauty Products Could Be Sabotaging Your Fertility—Here’s How
“Eyeshadow, foundation, facial powder, bronzer and blush account for nearly 80 percent of the products with PFCs,” according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment. The EWG has come up with a list of 266 products that contain PFCs, from eyeshadow to shaving cream to lip balm.
Rodale’s Organic Life: 5 Lipstick Ingredients That Vegans Might Find Seriously Offensive
Collagen is a naturally-occurring protein that is the building block of skin, and helps repair wounds and keep skin supple. But most collagen used in beauty products is derived from the connective tissue of animals, according to the Environmental Working Group(EWG).
Shape: 4 Signs You're Using Too Many Beauty Products
Looking up your products on the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep cosmetics database can also provide a clearer picture of possible irritants.
Fast Company: This Natural Liquid Silk Is Starting To Replace Oil-Based Plastic
Like microbeads, those ingredients can end up in waterways. “The big issue with man-made plastic ingredients in cosmetics is that generally very little thought has gone into the complete lifecycle of the product,” says David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches health and environmental issues in consumer products. Reprinted by True Viral News.
EWG’s Food Scores
Reports Healthcare: Is Juice Healthy For Kids?
The Environmental Working Group Food Score’s Database highlights that some of the most popular juice brands contain at least eight spoons of sugar or even more per serving.
EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
Nerd Wallet: Want to Buy Organic? 3 Steps to Avoid the Fakes
The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, ranks fruits and vegetables based on the amount of pesticide residue left after proper washing and preparation in its “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean Fifteen” lists. Reprinted 64 times.
Care2: Your Organic Food Might Have a Dirty Secret
If those reasons are for the health benefits, many factors impact the nutritional value and pesticide levels of foods. To avoid pesticides, consumers can consult the “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean Fifteen” lists compiled by the Environmental Working Group.
Plastic Water Pipes
Environmental Monitor: Not a Drop to Drink: Plastic Pipes Leaching Chemicals Into Drinking Water
Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, comments on the potential for ongoing risks after the pipes are flushed and long-term exposure to PEX pipes. “We don’t have clear answers here yet as there are not a lot of long-term data,” Stoiber explains.
Drinking Water
Fairwarning: Fluoride in the Water: Too Much of a Good Thing?
No up-to-date government figures exist on the number of Americans exposed to drinking water fluoridated to above that point, but the advocacy and research organization Environmental Working Group estimates that, as of 2015, the figure was 28 million. Reprinted by Industrial Safety & Hygiene News and The Oregonian.
The Republic (Columbus, Ind.): Opioids, trains, riverfront, State Street top agenda
Columbus City Utilities has been investigating the contamination since late August, after a report published by the Environmental Working Group showed the city’s water had a higher-than recommended level of the contaminant in its drinking water four years ago.
Nonstick Chemicals in Drinking Water
MLive: Michigan bill proposes nation's lowest PFAS limit in drinking water
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nationwide advocacy group that focuses on chemicals in drinking water and consumer products, praised the bill. "Federal drinking water regulations are failing to protect the public but states do not have to rely on this broken system," said David Andrews, a senior EWG scientist.
Mercola: Teflon Town: A Toxic Legacy
In addition, everyone would be well served by following the Madrid Statement's recommendation to avoid products containing, or manufactured using, PFASs, which includes most that are stain-resistant, waterproof or nonstick. More helpful tips can be found in the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) Guide to Avoiding PFCS.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/12/ewg-s-news-roundup-1215-epa-toxics-nominee-bows-out-cell-phone-safety#.WjelalWWbIW
-
California Will Not List Coumarin as Prop 65 Carcinogen
Dec 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California will not list coumarin, a fragrance ingredient sometimes derived from plants, under Proposition 65 as a carcinogen.
The state's Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) voted 4-2 to list the substance at a meeting on 2 November, but five votes are required, according to a notice published on 11 December by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha).
Oehha requested information on coumarin in March.
Two industry groups submitted comments, arguing that evidence from animal studies being considered by the CIC was insufficient to conclude the substance is carcinogenic.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62568/california-will-not-list-coumarin-as-prop-65-carcinogen
-
Children’s Lead Exposure: Relative Contributions of Various Sources
Dec 15, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Last week, we noted in our blog that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dropped the statement that paint, dust and soil are the most common sources of lead in its “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home” booklet. Property owners provide this booklet to prospective homebuyers and tenants in housing built before 1978. The change implicitly recognizes that there is no safe level of lead in the children’s blood, and we must reduce all sources of lead exposure. It also acknowledges that the relative contribution of air, water, food, soil, dust, and paint to children’s blood lead levels is complicated. Exposure varies significantly based on age of the home, the child’s race and age, the family’s income-level, and region of the country. Any simplification obscures these important differences.
EPA’s scientists made this clear in a model published earlier this year that pulled together the available data, divided children into three age categories, and assigned children in each category into ten groups based on their overall lead exposure. For each group, they estimated the relative contribution of air, water, food, and soil/dust (from paint). Not surprisingly, children living in older homes with lead-based paint hazards by far have the most exposure to lead. For 1 to 6 year olds in the top 90-100 percentile, more than 70% of the lead in their blood is from soil and dust. The contribution from food is 20% and drinking water is 10%. For infants, soil and dust contributes to 50% of the lead in blood, while 40% is from water and 10% from food.
Since there is no known safe level of lead in blood, we must do even more to reduce children's exposure to lead-contaminated soil and dust.
However, to prioritize action at a national level, it is important to understand how different sources contribute to lead exposure in the average child as well as the most-exposed child. We used the underlying EPA data to calculate the average relative source contribution of different sources to blood lead levels for infants from birth to six months old, for toddlers 1 to 2 years old, and young children from 1 to 6 years old. The results indicate that infants have a much higher source contribution of lead from water in comparison to older children (Figure 1). For the average child 1 to 6 years old, food is the largest source of lead exposure, with 50%, followed by soil/dust then water.
Like all models, EPA’s estimates have limitations that must be considered. We encourage you to read the reportto get the details. Here are the key points:The analysis applies to the U.S. residential population and was not designed for specific at-risk populations or households. Contributions from pathways are highly dependent on scenarios being considered. For example, while the air pathway contributed the least for this national analysis, this assessment was not intended to characterize air-related impacts for those living near sources of lead emissions in air (e.g., near battery recycling facilities, near airports). When considering public health protection from lead, looking across all media and source-specific exposures includes a comprehensive investigation in which local-scale source impacts are characterized; these local impacts may provide avenues for meaningful reductions in lead exposure.More up-to-date data and information on key model inputs (e.g., children’s soil/dust ingestion rate and bioavailability and concentration in water levels actually consumed by children) would help refine model estimates for quantifying and reducing uncertainties and to focus on specific at-risk populations and communities.
On this second point, progress is underway, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with the support of EPA, is updating its American Healthy Housing Survey from 2005 that serves as the basis for most of the paint, soil and dust exposure estimates. In this round, HUD will also be collecting drinking water samples using two different methods: 1) the first draw sample from the kitchen tap after letting the water sit in the pipes overnight used by EPA to evaluate compliance with its Lead and Copper Rule; and 2) a 100 mL sample taken by the homeowner whenever water is used from the kitchen tap for drinking or cooking. HUD has been waiting on final approval by the Office of Management and Budget since June 2017. Assuming OMB decides quickly, HUD may be able to have the data by early 2019.
In addition, the Food and Drug Administration upgraded its method to analyze food samples so lead can be detected and quantified at lower levels.
With better data on children’s exposure to lead in food, water, and soil and dust, we will gain a better understanding of the relative contribution of the sources and where we need to focus our resources. However, we must remain vigilant in our broader efforts to reduce all sources of children’s exposure to lead.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/12/15/childrens-lead-exposure/
-
Regulators, Industry Identify Challenges Ahead for EU Biocides
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The biggest challenges facing the EU biocides industry over the next few years include the 2024 review programme completion deadline, implementation of the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors (EDs) and Brexit, a panel of experts at the 20th Chemical Watch biocides conference in Vienna has concluded.
During the discussion of two decades of biocides legislation on 5-6 December, the panellists agreed that Brexit was the most immediate concern. In particular the question of how it will affect companies inside and outside the UK, especially with regard to authorisations handled by Britain's national competent authority, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Another was how the recently adopted criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) under the biocidal products Regulation (BPR) will be implemented in substance and product approval processes. As previously pointed out by, for example, Echa, this could jeopardise the chances of the review programme being finished by its 2024 deadline.
And industry has seen other issues arising since the BPR entered into operation in 2013, said Sara Kirkham, director of consultancy Arrow Regulatory.
Companies have been faced with "ever–changing situations" as new requirements and guidelines have been introduced in the first few years of the BPR. And the law has introduced a disconnect between industry and regulators, Ms Kirkham said: "People miss the ability to speak to someone."Improvements
But the panellists also turned the spotlight to how the introduction of BPR has improved the protection of human health and the environment.
Its substitution and exclusion criteria, the provisions for treated articles and in situ active substances reflect an ambition to do so, said Alfonso Las Heras from the European Commission's biocides unit. At the same time, the BPR has improved product authorisation procedures and given industry the tools to get the products on the market. These include the union authorisation and mutual recognition procedures, he said.
Mary Iakovidou, a longstanding inspector at Sweden's chemicals agency (Kemi), agreed that biocides legislation has come a long way.
"More and more companies are getting a grasp of what they are putting on the market. And we are seeing much more cooperation between companies to reduce the risks of biocides as much as possible and make sure products are efficacious."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62449/regulators-industry-identify-challenges-ahead-for-eu-biocides
-
Impact Study: REACH Authorisation 'Achieving' Its Objects
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission's final report on the impact of the REACH authorisation system has found it is "achieving its objectives" in terms of substitution and improvements in the way SVHCs are used.
The study also analysed the changes in the market for SVHCs, as well as the markets for alternatives, but found no clear indications of changes.
And while the report found it "could not fully quantify" the costs of the overall authorisation process, it estimated the costs related to the process of application for authorisation – both for authorities and for companies.
Other key observations include:there is evidence of substitution of SVHCs within the EU due to the authorisation process; and evidence of such switches despite the application being a cheaper option;this seems to be linked to perceived business continuity risks/uncertainties associated with the reliance on an application to continue operating;the process is resulting in improvements in risk management measures "at every stage" of the process; andit is "too early" to be able to quantify the benefits of authorisation due to a lack of publicly available historical exposure data. This should improve over time but further work and resources are required to collect relevant information required.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62662/impact-study-reach-authorisation-achieving-its-objects
-
EU’s Chlorine Makers End Mercury-Based Production
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
European Union regulations requiring companies to stop making chlorine via a process that involves mercury came into effect last week. Of the 21 mercury technology plants that were operating at the start of 2017, seven have closed and 14 have been converted—or are about to be converted—to the less environmentally harmful membrane technology.
The seven closed plants had a combined capacity of 665,000 metric tons per year of chlorine, or 5.5% of Europe’s chlorine production capacity. The 14 plants being converted have a combined capacity of 1.4 million metric tons per year of chlorine.
Six of the 21 mercury cell plants are located in Spain, with the rest spread across the bloc. In the U.S., where no equivalent regulation exists, only one plant still uses the toxic element.
EuroChlor, a trade association, estimates that since 2001 the conversion of mercury plants to cleaner technology will have cost the industry about $3.5 billion.
In 2016 European chlorine producers released a total of 1.4 metric tons of mercury into the atmosphere. At the end of 2016 they were still using about 5,400 metric tons of mercury in the cells, which electrolyze sodium chloride into chlorine and sodium hydroxide.
In one of the final closures, Hydrochem Italia shut down its mercury cell chlorine plant just last week with the loss of 30 jobs, according to the Italian newspaper La Stampa. The firm plans to convert its plant and reinstate staff when the facility reopens at the end of 2019.
A major clean-up of mercury-based hazardous waste is now set to take place at the 21 sites. EU regulations allow for liquid mercury to be stored temporarily for up to five years with a possible extension of three years. Liquid mercury must be converted to mercury sulfide before its permanent disposal.
“Issues such as the demolition of buildings and the treatment and follow-up of contaminated sites will continue to keep the chlor-alkali industry busy for several more years,” EuroChlor says.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i49/EUs-chlorine-makers-end-mercury.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Venue of Last Resort: The Climate Lawsuits Threatening the Future of Big Oil
Dec 17, 2017 | The Guardian
By Jie Jenny Zou and Chris Young
In early October, 22 state and federal judges hailing from Honolulu to Albany got a crash course in scientific literacy and economics. The three-day symposium was billed as a way to help the judges better scrutinize evidence used to defend government regulations.
But the all-expenses-paid event hosted by George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center in Arlington, Virginia, served another purpose: it was the first of several seminars designed to promote “skepticism” of scientific evidence among likely candidates for the 140-plus federal judgeships Donald Trump will fill over the next four years.
The lone science instructor was Louis Anthony Cox Jr, a risk analyst with deep industry ties whose recent appointment as chair of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s clean air scientific advisory committee drew condemnation in public-health circles. Since 1988, Cox has consulted for the American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group that spent millions to dispute the cancer-causing properties of benzene, an ingredient in gasoline, and is now working to question the science on smog-causing ozone. He’s also testified on behalf of the chemical industry and done research for the tobacco giant Philip Morris.
For a $4,000 honorarium, Cox delivered two closed-door lectures at George Mason: “a primer on the scientific method” followed by a session aimed at “understanding what science can and cannot do”. Included in his presentation were slides urging judges to be wary of EPA science on fine particles – a pollutant he has been researching for API.
The symposium included a dinner at Capitol Hill’s upscale Charlie Palmer Steak, whose website says it “moves the political power meetings out of the back room and into private dining spaces”. Events such as the symposium are one way big oil is trying to impart free-market values to judges and attorneys general as the industry gears up for legal battles on multiple fronts.
Based in George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School, the Law & Economics Center espouses a free-market approach to policy. A 2013 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that the libertarian thinktank hosted more judicial conferences than any other university program in the country, fueled by conservative and big-business donors. Over the past two years, roughly $4.5m of $18.6m in contributions to the Law & Economics Center came from oil and gas interests, including Koch Industries, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and API, which represents more than 650 corporations.
The center claims to have trained more than 5,000 state and federal judges, including three sitting supreme court justices. Almost 1,000 state attorneys general and their staff attorneys have attended its programs. Its advisory board includes three judges on the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, widely considered the country’s second-most-powerful court and, often, the final arbiter for federal administrative law cases.
In a White House riven by discord and staff departures, judicial appointments have been a bright spot. Senate Republicans have embraced the chance to fill a glut of vacancies, helping Trump install more conservative judges and potentially transform the legal landscape for decades to come. Once confirmed, a federal judge can serve for life, presiding over an average of 500 to 600 cases a year.TimelineBig oil and the US government
A Washington trade group with 300-plus employees, API has spent more than $40m to lobby Congress since 2013. But the courts have also been a focal point for API, which has spent the better part of a century helping the oil and gas industry pivot from being a prime antitrust target to being a proactive litigation force. The institute, along with other free-market trade groups, has routinely injected itself into cases in an attempt to shape policy or stall government initiatives. API officials did not grant interview requests from the Center for Public Integrity.
With a new era of environmental deregulation under way, issues ranging from the Obama administration’s clean power plan to offshore drilling in the Arctic are landing in the courts for final say. The stakes are enormous for the industry, which is simultaneously confronting a wave of lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages for climate-change impacts. Among the defendants are API members such as ExxonMobil.
Unlike government and the public, industry can afford to wait. “In many of these matters, litigation goes on decades and decades,” said Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “Time is on industry’s side.”
In 1940, API faced a lawsuit so expansive that three pages of the complaint simply listed defendants – all 379 of them.
United States of America v American Petroleum Institute et al alleged wide-scale collusion and price-fixing by 22 major oil companies and their 300-plus affiliates, which controlled a total of $9bn in assets (the equivalent of $160 billion today).
The case never made it to trial. It was neutered early on by 11 oil executives working closely with the White House to ensure an allied victory in World War II.
After languishing in the courts for years, the lawsuit was dismissed in 1951 by the justice department, which found it to be a logistical nightmare. Gone, too, was the government’s interest in dissolving API as a monopolistic tool of industry. This year, API wriggled out of public scrutiny once more. In yet another potentially landmark case, lawyers suing the US government for inaction on climate change tried to compel the institute to turn over decades of internal records. API had joined the case to help defend the government but dropped out rather than reveal what it knew about global warming and when.
“They’re a highly sophisticated, integrated political operation,” said Bob Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Drexel University. API’s effectiveness, Brulle said, lay in its partnerships with like-minded groups such as the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce – amplifying its message “in a very directed, coordinated way”. In 2016, the institute absorbed its only real competitor, America’s Natural Gas Alliance.
On 30 November 1999, representatives of more than 20 lobby groups met at the institute’s Washington DC headquarters to muster opposition to an EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Leading that meeting was the API lobbyist Phil Cooney, who in 2001 had become head of environmental policy for George W Bush’s White House, where he altered federal reports to sow doubt on climate change. Under Bush, the EPA retreated from its earlier position, claiming it didn’t have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases after all. Cooney could not be located for comment.
The issue came to a head in 2003, when 12 states sued the EPA to force its hand. Coming to the agency’s defense was the CO2 Litigation Group, a newly formed coalition of 14 trade associations – including API. The coalition represented a spectrum of fossil-fuel companies, which argued that the EPA had “oversimplified” and overstated the certainty of climate change’s effects.
The case, Massachusetts v EPA, was decided in the states’ favor by the US supreme court in 2007. But the matter continued to be tied up in the courts and the EPA bureaucracy, and it wasn’t until 2011 that the agency finally began regulating greenhouse gases. This gave rise to Obama’s 2015 clean power plan, which targeted carbon dioxide emissions and became mired in litigation before the Trump administration marked it for extinction.‘What we want is a plan’
The back-and-forth of politics can be dispiriting. For that reason, James Hansenhas staked his family’s future – and the planet’s – on the courts. His granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan, is one of 21 child and teenage plaintiffs inJuliana v United States, a 2015 lawsuit that faults the government for failing to address climate change over half a century.
“What we want is a plan – just for the government to have a plan,” said Hansen, a former Nasa scientist who now directs the Earth Institute at Columbia University and is acting as a scientific expert in the case. Last year, industry groups including API became parties to the case.
It was Hansen’s congressional testimony as director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the sweltering summer of 1988 that elevated global warming from simmering concern to boiling reality. With “99%” certainty, Hansen explained that the trend was a side effect of fossil-fuel combustion that would worsen without swift action. Months later, a group that would come to include 170 scientists from 25 countries united to confront what it called “the greatest global environmental challenge facing mankind”.
When Hansen returned to Capitol Hill in 1989, he found his testimony heavily edited by the White House Office of Management and Budget under President George HW Bush. The office softened his conclusions, tacked on a paragraph qualifying his findings and otherwise stirred uncertainty about human causes of climate change.‘We were just playing a game of Whac-a-Mole’
While many have focused on what, and when, companies such as ExxonMobil knew about climate change, Julia Olson – a lawyer with Our Children’s Trust, a legal aid group representing the Juliana plaintiffs – is making a case for government complicity.
After years of litigating environmental cases, Olson realized she was dealing with symptoms of a disease, not the disease itself. “We were just playing a game of Whac-a-Mole. One new part of our fossil fuel energy system would pop up, and we’d challenge it, and then it’d pop up somewhere else.”
She turned her attention to the government, which “chooses the winners and losers” and has long abetted fossil fuels, she said, allowing the industry to drill, mine and build. “Everyone wants Exxon to be the enemy,” Olson said, but “every administration has made that decision to perpetuate fossil fuels.”
After digging through presidential archives, her researchers found what they believe is the earliest White House reference to climate change: a 1961 letter from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico to John F Kennedy, recounting a meeting a day earlier at which they discussed a Fortune article warning of sea-level rise from a warming climate.
Lyndon B Johnson was the first president to publicly acknowledge such warming. In a speech in January 1965, he described how “a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels” was permanently altering the planet. By year’s end, his science advisory board had delivered a detailed report on the “invisible pollutant” capable of melting ice caps and raising sea levels.
Despite these early warnings, little has been done, Olson said. Since Hansen’s 1988 testimony, there have been more excessively hot years than at any other time on record. Two international accords tackling climate change have been brokered, with the United States conspicuously absent on both.
Though not named in Juliana, API, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers quickly intervened in the lawsuit, asserting their right to protect their members’ economic interests. The move awkwardly put the fossil-fuel groups on the same side as the Obama administration.
Their involvement in Juliana was short-lived. In late February, plaintiffs filed a detailed 21-page discovery request for API alone, seeking decades of internal communications, policies and reports related to climate change. By late June, all three trade groups had exited a case they had voluntarily joined. A judge allowed them to drop out after they were unable to agree on the causes and effects of greenhouse gases.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat of Rhode Island, suspects the groups “fled to avoid having to make the disclosures”. A vocal supporter of the Juliana action, Whitehouse believes the courts will hold industry accountable. “You have a judge and you have sanctions for not telling the truth, and that is a combination that for decades the fossil fuel industry has sought to avoid like Kryptonite.”
Other climate-related lawsuits have followed Juliana, which is set for trial in 2018. Last summer, three California coastal communities filed suit against 37 fossil-fuel companies, blaming their greenhouse-gas emissions for rising sea levels. In September, San Francisco and Oakland became the first major US cities to sue oil companies to cover past and future flood damage. In November, a Pennsylvania lawsuit alleged that the Trump administration is using “junk science” to roll back climate policies. A lawsuit pitting Portuguese schoolchildrenagainst 47 European countries for failing to act on climate is in the works.Criticizing the scienceAdvertisement
When Gregory Conko began organizing the October judges’ symposium at George Mason University, he wanted to ensure that participants left knowing science’s limitations. “Even good science cannot always answer the questions regulatory agencies ask,” he wrote to Louis “Tony” Cox, the risk analyst, in a May email obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a records request. “Even the best science is not capable of yielding normative judgments about whether something is necessarily good or bad, safe or dangerous, etc.”
Conko headed the Competitive Enterprise Institute – a libertarian thinktank known for fostering climate-change denial – before joining Mason’s Law & Economics Center last winter. Before Conko settled on Cox to lead the seminar, Nancy Beck, a former policy director for the American Chemistry Council who is now the EPA’s top official on toxic chemicals, was a candidate, emails show. So was Michael Gough, a toxicologist with ties to the tobacco industry and oil-backed climate-change denial groups. Conko declined requests for an interview.
Like Beck and Gough, Cox has championed narratives amenable to industry’s bottom line but not supported by mainstream science. In 2015, Cox said that “no detectable public health benefits” would result from a stricter EPA ozone limit. His testimony was cited in an op-ed by the API president, Jack Gerard, who ended the column with a warning: “Economic recovery is far from complete, and saddling the nation’s job creators with burdensome new restrictions threatens to deal another blow to the middle-class economy.”
What Gerard didn’t mention was Cox’s history with the institute, which spans decades. At the time the column was published, Cox was receiving funding from both the institute and the American Chemistry Council, which also represents petrochemical companies.
In an interview, Cox denied that industry funding influenced his findings. He criticized EPA science as flawed, saying it assumed links that hadn’t been proven. “I see a tremendous lack of clarity when agencies say there’s reason to believe X causes Y,” Cox said. “The proposition that the science is settled – ‘We don’t need to look at this’ – it’s a bad proposition.”
Cox holds a doctorate in electrical engineering and computer science and a master’s degree in operations research, which focuses on decision-making – both from MIT. Asked about his involvement in the George Mason symposium, Cox said: “Judges in particular should have a healthy skepticism, especially about claims of causality.”Advertisement
Fellow risk analyst and friend Adam Finkel counts Cox among an elite few who have the credentials for risk analysis, an amalgam of health sciences, economics, policy-making and statistics. But their views on what should or shouldn’t be regulated couldn’t be further apart.
A former director of health standards programs at the US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Finkel has spent his career trying to strengthen worker protections against toxic substances.
Finkel said it was “disappointing to me that someone as smart as [Cox] is” would take a different view, arguing the weight of evidence was not on Cox’s side. “He’s just lost his way,” Finkel said.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/17/big-oil-climate-change-lawsuits-environment
-
EPA to Kick Off Clean Power Plan Replacement Squabble
Dec 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The fate of the first-ever carbon limits for power plants will get clearer soon, as the EPA invites recommendations on how or whether to replace one of the Obama administration's signature environmental regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency's advance notice seeking comment on any possible replacement for the Clean Power Plan cleared White House interagency review Dec. 14, signaling its imminent release.
The EPA proposed Oct. 10 to repeal the Clean Power Plan, arguing the regulation exceeded the agency's authority by basing standards on measures beyond steps utilities could take to curb emissions at individual power plants.
The agency said then it hadn't determined whether it will replace the Obama-era rule but indicated it would seek comment on options that fit within the EPA's narrower interpretation of its Clean Air Act authority.
Many utility and industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have in recent months urged the EPA to craft a narrow replacement rule to lock in regulatory certainty.
Environmentalists and other Clean Power Plan supporters, however, argue any Trump EPA replacement would not achieve sufficient emissions reductions, and they have vowed to defend the Obama administration's rule.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125183580&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125183580&jd=125183580
-
Tax Bill Boosts Oil, Gas Drilling — and Renewable Energy
Dec 16, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Daly
The Republicans’ tax package would boost traditional forms of energy such as oil and gas while also supporting renewable energy such as wind and solar power — and even extend a hand to buyers of electric cars.
An agreement by House and Senate negotiators would open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, while preserving tax credits for wind power and other clean energy. The bill also would extend a tax credit of up to $7,500 for purchases of plug-in electric vehicles such as the Tesla Model 3 and Chevrolet Bolt.
Republicans rolled out the bill late Friday.
Opening the remote Arctic refuge to oil and gas drilling is a longtime Republican priority that most Democrats fiercely oppose. The 19.6-million-acre refuge in northeastern Alaska is one of the most pristine areas in the United States and is home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and other Republicans say drilling can be done safely with new technology, while ensuring a steady energy supply for West Coast refineries.
Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said opening the refuge to drilling is “the single-most important step we can take to strengthen our long-term energy security and create new wealth.”
The House and Senate are expected to vote on the $1.5 trillion tax legislation next week as GOP leaders push the most sweeping rewrite of the tax code in more than three decades.
The bill preserves a phase-out of tax incentives for both the solar and wind industries passed in 2015. Tax credits for wind are set to expire in 2020, and solar credits in 2022.
The wind-energy credits are popular with some Republicans, including Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who worked to defend them after they were curtailed in a version passed by the House.
Electric cars comprise just about 1 percent of sales nationwide, but several states have mandates that such “zero emission vehicles” make up a much larger portion of vehicle sales. Manufacturers worry that eliminating the tax credit would have made those targets virtually impossible to meet.
The Arctic refuge has been the focus of a political fight for nearly four decades. Former President Bill Clinton vetoed a GOP plan to allow drilling in the refuge in 1995, and Democrats led by Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell defeated a similar plan in 2005.
Most congressional Republicans support the drilling plan, including veteran Alaska Rep. Don Young, one of the plan’s negotiators. Young called drilling “crucially important to the nation” and said it would decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and create jobs for Alaskans.
Democrats and environmental groups say the GOP plan risks spoiling one of the nation’s most pristine areas and is especially unwise at a time when U.S. oil production is booming, with imports declining and exports reaching record levels.
Lawmakers “do not need to ruin a wildlife refuge and an ecosystem that is intact just to give tax breaks to big corporations,” Cantwell said. “We can do better than this.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/aae0662c-e239-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_story.html?utm_term=.3d828962e131
-
Energy Department Reorganizes, Moving Energy, Science Offices
Dec 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department is making broad changes with a reorganization that shuffles offices under two new undersecretaries—one for energy and one for science—in what agency leadership calls an effort to improve efficiency.
“We are aligning the agency's organization to its statutory requirement and its mission,” Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg Environment in an exclusive interview.“This president and secretary have made it very clear that we will pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy that is, in fact, the historical mission of the department,” Brouillette said. DOE staff was told about the reorganization in a meeting the morning of Dec. 15, and it went into effect that day.
Brouillette said no employees will be laid off in this reorganization.
The reorganization involves moving offices from the previous “Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy” into two separate offices: the “Office of the Under Secretary of Energy” and “Office of the Under Secretary for Science.”
Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz created the combined office in 2013, under the leadership of former Undersecretary for Science and Energy Lynn Orr.
The department returns to the structure it had during the tenure of Steven Chu, the first energy secretary in the Obama administration, with three undersecretaries. Mark Menezes is the undersecretary for energy (the No. 3) and Paul Dabbar is the undersecretary for science (the No. 4). They were sworn into their positions in early November.
Frank Klotz, an Obama holdover, remains in his role as undersecretary for nuclear security overseeing the National Nuclear Security Administration (the No. 5).
“We will remove some of the administrative functions from the under secretaries, who are charged with execution of primary missions within the department. To the extent we can increase efficiency by moving these functions to the deputy secretary, it allows people to focus on the jobs they were hired to do,” Brouillette said.
Brouillette said he wanted to return the agency to the structure that was laid out in the Department of Energy Organization Act that was signed into law in 1977 and defines the responsibilities for the department.New Offices of Energy, Science
The Office of the Under Secretary for Energy will retain its applied science programs—the offices of Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability—as well as the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. All of these were previously under the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy.
Additions include the Loan Programs Office and the Office of Policy, which used to be called Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.
The Trump administration's fiscal 2018 budget request originally proposed cutting the Office of Energy Policy and Systems, which had changed names under Moniz. It grew dramatically in size and budget and was responsible for issuing the quadrennial energy reviews providing policy recommendations to improve the electric grid and energy infrastructure.
An official at the Energy Department's National Treasury Employees Union, which represents DOE employees, said keeping the office intact was a good sign.
“It's very positive that the Energy Policy and Systems Analysis Office, that had been endangered eight months ago, is being firmly established as an important office in the organization under the new under secretary,” the union official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he had not received permission from his superiors to speak publicly, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Energy replaces the Office of Under Secretary for Management and Performance. Administrative functions of the management and performance office, including human relations and hearings and appeals, have moved under the leadership of Brouillette, the No. 2 at the agency under Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Under Secretary for Science will oversee the Office of Science and the department's national laboratories. It also will oversee the offices responsible for nuclear weapons cleanup, the offices of Environmental Management and Legacy Management, which were moved from the previous Office of Under Secretary for Management and Performance.Separating Applied, Basic Science Offices
Orr, the former undersecretary for science and energy under Moniz, raised some concerns about separating the basic fundamental science programs from the applied energy science programs.
“The fact that they have separated it that way, that doesn't prevent coordination across the programs. It just [requires] more effort,” he told Bloomberg Environment. “This separation of applied and fundamental, I don't think it's very helpful because virtually every improvement, for example in energy efficiency, is based on some material science some of which has pretty fundamental aspects to it.”
Additionally, Robert Cowin, the director of government affairs for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate & Energy Program, called the changes a step back for research at the Energy Department.
“The whole idea of the national labs is to take science at every level of research and develop applications of that science,” Cowin told Bloomberg Environment. “When you separate basic from applied you won't have as much of an impact on research on new technologies and achieve new breakthroughs. It is fundamentally an error.”
Moniz's office at the Energy Futures Initiative, where he is a principal, declined to comment. Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's top Democrat, also declined to comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125183574&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125183574&jd=125183574
-
Dec 17, 2017 | Business Insider
By Jeremy Berke
The world's largest oil-and-gas companies are going green. At least that's what they're saying.
Companies like Exxon Mobil — which counts Secretary of State Rex Tillerson among its former CEOs — and Shell have pledged to reduce their emissions, and have publicly adopted plans to disclose risks climate change poses to their core businesses.
After bowing to shareholder pressure, Exxon said in an SEC filing earlier this month that it would report the "impacts" that climate change and environmental policies have on the company. The disclosure would include implications of the 2 degrees Celsius warming limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, as well as how the company is positioning its business for a "lower-carbon future."
Shell, one of Exxon's largest competitors, is taking its climate commitment a step further. The oil-and-gas conglomerate announced earlier this month a pledge to reduce its net carbon emissions 20% by 2035, and 50% by 2050.A new direction for Exxon?
A whopping 63% of the Exxon's shareholders supported the proposal for the company to disclose how climate change will affect its business, though Exxon initially rejected the proposal in May.
Vanguard, the world's largest provider of mutual funds, is one the largest shareholders in Exxon. In November, Vanguard announced that it would push companies it holds shares in to disclose climate risks.
But some in the climate community are still skeptical that the shift will be meaningful.
"ExxonMobil’s filing shows that the company can’t stem the tide of investor demand for disclosures of companies’ plans to meet 2 degrees Celsius scenarios—but the devil is in the details," Kathy Mulvey, a spokesperson for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.
"ExxonMobil is still investing aggressively in developing future reserves under the assumption that economies worldwide will continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels," she added.
The New York state attorney's office is investigating Exxon for deliberately misleading its investors about the risks climate change poses to the business, according to Reuters. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a court filing that the company had made "potential materially false and misleading statements" about how greenhouse gases factor into the company's profit-and-loss calculations for new projects.Shell and BP are stepping up their renewable energy commitments
Shell has said it will accomplish its promised emissions reductions with a multi-pronged strategy. First, according to the company's recent announcement, will be an increased effort to provide lower-carbon fuels like biofuels to customers. Second, the company will seek to ramp up its investments in renewable energy like solar and wind. And third, the company is developing carbon capture and storage systems to remove the carbon dioxide and methane it emits from the atmosphere.
Shell shareholders initially rejected a proposal to set and publish annual targets for reducing emissions. But the company eventually adopted some of the suggestions shareholders had included in that proposal anyway. (Vanguard is one of the largest shareholders of Shell as well as Exxon.)
Shell plans to revise its targets every five years. But the company noted in its announcement that these aren't binding resolutions — they're just goals.
Energy giant BP is taking similar steps — it has announced a $200 million investment into Lightsource, one of Europe's largest solar companies, according to Axios' Amy Harder.While that's a tiny portion of the company's overall profits, it's a sign that it's positioning itself to ramp up investments on the renewable side.
In November, BP, Shell, Exxon,and a number of other oil and gas companies pledged to reduce methane emissions from natural gas production, according to The Wall Street Journal. The companies have touted natural gas as an effective solution to meeting consumers' energy demands while still reducing emissions from dirtier sources like coal.
But that may not be enough — the World Bank announced at the One Planet Summit in Paris, hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron on the second anniversary of the signing of the Paris agreement, that it would halt financing for new oil-and-gas projects by 2019 in response to the threats posed by climate change.
The World Bank stopped financing coal projects in 2010.
All this comes at a critical time. A recent study in the journal Nature predicts that global warming by the year 2100 could be up to 15% higher than the highest projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://www.businessinsider.com/exxon-shell-bp-announce-renewable-energy-and-climate-initiatives-2017-12
-
U.S. Chemical Safety Board Sued for Not Creating Emissions Reporting Rule
Dec 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Several nonprofit organizations sued the U.S. Chemical Safety Board earlier this month for failing to establish a national reporting system to collect data on air pollution emissions from accidents by U.S. companies. The CSB reporting system is required by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which created the board.
CSB is an independent federal agency responsible for investigating industrial, chemically related accidents and determining their root cause. Several hundred accidents annually meet the criteria for CSB investigations—a fatality among workers or the public, serious injuries, or substantial property damage—although the agency only has the resources to investigate a few.
CSB has in the past recognized the importance of the reporting requirement and proposed a regulation in 2009. In that proposal, the board identified a host of improvements that would come from the regulation. It noted, for instance, that timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of chemical incident reports would be improved. Also, required reporting would better help the agency assess issues and trends and further the cause of accident prevention, the proposal said.
But CSB dropped the proposal due to a combination of implementation costs, lack of funding, and industry opposition to new reporting requirements, according to sources familiar with the proposal.
The arguments in the lawsuit pushing for the reporting regulation largely echo those that CSB identified in its proposal. CSB currently tracks incidents using media reports in combination with data collected by the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center and a mix of other sources of accident information.
Adam Carlesco, a lawyer with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is leading the litigation, compares that current system to a “news clipping service” and calls it an inadequate safeguard for the health of communities, workers, and first responders.
CSB did not respond to questions. Aside from the suit, the agency has been hammered for more than a decade by reports from the Government Accountability Office and the EPA Office of Inspector General for its failure to comply with the Air Act’s accident reporting provisions.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i49/US-Chemical-Safety-Board-sued.html
-
New York Mayor, NY Attorney General to Hold ‘People’s Hearing’ on Climate Rule Repeal
Dec 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
New York City’s mayor and the state’s attorney general are planning a hearing of their own on the Trump administration’s plan to repeal former President Obama’s climate change rule for power plants.
Mayor Bill de Blasio and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both Democrats, announced their plan Friday for a “people’s hearing," complaining that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rebuffed their calls for a formal hearing on the matter in New York.
“New Yorkers are on the front lines of climate change, as tragically demonstrated by Hurricanes Sandy and Irene,” Schneiderman said in a statement.
“The country’s reliance on dirty, non-renewable fossil fuels for power generation is a major contributor of climate change pollution and its impacts on the lives and livelihoods of New York’s residents, including more frequent and intense storms, rising sea levels, higher temperatures, and increased air pollution. The Clean Power Plan is a vital tool to slash greenhouse gas emissions from one of the leading causes of climate change pollution, fossil-fuel burning power plants.”
De Blasio and Schneiderman have been among the country’s most outspoken opponents of Trump’s environmental agenda. Schneiderman has promised to sue the EPA when it repeals the Clean Power Plan, and has already sued Trump numerous times for regulatory rollbacks.
The EPA was obligated to hold at least one hearing on the Clean Power Plan repeal, which it did in Charleston, W.Va., last month.
The agency is also planning “listening sessions” in the coming months in San Francisco, Kansas City, Mo., and Gillette, Wyo. Additional hearings would require the EPA to extend the public comment period, but listening sessions do not.
The New York City “people’s hearing” is scheduled for Jan. 9 at The New School’s lower Manhattan building.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/365176-new-york-city-mayor-state-ag-to-hold-peoples-hearing-on-climate
-
California Adopts Landmark Regulatory Plan To Meet 2030 GHG Target
Dec 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California air regulators have adopted a landmark, multi-faceted regulatory plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the state's 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels, marking another milestone in the Golden State's ongoing effort to lead the nation in fighting climate change.
“At a time when science shows us that climate change is happening faster than anticipated, California is responding with a bold plan that rises to meet this global challenge,” California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chairwoman Mary Nichols said in a Dec. 14 press release. “It builds on proven actions and presents a template for other jurisdictions who are also committed to preventing the worst impacts of a warming planet.”
CARB approved its 2017 GHG regulatory “scoping plan” and an accompanying resolution that provides additional direction from the board to staff to carry out tasks on several elements of the strategy, after issuing a revised plan in October that responded to several new state laws enacted in September.
In addition to reaching the 2030 GHG target, the scoping plan aims to lay the foundation for policies and programs to help California achieve its 2050 target of 80 percent below 1990 levels, outlining strategies to reduce emissions from energy, transportation, industrial processes, water management, waste management, agriculture and "natural and working lands."
Major sections of the plan -- almost all of which are already on the books or required by recent laws -- include: extending and tightening the cap-and-trade program to 2030; encouraging the sale of millions of zero-emission vehicles; deploying zero-emission trucks and shifting to a cleaner system of handling freight; increasing renewable energy to 50 percent of total consumption by 2030; cutting potent GHGs such as methane; extending and tightening the low-carbon fuel standard to 2030; requiring local communities to tighten plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled through land-use and transportation planning changes; and implementing programs to cut emissions from agriculture, forests and other natural lands.
CARB says that fully implementing all the strategies in the scoping plan could save the state as much as $11 billion in avoided environmental damage from carbon pollution in 2030. The programs will also improve public health while reducing costs associated with health care and natural disasters, according to the board. These include a projected 3,300 fewer premature deaths by 2030. The financial benefit from reduced sick days and hospital stays will be more than $1.2 billion in 2030, CARB claims.
One of most significant changes to the scoping plan from a January version is that CARB relies much more on cap-and-trade to achieve the 2030 GHG target -- in part because one new law, AB 398, required staff to delete a prior measure to reduce GHGs from refineries. That measure was expected to reduce 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MMTCO2e) emissions by 2030.
The adopted plan estimates that by 2030 the cap-and-trade program will have to reduce 294 MMTCO2e. This contrasts with the January draft, which estimated that the program would be responsible for lowering GHGs by 191 MMTCO2e.
'Concerns and Problems'
Environmental justice advocates and some university researchers at the Dec. 14 CARB meeting reiterated previous criticism of the plan's heavy reliance on cap-and-trade, and its failure to include more directives to adopt new or tightened regulations that directly require industrial facilities to reduce on-site emissions and protect vulnerable communities.
“There are questions, including from the Legislature, about how you are meeting . . . the 2030 targets, with the concerns and the problems that have been raised around over-allocation of allowances, the banking of allowances, the low prices happening right now, the offsets that are out of state,” testified Mari Rose Taruc, chair of CARB's Environmental Justice Advisory Committee.
“And so, we want to see modeling of the cap-and-trade program,” she added. “Folks in the Legislature have also been talking about this, and we want to raise that as an environmental justice concern that we want to see -- how exactly you're going to meet the 2030 targets with these issues that are raised.”
Roger Lin, a senior attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, argued that CARB is ignoring the requirements of a 2016 law, AB 197, by not including in the scoping plan a prioritized strategy for implementing new regulations requiring direct conventional pollution cuts at industrial facilities.
“Recall that AB 197 is a clear mandate -- a clear mandate that has not been repealed by any more recent legislation,” Lin said. By adopting AB 197, “the Legislature was clear: because of the problems with cap-and-trade, offsets off-site or creating hot spots, we need something to eliminate that local problem that's not controlled by a market system. This climate gap is well documented and it shows clear, significant public health risks near large industrial facilities.”
Meanwhile, CARB's resolution provides additional information and direction to its staff on the natural and working lands portion of the strategy. For example, the resolution notes that the board is adopting a goal of “sequestering and avoiding” at least 15-20 MMTCO2e by 2030 in the natural and working lands sector.
CARB and other agencies should revisit this goal in the coming months to determine, by Sept. 30, whether it should be adjusted “in light of ongoing analyses to estimate the GHG mitigation potential of this sector,” the resolution says.
In addition, CARB and the other agencies should complete a full climate change implementation plan for this sector by Nov. 30, the resolution says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-adopts-landmark-regulatory-plan-meet-2030-ghg-target
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested