Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/9/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Robust Demand Should Continue In 2018
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Persistent growth in the U.S., continued economic expansion in Asia, and a renewal of demand in Europe all bode well for specialty chemical output in 2018, according to the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentions) Slow And Steady Economic Growth Ahead
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
The engines of the U.S. economy are stoked to hum, if not roar, in 2018. Unemployment is low, consumer and business confidence is up, and corporations can look forward to lower tax rates. But recent years’ economic growth has not triggered a spike in U.S. chemical output, and it’s not clear that will change this year. -
Trump Renominates Candidates for Environmental, Safety Posts
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rob Tricchinelli and Dean Scott
President Donald Trump Jan. 8 renominated Kathleen Hartnett White to serve as White House Council on Environmental Quality director and Andrew Wheeler to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Democrats Introduce Bill Demanding A Swift Ban On Asbestos In US
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Eight Democrat senators have introduced legislation to ban asbestos and, they say, "protect human health". -
Evidence Still Matters in First Circuit
Jan 9, 2018 | Lexology
By Jack Nolan
... The contractor, a non-defendant, used caulk containing PCBs when building the school in 1969. Monsanto did not make the caulk at issue, but it sold plasticizers—a component of caulk—to the third-party manufacturer who did. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Toxic Chemical Whack-a-Mole Game
Jan 9, 2018 | FairWarning
By Lynne Peeples
When her black cat rapidly dropped from a healthy 14 pounds to a skeletal five pounds, it was natural for Arlene Blum to investigate whether a toxic chemical in her home might be to blame. -
Floored by Fluorochemicals: EPA Lags Labs in Testing Protocols
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Karla Buechler's laboratory in Sacramento, Calif., tests baby bottles, car upholstery, and food wrappers for fluorochemicals that have contaminated drinking water supplies across the U.S. -
UK Microbeads Ban Enters Into Force
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A ban on the manufacture of cosmetics and personal care products containing plastic microbeads comes into effect in the UK today. -
Delaware River Commission Extends Comment Period on Proposed Fracturing Rules
Jan 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis J
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) on Monday added two hearings and extended the comment period on proposed regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing activities, giving the public another month to weigh in. -
High Court Will Not Review Air Pollution Controls Definition
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The Supreme Court announced Jan. 8 it will not take up Arizona's petition to review what the state calls a contradiction over how “contingency measures” to curb air pollution are legally characterized. -
Six New Areas Exceed Sulfur Air Pollution Standards, EPA Says
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Six new areas exceed federal air pollution standards for sulfur dioxide, the Environmental Protection Agency said. -
EPA Inaction on Climate Finding Prompts Conservative Unrest
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Conservative opponents to climate regulation aren't ruling out legal action to force EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's hand amid silence on whether he'll target the agency's greenhouse gas endangerment finding. -
EPA Publication Of SO2 NAAQS Designations Starts Lawsuit Clock
Jan 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Jan. 9 Federal Register its third round of designations for which areas are either attaining or in nonattainment with the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour, starting a Clean Air Act 60-day clock for filing suits over the findings. -
Agency Reassigns Clean Power Plan Author
Jan 8, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A leading U.S. EPA Clean Air Act lawyer has been reassigned to work on "special projects," according to a notice sent to agency staff last week. -
EPA Says Still Mulling Ozone Rewrite As Implementation Progresses
Jan 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today told a federal court that its review of the 2015 ozone standard is ongoing, but it did not provide any details on when that process might conclude, even as the agency takes steps with states toward implementing the rule. -
Groups Press Lawmakers On Trump Security Strategy
Jan 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Two key players from the national security and environmental worlds are pressing lawmakers to send a message to the Trump administration on climate policy at the Department of Defense.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Robust Demand Should Continue In 2018
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Persistent growth in the U.S., continued economic expansion in Asia, and a renewal of demand in Europe all bode well for specialty chemical output in 2018, according to the American Chemistry Council. The trade association projects a 3.0% global production rise in 2018 after a 2.5% increase in 2017.
Ever optimistic, ACC had expected output to jump 3.3% in 2017. But despite an overall pickup in the global economy, some industries that depend on specialty chemicals, such as oil and gas drilling, were weak, ACC says. Industry observers say the elements are in place for a better 2018.
Ray Will, a director at the consulting firm IHS Markit, discerns a number of trends likely to increase demand for specialty chemicals. Among them are a shift to electric vehicles and a move away from the use of fluorochemical coolants in home refrigerators.
China, Will says, plans to establish a system of quotas that will require electric vehicles to make up at least 10% of automakers’ output beginning in 2019 and increasing annually thereafter. The move is likely to bolster demand for battery materials as well as the electrolyte solutions that shuttle a charge between a battery’s anode and cathode.
Chemical makers could be in for a sweet ride if electric vehicles catch on in the U.S., points out credit rating agency Fitch Ratings. While Fitch sets the value of chemicals in a conventional vehicle at $3,000, it estimates the value of chemicals used in electric vehicles at $10,000, mostly related to batteries.
In the world of refrigeration, manufacturers are seeking coolants with low global warming potential. Rather than shift to hydrofluoroolefin refrigerants, many makers of home refrigerators, especially in Europe and Japan, are shifting to hydrocarbon refrigerants, Will says. The hydrofluoroolefins, developed for use in auto air-conditioning, are significantly more expensive, he notes.
The paints and coatings sector should benefit from an uptick in the economy, especially in the U.S., where tax reform will boost capital spending, predicts Phil Phillips, president of Chemark Consulting Group. New machinery and equipment, he says, require a significant amount of paint. Phillips expects paint production to rise about 3.5% in 2018.
Adhesives will grow at a similar rate, Phillips says, singling out a projected increase in demand for urethane adhesives to assemble and seal automobile body components.
Consumer demand for personal care chemicals continues to rise, according to the consulting firm Kline & Co. Trends in the $1.6 billion-per-year specialty ingredients market include growing demand for blue filters said to protect skin from computer screen emissions and cosmetics formulated to protect skin from air pollutants, says Kunal Mahajan, a chemicals project manager with Kline.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i2/world-chemical-outlook-for-2018.html#US
-
(ACC Mentions) Slow And Steady Economic Growth Ahead
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
The engines of the U.S. economy are stoked to hum, if not roar, in 2018. Unemployment is low, consumer and business confidence is up, and corporations can look forward to lower tax rates. But recent years’ economic growth has not triggered a spike in U.S. chemical output, and it’s not clear that will change this year.
In 2017, the U.S. gross domestic product grew by 2.3%, but chemical output rose only 0.8%, much lower than the 3.8% predicted by the American Chemistry Council, the main U.S. chemical trade group. ACC now says 2018 will be the growth year, with output expanding 3.7%.
A recent spate of capacity investment by U.S. industrial companies is good news for the chemical makers that supply them with raw materials. Overall, industrial firms increased capital spending by 8.7% in 2017 and will boost it an additional 2.7% this year, according to the Institute for Supply Management. ACC expects U.S. chemical companies to raise their capital spending 6.9% in 2018.
Another bright spot is home building. The strong jobs market and tight housing inventory caused a key index of builder confidence to jump in December. New construction permits soared by more than 15% compared with the end of 2016, according to Census Bureau data. ACC estimates that each new home requires about $15,000 worth of chemicals.
Auto manufacturing, in contrast, is not expected to add to demand for chemicals overall, though some specialties may see a lift. Sales last year were down from a peak of 17.5 million vehicles in 2016, and they are expected to remain flat.
Other chemical industry customers that ACC expects to grow this year include electronics, appliances, and aircraft parts. The oil and gas sector is expected to improve as oil reaches $55 per barrel. The downside is that chemical firms will see raw material and energy costs increase.
Overall, the global economy will expand by 3.8% in 2018 a bit faster than the expected U.S. rate of 2.6%, according to Deutsche Bank. Rising international demand will benefit U.S. chemical companies, which have a competitive advantage from low-cost shale gas. “With synchronous economic growth around the world, the global appetite for U.S. exports has increased,” says ACC economist T. Kevin Swift.
The capacity additions built to take advantage of the shale boom will continue to come on-line, and ACC expects the largest gains to happen this year and next. “In addition, a second wave of investment is on the way,” Swift says. “Much of the new production will be exported to customers around the world.”
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i2/world-chemical-outlook-for-2018.html#Specialty-chemicals
-
Trump Renominates Candidates for Environmental, Safety Posts
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rob Tricchinelli and Dean Scott
President Donald Trump Jan. 8 renominated Kathleen Hartnett White to serve as White House Council on Environmental Quality director and Andrew Wheeler to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The pair of nominees weren't automatically held over from 2017 after Senate Democrats objected to a procedural move to preserve nominees’ active status into 2018.
Dozens of nominees weren't held over, forcing the White House to renominate them.
The top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who essentially led efforts to derail White, expressed dismay when told of her renomination, which sets up a bitter confirmation battle for 2018.
“No, you're kidding. That's very disappointing,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) told Bloomberg Environment. “I was hopeful that we could look for some common ground and consensus on nominees—and this is not the best start to the new year.”
Other Nominees
On Jan. 8, Trump also renominated Scott Mugno to be head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Steven Gardner to lead the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and a pair of Interior Department nominees: assistant secretary pick Susan Combs and solicitor nominee Ryan Nelson.
Earlier in the day, the former Department of Energy general counsel nominee David Jonas, who also wasn't held over, withdrew from consideration.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126610152&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126610152&jd=126610152
-
Democrats Introduce Bill Demanding A Swift Ban On Asbestos In US
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Eight Democrat senators have introduced legislation to ban asbestos and, they say, "protect human health".
The proposed ban, named after Alan Reinstein, who died from mesothelioma in 2006, would:require the EPA to identify and assess all known exposures to asbestos;restrict its use, to eliminate human or environmental exposure within 18 months; andban the manufacturing, processing, use and distribution of commercial asbestos within a year.
"Delays in banning asbestos mean as many as 15,000 Americans die each year," says Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), one of the bill's co-sponsors. "Despite knowing the health risks for decades, it is still used in a wide variety of construction materials that the public unwittingly comes in contact with every day."
However, it is unlikely the legislation will advance in the Republican-controlled Congress.
The EPA is currently evaluating asbestos as one of the first ten chemicals subject to review under the new TSCA. Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said in December that the agency may reconsider its decision to exclude "legacy installed" building materials from its risk evaluation.
The EPA's interpretation of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments is that risk assessment should focus on "current and prospective uses". The framework rules and scoping documents for the first ten review substances, generally exclude "legacy uses" of chemicals from consideration. Instead they focus on current and prospective applications.
In comments on the scoping documents, asbestos abatement professionals argue "the most prevalent source of asbestos exposure to the general public in the US" is from existing, deteriorating building materials containing the substance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62942/democrats-introduce-bill-demanding-a-swift-ban-on-asbestos-in-us
-
Evidence Still Matters in First Circuit
Jan 9, 2018 | Lexology
By Jack Nolan
Late last year the First Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment for defendants in a product liability case brought by the Town of Westport, Massachusetts. See Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., 2017 WL 6205273 (1st Cir. Dec. 8, 2017). Westport sued Monsanto Company, Solutia, Inc., and Pharmacia Corporation to recover remediation costs after polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—chemicals that are hazardous above certain concentrations—were found in the town’s middle school.
The contractor, a non-defendant, used caulk containing PCBs when building the school in 1969. Monsanto did not make the caulk at issue, but it sold plasticizers—a component of caulk—to the third-party manufacturer who did. Westport alleged that the defendants were liable for property damage caused by the PCB contamination at the school.
The district court entered summary judgement against Westport on all counts of alleged liability. On appeal, Westport challenged only the district court’s rulings regarding (i) breach of warranty and (ii) negligent marketing.
Background
Monsanto began to manufacture and sell PCB mixtures, called Aroclors, in 1935. Aroclors were a popular plasticizer—an additive used in building materials to increase fluidity—because they were viscous, thermally stable, and non-flammable. By August of 1970, however, Monsanto pulled its PCB-containing plasticizers from the market because of their environmental impact.
Beginning in 1937, Monsanto warned customers that experimental animal studies showed that prolonged exposure to Aroclor vapors at high temperatures or by repeated oral ingestion would lead to “systemic toxic effects.” And in the 1950s, following paint studies analyzing the volatilization, or evaporation, of PCB at room temperatures, Monsanto recommended discontinuing the sale of Aroclors for use in the manufacture of all paints. By August of 1970, Monsanto explicitly advised against using Aroclors in certain paints and swimming pool sealants. But no study has ever established that PCBs volatilize from caulk at levels harmful to human health.
Six years later, Congress prohibited the manufacture and distribution of PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement specific regulations regarding PCB use and its removal. When Westport Middle School was built in 1969, however, Congress had not yet passed the TSCA, the EPA did not exist, and Aroclors were still on the market. In 2010, Westport embarked on a multi-million dollar remediation project to remove PCBs from the school’s window glazing, exterior window caulking, and interior door caulking.
In 2014, Westport brought seven counts of tort liability against the defendants; four were dismissed. The defendants won summary judgment on the remaining three, and Westport appealed as to two of them: breach of implied warranty of merchantability for failure to warn and negligence.
The Decision
Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, the First Circuit affirmed the entry of summary judgment. Westport had failed to raise a genuine dispute as to the merits of either claim.
To establish a breach of the implied warranty under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its ordinary purpose at the time it left the supplier’s hands. And a product can be unreasonably dangerous if a supplier fails to warn of the products foreseeable risks.
First, because remediation is unnecessary unless the PCB contamination in a building poses an actual health risk—otherwise there’d be no property damage—Westport had to prove that Monsanto should have reasonably known, in 1969, that there was a risk PCBs would volatilize out of caulk at levels harmful to human health. But it failed to do so because, to date, no scientific literature has shown that PCBs evaporate from caulk at harmful concentrations when inhaled. In other words, Monsanto could not have known in 1969 what is not yet known today. Moreover, according to the First Circuit, it does not follow that because PCBs were known to volatilize from paints and resins at elevated levels in 1969, it should have been reasonably foreseeable then that there was a risk they would volatilize from caulk at harmful levels. Even Westport’s expert admitted that there was no support for extrapolating volatilization rates from one product to another.
Second, the district court had already entered summary judgment against Westport’s claim regarding design defects. And, in applying Massachusetts law, no court has ever explicitly held that a negligent marketing claim can be maintained independent of a design defect claim. The closest the Commonwealth’s courts have come is stating that liability might attach if the product was directly marketed to children. But Aroclors, i.e., additives in building materials, are clearly not marketed in a manner to “induce direct purchases by children.” So, the First Circuit declined to make this case the first instance in which a negligent marketing claim was allowed to proceed absent a valid claim for defective design.
Conclusion
Sometimes the evidence (or lack thereof) can be your best friend. While the industry and Congress have come to understand that PCBs may pose risks under certain circumstances, no study has ever demonstrated that PCBs volatilize from caulk at levels that are harmful for human consumption. There’s just no there, there.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d490d7a-b028-4694-8167-6fc031123283
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Toxic Chemical Whack-a-Mole Game
Jan 9, 2018 | FairWarning
By Lynne Peeples
When her black cat rapidly dropped from a healthy 14 pounds to a skeletal five pounds, it was natural for Arlene Blum to investigate whether a toxic chemical in her home might be to blame. The veterinarian’s diagnosis raised that possibility, and Blum had expertise in the harm that chemicals can cause. Her research as a chemist in the 1970s helped reveal the possible health hazards posed by flame retardants used in children’s sleepwear.
What surprised Blum, executive director of the nonprofit Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, Calif., was the chemical she discovered in Midnight’s blood, in the foam of her couch and in dust throughout her house. It was a substance only slightly different than the one that, decades earlier, she encountered in kids’ pajamas, leading to a federal ban on the compound for that sort of use.
While Blum can’t know for certain if flame retardant particles from the couch made her cat sick, the experience inspired her to take a fresh look at the problem of potentially hazardous chemicals in consumer products. She is among a growing number of scientists, advocates, parents and public officials who urge a fundamental shift in how society restricts toxic chemicals — moving away from a one-at-a-time whack-a-mole game to instead targeting whole classes of chemicals. The aim is to end the longstanding pattern of manufacturers simply swapping one toxic substance for another once a chemical, after years of research and advocacy, is phased out or banned.
This cycle has played out in a host of American household items. A popular chemical used in cash register receipts and to harden plastics in sippy cups and water bottles — bisphenol A, also known as BPA — has been widely replaced with a chemical cousin, bisphenol S. Studies now suggest BPS may be at least as harmful as BPA. Likewise, new phthalates — members of a chemical family used to make plastics softer and more flexible in food storage containers and children’s toys — have replaced earlier versions, but haven’t eliminated concerns about potential hazards. And then there are the flame retardants. For years, furniture makers added polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, to products to fend off flames. When scientists deemed those toxic, the industry switched to substances such as Tris, the same chemical prohibited in children’s pajamas.
Blum’s institute and other advocacy groups, including the Consumer Federation of America and Earthjustice, are cautiously encouraged about a pair of moves by federal officials this fall possibly signaling that the class approach to regulation is catching on. Tris, PBDEs and related fire retardants belong to a class called organohalogens. In September, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted 3-to-2 to take steps toward banning this chemical group in certain consumer products. Scientists testifying before the commission underscored links between organohalogens and brain damage, immune disorders, reproductive problems and cancer.
In a separate 3-to-2 vote in October, the CPSC banned five types of phthalates from childcare products and toys – including items such as rubber ducks — based on evidence that they can interfere with hormone production and alter the development of the male reproductive system.
The American Chemistry Council, the industry’s leading trade group, criticized the commission’s decisions. “Rather than issuing blanket hazard statements about groups of chemicals – some of which can play an important and at times lifesaving role – we should evaluate these chemicals based on their individual toxicological profiles and real-world exposures,” said Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the council.
But Robert Adler, a Democratic member of the CPSC, dismissed that idea during a meeting of the commission just before the vote on organohalogens. “There are simply too many of these chemicals in the market and entering the market to regulate them one-by-one,” he said. “We’re playing whack-a-mole with the public and our children’s health.”
Based on “the unanimous testimony” by government and academic scientists, Adler said, “I have concluded that we must not sit idly by and wait for data on the safety of OFRs [organohalogen flame retardants] that all evidence to date suggests will never come. As one of the witnesses at our hearing pointed out, if we took the tobacco industry’s word on cigarette safety, we would still be waiting.”
Commissioner Marietta Robinson, another Democratic appointee who voted in favor of both rulings, warned that the path to new regulatory approaches still faces resistance. Under the Trump administration, the commission will soon shift from a Democratic majority to a Republican one that could halt the momentum toward banning problematic classes of chemicals. Robinson’s term, in fact, ran out in October. Any day she could be replaced by Trump nominee Dana Baiocco, currently a partner at the law firm Jones Day, where she helped defend tobacco giant RJ Reynolds and other clients confronted by lawsuits over toxic chemical exposures.
Rachel Weintraub, legislative director and general counsel for the Consumer Federation of America, noted that Congress could block the phthalate ban from going into effect, as scheduled, on April 25. Still, Weintraub said she is optimistic that the CPSC decisions will influence consumers, manufacturers and states to steer away from these chemicals, regardless of the final outcomes. “For the first time this class concept has been codified,” Weintraub said.
She also pointed to a guidance document issued by the CPSC as a result of the vote on organohalogens. In the document, the commission urges manufacturers to voluntarily stop adding the chemicals to upholstered furniture, baby and toddler products, mattresses and electronics enclosures. It also encourages retailers and consumers to ask before they buy a product whether it contains any of the chemical additives.
Difficult climbs
Beyond her science career, Blum has made history leading all-women’s expeditions up Denali in Alaska as well as Annapurna in Nepal, one of the world’s most dangerous and difficult climbs. “But the hardest thing I’ve ever done is take on the toxic chemical problem,” Blum told me as we descended from a sunset hike in the hills overlooking Berkeley.
“We make progress with healthier furniture and children’s products,” added Blum, “but the overall use of harmful chemicals in products continues to increase.”
It was Halloween night. As Blum and I drove to her home, Star Wars villains, superheroes and princesses roamed the streets. We were greeted in the driveway by meows from Molly, her new black cat. Inside, an orange flame retardant-free couch was flanked by stacks of science books and, somewhere, a stash of Halloween candy that Blum tried to find before the trick-or-treaters began knocking on her door.
A letter to the editor had appeared in multiple U.S. newspapers earlier that week warning that “children are guaranteed to run around open flames while clad in dinosaur tails and oversized skirts.” The author was Dr. Joseph Perrone, chief science officer for the Center for Accountability in Science, which has defended industry, including tobacco and chemical companies, and does not disclose its donors. “The use of flame retardants has received relentless criticism,” wrote Perrone. “It’s important to remember that manufacturers don’t introduce chemicals haphazardly. Compounds like flame retardants were carefully developed and tested because society needed them.”
Goodman, of the American Chemistry Council, echoed the endorsement of flame retardants, calling them an “important tool” to help products meet fire safety standards. “That is why it is so disheartening,” he added, “that the discussion has lacked almost any consideration of fire safety.”
Many scientists agree that flame retardants, in certain cases, can save lives by slowing the spread of flames. A growing body of evidence, however, highlights the potential health hazards also posed by the chemicals, as well as casts doubt on some of the chemicals’ true fire-deterring value — at least as they are commonly used.
“A lot of these fire retardants don’t work at the concentrations they are added to products,” explained Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The only thing these chemicals then do, she added, is “generate all kinds of really nasty compounds” when they burn.
Taking a page from tobacco
David Michaels, a professor of environmental and occupational health at The George Washington University, said, “It appears that the American Chemistry Council is again taking a page from the tobacco industry’s playbook and using the lack of complete data to manufacture uncertainty and delay public health protections.”
The tobacco industry played a role in the initial push to inject furniture with flame retardants — part of its response to society’s growing focus on cigarettes as a cause of fire deaths and increasing pressure on the industry to produce a fire-safe cigarette. Chemical companies then continued the push to preserve their market, as uncovered by a 2012 Chicago Tribune investigation. The well-funded campaign included paid experts and lobbyists, including a now-defunct group called Citizens for Fire Safety that described itself as a “coalition” of fire professionals, educators, community activists, burn centers, doctors and industry leaders. Critics said it was simply a front for makers of flame retardants.
In 2014, the state of California removed the decades-old requirement that flame retardants be included in the stuffing of upholstered furniture. The state rule, adopted in 1975, had become the de facto standard for the rest of the nation. Still, California’s update did not forbid flame retardants outright.
With their September vote, the CPSC committed to convening a panel that will provide scientific expertise for a potential ban on certain uses of organohalogen flame retardants. The vote coincided with a report that found high levels of these flame retardants in a place consumers might not expect: new televisions. As with organohalogens in furniture foam, these chemicals can escape from electronics and accumulate in house dust that can then be inhaled and ingested, especially by young children.
“None of us can shop our way out of this problem,” said Maureen Swanson, co-director of Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks), another advocacy group that has begun targeting toxic chemicals by class. Swanson pointed out that phthalates aren’t always required to be listed on a product’s label, posing an added challenge to consumers.
What’s more, if a consumer typed “flame retardants” into Google, the top hit they would see — in a featured snippet block — is a quote from and link to a website by the American Chemistry Council. The site links to another site specifically devoted to contesting the CPSC’s decision on organohalogens, which itself is the top hit of a search for “flame retardants furniture.” The webpages are among multiple entries that defend the use of various classes of controversial chemicals and lead search engine results.
‘It’s incredibly frustrating’
Beth Messersmith, of Durham, N.C., recalled cheering aloud in her living room when she heard about the CPSC making moves on organohalogens and phthalates. “I hope those rulings stand,” said Messersmith, a mother of two and senior campaign director for MomsRising.org, a group focusing on family health and economic security. “At least those are things I could mark off my list of being concerned about. That is some comfort.”
In addition to feeling like she “needs to be a chemist” when doing basic shopping for her family, Messersmith is among residents of North Carolina concerned about an industrial chemical, GenX, that has contaminated local drinking water. “We don’t really know what it’s going to do to us in the short term or in the long term,” she said. “It’s incredibly frustrating.”
GenX belongs to a class of substances containing carbon-fluorine bonds, known as highly fluorinated chemicals. Because their bonds are some of the strongest found in nature, members of the class can be incredibly useful. They are probably best known as the stuff that protects carpets from stains, keeps food from sticking to pans, repels rain from coats and prevents mascara from running down cheeks. Increasingly, however, they are also the subject of warnings by public health advocacy groups.
Among the most notorious class members is a GenX predecessor, PFOA, formerly used to make non-stick Teflon cookware. After studies suggested exposure to PFOA likely raises risks of cancers, thyroid disease and other health issues, the chemical was phased out. Today, more than 3,000 similar highly fluorinated chemicals, including GenX, can be found in everything from clothing and cookware to firefighting foam. And these relatives remain far less studied than PFOA. The limited data that is available, according to Birnbaum of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, suggests that many of these replacement highly fluorinated chemicals might pose the same risks as PFOA.
In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration removed approval of three food contact substances containing highly fluorinated chemicals. Although a limited step, it represented a potential shift from chemical-by-chemical toward class-based regulation, Phil Brown, an environmental health expert at Northeastern University in Boston, and coauthors concluded in a paper published a few months later.
“The science is growing rapidly. People are really starting to understand that you can’t just reorient the molecule a little, move the position of one atom and say, ‘This is a totally different chemical now.’ They really do act the same way,” said Brown, who also coauthored a June 2017 report that found PFOA and its cousin chemicals contaminate the drinking water of some 15 million Americans.
Still, amid the anti-regulatory push of the Trump administration and Republican Congress, some experts say the biggest regulatory changes, at least in the near-term, are likely to happen at the state level. In addition, industry could take action on its own. In a report published in November, the advocacy group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families detailed pledges made by leading marketers, including Apple and Target, to provide products without chemical classes such as phthalates and flame retardants.
What is really needed, Blum said, is for the chemical industry to find a “better business model.”
Some environmental advocates say decades of building up production capacity, a lack of government restrictions and a traditional focus on simply making chemicals that work and are cost-effective have perpetuated the industry’s status quo of whack-a-mole. Toxicity, they say, rarely enters the equation. In fact, of the 80,000-plus chemicals in commerce in the U.S., only a small percentage have been thoroughly tested by federal regulators for their safety. “If you’re the chemist and told you can’t use something, then you just try to find the next best thing that does the thing you need to do,” said Joel Tickner, an expert on environmental health and chemicals policies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
Due also in part to a lack of standard tests for evaluating the health impacts of replacement chemicals, that next-best-thing tends to be something that carries similar toxic threats, Tickner and other experts said. Among the efforts of Tickner’s team to address the issue is a push to shift focus from simply eliminating suspect chemicals to achieving specific functions — with or without replacement chemicals. Companies and consumers might opt for water-based degreasers or ultrasonic cleaning instead of chemical solvents, for example, or electronic receipts rather than cash register receipts that contain BPA or BPS.
In some situations, they might discover that chemicals are being used where they’re simply not necessary. Robinson, of the CPSC, cites the example of organohalogens that “were found in a submersible bath toy for a child.”
“I’m not making this up,” she said.
https://www.fairwarning.org/2018/01/whack-mole-regulation/
-
Floored by Fluorochemicals: EPA Lags Labs in Testing Protocols
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Karla Buechler's laboratory in Sacramento, Calif., tests baby bottles, car upholstery, and food wrappers for fluorochemicals that have contaminated drinking water supplies across the U.S.
“The chemicals are ubiquitous,” Buechler, corporate technical director at TestAmerica, told Bloomberg Environment. “They're in all of us and in everything.”
Those substances are part of a family of hundreds of fluorochemicals called poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS.
The Environmental Protection Agency has protocols on how to test some of the chemicals in drinking water. But commercial labs, such as Buechler's, aren't waiting for the EPA to tell them how to test more compounds in the PFAS family. Instead, they have charged ahead with their own techniques for testing them in consumer products and the environment.
The EPA's prescribed test method only covers 14 PFAS compounds out of hundreds and only addresses drinking water samples. Labs are modifying the EPA method by analyzing nearly 30 compounds and testing different media, including soil and plastics.
While clients question whether the labs’ methods are reliable, the laboratories are waiting for the EPA to publish an accepted method.
“There's no guarantee that they'll come out with one, but the market and the data consumers need one,” Buechler said.
Demand Surging
In 2012, the EPA asked large public water suppliers and some smaller facilities to start testing for six chemicals in the PFAS family, including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
That kicked off the growing demand for PFAS testing.
“A year ago, it was like months to get a sample analyzed, and there were a few labs that could do it,” said Jeff Holden, senior engineer at GEI Consultants. “Now, there are more labs that are advertising it.”
TestAmerica's PFAS samples come from local, state, and federal government agencies, as well as manufacturers who want to know whether their completed product or their raw materials contain the chemicals.
The company's Sacramento lab received 300-400 samples for PFAS testing on a monthly basis in 2016. Now, it gets about 2,000, according to Buechler. “In some months we've done 3,000 per month; that's just at the Sacramento lab,” she said.
(Click this link to look at an interactive map that shows the civilian and military water utilities that were contaminated with PFOA or PFOS.)
EPA Moves
Two EPA headquarters offices and its Office of Analytical Services and Quality Assurance have formed a workgroup to determine the best assessment methods for chemicals in the PFAS family.
The workgroup is talking to state representatives and commercial laboratories as it forms a draft groundwater sampling guidance document. The agency expects to release the groundwater guidance later in 2018, according to EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox.
To some extent, the larger labs agree on the best methods for testing PFAS in samples outside of drinking water.
“There's only one answer, and we all get it,” Buechler said. “We're all in this waiting mode, waiting for EPA to publish.”
A ‘Vacuum’ For Standards
Janice Willey, a senior chemist for the U.S. Navy, said the Department of Defense also wants to test other types of water sources for PFAS, but there are no EPA-approved sampling or analysis procedures.
“There is a vacuum right now,” Willey said at an October meeting of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials in Arlington, Va.
EPA Method 537 can test certain types of PFAS compounds in drinking water. Labs are modifying the protocol by adding more PFAS compounds and testing other types of samples such as groundwater, surface water, and organic tissue.
The EPA developed the method to ensure a standard way of measuring PFAS in drinking water across the country. The results of those tests could then indicate to the agency whether it needs to regulate PFAS.
According to the National Ground Water Association, most labs have their own modified versions of Method 537 based on their expertise and recent improvements in testing equipment.
They are looking at slightly fewer than 30 types of PFAS under a modified method, Buechler said. “Most labs have added analytes, so that's a similar and major modification,” she said. Analytes are the substances being measured in a given lab test.
Testing laboratories may also modify their methods based on the equipment they have, but in general, the science they rely on is the same, she said.
Widespread Contaminants
PFAS chemicals have been used in stain-resistant upholstery, waterproof apparel, pizza boxes, hamburger wrappers, and popcorn bags. The chemicals don't degrade easily and may cause high cholesterol, thyroid problems, and testicular and kidney cancers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The extent of their health effects is still unclear, but the military and local governments are providing bottled water in some locations to give residents an alternative to PFAS-contaminated water.
About 60 percent of the requests Buechler's lab receives for PFAS testing are for water samples, she said, but the other requests run the gamut.
“That 40 percent can be anything from baby bottles to sediment and every tissue and plant matrix in between,” she said.
PFAS tests can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on the type of sample, number of samples, and how many compounds are being analyzed.
Military Moves
The Department of Defense is also pushing for more labs to be accredited as it deals with PFAS contamination on its own properties.
The department's Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program employs third parties to assess labs’ practices before they accept PFAS samples from military properties.
Willey said in October that the department would like to have more of them accredited to test for PFAS as quickly as possible. At the time, 11 labs were accredited to test for PFAS in drinking water using the standard EPA method. Six were accredited to test for PFAS in other types of samples.
Though more labs are seeking it, the number of labs with Defense accreditation has not changed since then, according to the program's data.
One of the major sources of PFAS is aqueous film-forming foam, which was widely used to put out fires on aircraft and ships. Once the foam is sprayed onto a training ground, airfield, or accident site, it has the potential to seep into soil and groundwater.
Kerry Robert Tull, senior project manager at Wood PLC, a company doing business as Amec Foster Wheeler, found 125 potential sites where the foam may have been released.
The military could be responsible for as much as $2 billion in PFAS cleanup costs, the Defense Department estimates.
“We're spending a whole lot of money on PFAS at our facilities,” Willey said.
—With assistance from Pat Rizzuto and David Schultz.
This is the third part of a Bloomberg Environment series looking at the impact of fluorinated chemical contamination on communities and businesses.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126610156&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126610156&jd=126610156
-
UK Microbeads Ban Enters Into Force
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A ban on the manufacture of cosmetics and personal care products containing plastic microbeads comes into effect in the UK today.
The ban was due to be implemented on 1 January, according to a notification of the draft Regulation to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in July. A ban on sales of such products will follow on 30 June, it said.
It pointed out that up to 680 tonnes of microbeads are used in cosmetic products sold in the UK every year. But, it added, there are feasible alternatives and their use in cosmetics is therefore an "avoidable source of marine pollution".
However, more than 72% of major UK cosmetics companies expect to have stopped selling products with microbeads in them by the end of last year, the notification said.
The UK government published the draft legislation in September, following a public consultation on the proposed ban.
Some respondents called for its scope to be broadened to cover all products that result in microbeads being washed down the drain. This would include leave-on makeup and sunscreen. Others called for inclusion of some polymers and cleaning products.
The draft law kept to the scope originally proposed. But the UK environment ministry, Defra, has committed to work with the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee (HSAC) to assess the case for addressing further categories of products.
Meanwhile, in November a group of NGOs called for the European Commission to introduce an EU ban on all microplastics in cosmetics and to take regulatory action on polymer ingredients.
Elsewhere in the world, Taiwan's EPA recently published testing methods for determining their presence in cosmetics and personal cleansing and care products.
In Canada a ban on the manufacture, import and sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads came into force on 1 January.
And in the US in July, the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) said that efforts to reduce microplastics marine pollution should not focus on the "tiny contributor" of plastic microbeads in cosmetics. The US trade body issued the statement in response to the UN Environment Programme's Clean Seas campaign, which is calling for a global ban on them in personal care products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62944/uk-microbeads-ban-enters-into-force
-
Delaware River Commission Extends Comment Period on Proposed Fracturing Rules
Jan 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis J
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) on Monday added two hearings and extended the comment period on proposed regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing activities, giving the public another month to weigh in.
The DRBC is proposing to permanently ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing across its four-state region and change the rule to discourage fresh water exports and wastewater imports. Commissioners justified the ban, noting they had determined fracturing "poses significant, immediate and long-term risks to the development, conservation, utilization, management and preservation of the water resources" within the basin.
Much of the Delaware River Basin acreage in New York and Pennsylvania overlaps the Marcellus Shale.
The deadline to comment on the proposed rules has been extended from Feb. 28 to March 30. Two additional public hearings also were scheduled for February and March for the notice of proposed rulemaking.
“The commissioners believe the extended comment period and two additional hearings announced...in response to numerous requests will provide adequate opportunities for the public and government officials to study the proposed regulations and offer input to inform the commissioners’ decision-making process,” said Executive Director Steve Tambini.
To supplement four previously scheduled public hearings, with two planned on Jan. 23 in Waymart, PA, and two on Jan. 25 in Philadelphia, the commission added two more.
A third hearing is scheduled from 3 p.m. until as late as 7 p.m. EDT on Feb. 22 at the Lisa Scheller-Wayne Woodman Community Services Center, Lehigh Carbon Community College, 4525 Education Park Dr., in Schnecksville, PA. Participants may register in advance or onsite.
A fourth public hearing via telephone is scheduled for 1:30-3:30 p.m. on March 6. The commission plans to moderate a public hearing at (866) 831-8713. To address the commission, the public also may register to speak.
Written comments on the draft regulations, which are to receive the same consideration as oral comments, would be accepted through 5 p.m. EDT on March 30. Written comments and attachments may be submitted also.
Requests for exceptions to use the online registration and written comment collection systems may be addressed to: Commission Secretary, DRBC, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112982-delaware-river-commission-extends-comment-period-on-proposed-fracturing-rules
-
High Court Will Not Review Air Pollution Controls Definition
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The Supreme Court announced Jan. 8 it will not take up Arizona's petition to review what the state calls a contradiction over how “contingency measures” to curb air pollution are legally characterized.
Arizona petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with respondents Sandra Bahr and David Matusow that contingency measures should refer to future actions—not past actions—by the state to meet deadlines for improving air quality. These measures are required in the plans that states make to improve air quality in areas with serious pollution problems but cannot meet federal standards within the allotted time.
Previously, when Arizona had asked the Environmental Protection Agency for more time to bring Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, into compliance with federal standards for particulate matter, it included in its pollution control plan one-time measures already completed by the state. These actions included paving dirt roads and reducing the speed limit on unpaved streets.
The case is Arizona v. Bahr, U.S., No. 16-1369, 1/8/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126610159&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126610159&jd=126610159
-
Six New Areas Exceed Sulfur Air Pollution Standards, EPA Says
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Six new areas exceed federal air pollution standards for sulfur dioxide, the Environmental Protection Agency said.
This brings the number of areas with excess sulfur dioxide pollution to 42, according to a rule to be published in the Federal Register Jan. 9. States are required to submit plans to the EPA to improve air quality in those regions, which could lead to new pollution control requirements for industries.
Sulfur dioxide is formed during fossil fuel combustion and is harmful to human health and the environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency last set new sulfur dioxide standards in 2010 at a 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion. It completed its first round of designations in July 2013. A second round was added in 2016 following a court-ordered deadline.
In addition to the six new nonattainment areas, the EPA also said 23 areas were unclassifiable because it lacked enough information to make designations.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126610160&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126610160&jd=126610160
-
EPA Inaction on Climate Finding Prompts Conservative Unrest
Jan 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Conservative opponents to climate regulation aren't ruling out legal action to force EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's hand amid silence on whether he'll target the agency's greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
Pruitt hasn't committed to reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare despite a variety of petitions to do so filed by climate foes. That finding, issued early in the Obama administration, is the basis for nearly all of the agency's climate regulations.
“We haven't heard one thing from the EPA on the subject,” said Francis Menton, an attorney representing the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council, one of those that filed a petition last year urging the agency to reconsider the endangerment finding.
Menton told Bloomberg Environment his group is “absolutely considering” taking the EPA to court if it denies or continues to delay action on its petition—but he said that's “just consideration” and the group doesn't “have any specific plans at the moment.”
Pruitt has suggested the EPA will conduct a review of climate science using a “red-team, blue-team” approach—an effort free market conservative groups cheered as a prelude to challenging the endangerment finding. In that approach, which has military origins, a red team critiques an action's conclusion, while the opposing blue team defends it, prompting a back-and-forth debate until consensus emerges.
But Pruitt's push for debate has stalled amid internal disagreement about how the exercise should be administered and whether the EPA should lead it.
Thinning Patience
As the agency weighs whether it should replace the power plant carbon emissions regulation known as the Clean Power Plan, prominent foes of Obama-era climate policies think there's still a chance that Pruitt opts to revisit the endangerment finding.
“I'm hopeful that this is a really legitimate process [and] that they haven't already made up their minds,” Myron Ebell, energy and environment director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said.
While he acknowledged an “obvious course of action” for the EPA would be to issue a narrow replacement of the Clean Power Plan, he told Bloomberg Environment he doesn't think the EPA “has foreclosed other options such as not replacing it with anything.”
The patience of other conservative climate opponents, however, is running much thinner.
The most likely way Pruitt and his team will review the finding is if they're told by the court to do so, David Schnare, former general counsel for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told Bloomberg Environment. Schnare worked on the Trump EPA's transition team before leaving the agency amid disagreements with Pruitt, and he's attended several meetings hosted by the Heartland Institute on the finding and the EPA's climate science review.
He said there are strategies groups could use to bring a lawsuit compelling the EPA to re-examine the finding, but he declined to provide further details on legal tactics.
Schnare described a White House divided on whether to target the EPA's finding.
“There are folks in the White House on staff who think it needs to be done, and others who think it's a tar pit and you get stuck in it,” he said.
‘Science Is Strong’
Paul Anastas, former assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Research and Development in the Obama administration, is skeptical Pruitt and his team will be able to target the science.
“The strategy, of course, is you try to go after the science because the science is the basis of the policy,” Anastas, now a professor at Yale University, told Bloomberg Environment. “The only problem with that is the science is so strong.”
Instead, Anastas said Trump officials will likely attempt to go after the process.
“There's a million different procedural hoops they could try to go after. It's quite a complex thing,” he said.
Since the Trump administration took office, three groups—the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council—have filed petitions urging the EPA to reconsider the 2009 finding. The EPA hasn't responded to those petitions.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation could not be reached for comment.
David Doniger, climate and clean energy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it's possible groups could bring suits claiming the EPA's action on the petitions has been unreasonably delayed.
“I would think those lawsuits wouldn't be particularly strong lawsuits,” he told Bloomberg Environment, adding that the “political leverage” those groups have is “limited.”
Framework for Review
Pruitt during a Dec. 7 House Energy and Commerce committee hearing told lawmakers he anticipated an announcement on the climate science review in January.
But it is unclear whether that announcement is still on track. The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
Ebell, though, downplayed the apparent delay in getting that review off the ground, citing suggestions from his group and others that such an exercise should be held at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, not the EPA.
“This is a very important but also very complicated effort to get started. I'm not worried or disappointed that it seems to be taking a long time,” he said. “My guess is the White House sees there are other places where it should be headquartered.”
Ebell also suggested the EPA could take steps to provide an “institutional and legal framework” for the review by invoking peer review processes required by the White House budget office for a highly influential scientific assessment.
The Obama administration had argued the scientific document underpinning its finding didn't need to undergo the rigorous third-party peer review required for such assessments by the Data Quality Act. Opponents of the finding objected, and a 2011 report by the EPA's Office of Inspector General found the scientific document should have been treated as a highly influential scientific assessment.
Were Pruitt to direct such a review now, “it might take a number of years,” Ebell said, and while that's underway, the endangerment finding would be “inoperative.”
But Doniger suggested Pruitt may be hesitant to challenge the finding on technical procedural grounds because a “realistic assessment” shows little chance of success.
“The finding is too robust, and it's only gotten more robust,” Doniger said.
He compared Pruitt's options to a football team being on its own one yard line: “What are the chances of scoring a touchdown?”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126610153&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126610153&jd=126610153
-
EPA Publication Of SO2 NAAQS Designations Starts Lawsuit Clock
Jan 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Jan. 9 Federal Register its third round of designations for which areas are either attaining or in nonattainment with the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour, starting a Clean Air Act 60-day clock for filing suits over the findings.
The agency late last month announced the latest designations that included six nonattainment findings, but states or others looking to challenge the findings in court have to wait until their formal publication in the Register.
The designations process has been delayed for years because of inadequate air quality monitoring to determine compliance with the standard, requiring states to either use computer modeling or to build new monitoring networks. Designations are due to be complete in 2020 under a consent decree timetable agreed with environmentalists.
EPA in a fact sheet it released Dec. 22 ahead of the Register notice lists the six nonattainment areas as: Hillsborough Polk County, FL; Piti-Cabras, in Guam; Huntington, IN; Evangeline Parish, LA; San Juan, PR; and Guayama Salinas, PR. All of the several dozen other areas announced Dec. 22 are classified as “attainment” or “unclassifiable,” avoiding the regulatory consequences of a nonattainment designation.
Areas designated nonattainment must craft plans to impose tougher pollution controls on industry, or face the ultimate sanction of losing federal highway funding.
EPA says that for SO2, there are only 50 areas left to designate in the fourth and final round, which must be complete by Dec. 31, 2020. These areas will rely on monitoring data, rather than modeling.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-publication-so2-naaqs-designations-starts-lawsuit-clock
-
Agency Reassigns Clean Power Plan Author
Jan 8, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A leading U.S. EPA Clean Air Act lawyer has been reassigned to work on "special projects," according to a notice sent to agency staff last week.
Lorie Schmidt, EPA associate general counsel, had a significant role drafting former President Obama's signature climate regulation, the Clean Power Plan, which Administrator Scott Pruitt has initiated the process to repeal.
As of today, Deputy Associate General Counsel Gautam Srinivasan will serve as acting associate general counsel, said an email from EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson obtained by E&E News.
"I appreciate Gautam's willingness to take on this new challenge," Jackson wrote. "I also appreciate Lorie Schmidt's service at EPA. She will be detailed to assist with special projects in the [Office of General Counsel]."
Srinivasan joined the OGC in 1999 in the Pesticides and Toxics Law Office and has served in a number of positions, most recently the deputy associate general counsel in the Air and Radiation Law Office, Jackson said.
Jackson provided no explanation for the transfer. Schmidt could not be reached in time for publication.
In addition to working at EPA, Schmidt has held positions on Capitol Hill, where she worked as senior counsel to the Democratic staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee under Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).
She also helped draft the 2009 climate cap-and-trade bill, which passed the House but failed to gain traction in the Senate. Inside EPA first reported on Schmidt's reassignment.
Reporter Kevin Bogardus contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/08/stories/1060070395
-
EPA Says Still Mulling Ozone Rewrite As Implementation Progresses
Jan 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today told a federal court that its review of the 2015 ozone standard is ongoing, but it did not provide any details on when that process might conclude, even as the agency takes steps with states toward implementing the rule.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year paused litigation over the standard of 70 parts per billion at the Trump EPA’s request.
EPA has dragged its feet on the rule's implementation, but late last month it told states which areas it is considering designating as “nonattainment,” which would trigger requirements for those areas to act to limit air pollution. Environmental groups last week asked a federal court to set a hard deadline of April 30 for EPA to issue those designations — which would give the states the 120 days they are allotted to contest EPA designations with which they disagree.
The Obama administration similarly reviewed the Bush administration's 2008 ozone standard upon taking office, and announced in September 2009 that it would formally rewrite the rule. (That effort was ultimately halted by former President Barack Obama himself in 2011 before the standard could be lowered.) EPA's update today indicates that the agency may not be close to deciding whether to weaken the standard or keep it in place.
WHAT’S NEXT: EPA said it will file another update on its review of the 2015 ozone standard in 90 days.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Groups Press Lawmakers On Trump Security Strategy
Jan 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Two key players from the national security and environmental worlds are pressing lawmakers to send a message to the Trump administration on climate policy at the Department of Defense.
The American Security Project and the Environmental Defense Fund are urging members to sign a forthcoming letter from Reps. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) expressing concern about climate change being absent from the administration's first National Security Strategy.
The strategy — released last month — does not list global warming as a threat to national security, a major departure from the security documents written during the Obama administration (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2017).
"As a statement of the Administration's approach, the NSS should reflect the full range of security threats, including those posed by climate change," the two groups wrote in a letter to lawmakers obtained by E&E News. "Climate change is a real problem, one that has significant impacts on the security of U.S. interests."
The move to exclude climate change from the NSS was panned almost unanimously by environmental groups, and by some in the defense community, who said it ignored the will of top military officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
The document focuses primarily on the economic and security importance of developing the U.S. energy sector, though it does briefly note that "climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system."
In contrast, the effects on warming were a focal point of Obama security policy. Climate change was mentioned 13 times in the previous administration's last NSS, produced in 2015.
The forthcoming letter will be the newest facet of the ongoing back-and-forth between Congress and the Trump administration about climate policy at the Pentagon.
Trump has dismissed global warming as a "hoax," and he took to Twitter last month to question its existence amid the cold snap that hit the East Coast on New Year's Eve (Climatewire, Jan. 2).
Congress, meanwhile, voted to include a provision calling climate change "a direct threat to the national security of the U.S." in the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Trump signed the bill into law last month.
"It's this interesting dynamic happening that the Republican Congress is in a different place than the Republican administration on this issue," said Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project.
That dynamic is further complicated by the views of Mattis, who said in his confirmation hearing in March that "climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of-government response."
Under his leadership, DOD has quietly decided to stay the course on the issue and largely keep in place climate policies initiated during the Obama administration (Greenwire, Nov. 16, 2017).
Still, not all House Republicans are on board to address climate change and its security impacts, despite support from the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced an amendment to strip the climate language from the NDAA during floor debate in July. The measure failed, but a majority of GOP members backed it (E&E Daily, July 14, 2017).
It remains to be seen how many Republicans will sign the bipartisan letter on the security strategy, but it already has about 20 total signatures, said Holland.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/09/stories/1060070427
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested