Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/10/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Scrap Flows To China Evaporate
Jan 10, 2018 | Recycling Today
By Brian Taylor
Government-approved quotes for plastic scrap imports into China for 2018 are thus far “only a fraction of the corresponding batches in the preceding year,” according to Steve Wong, president of the China Scrap Plastic Association (CSPA). -
EPA IG To Investigate Agency Hiring
Jan 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
EPA's inspector general is launching an investigation into the agency's use of a special hiring authority that could have shielded political appointees from the Trump administration's ethics pledge. -
Environmentalists Urge Court To Allow Broad TSCA Review Of Fluoride Risks
Jan 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental and public health groups are urging a federal judge to allow a broad de novo review when it hears arguments in their pending litigation challenging EPA's denial of their Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition, pushing back against agency claims that any risk review is limited to data in the agency's administrative record. -
(ACC Mentioned) Canadian Plant Needs Cash to Address Asbestos, Industry Group Says
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
Canada's only chlor-alkali facility to use asbestos should receive government financial support for having to adjust to a proposed ban on the carcinogenic mineral, the country's chemical association told Bloomberg Environment. -
Environmentalists Challenge Safety of EPA's New Chemical Reviews
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A strategy the EPA is using to review and regulate new chemicals as they enter the market fails to protect people and the environment, according to a Natural Resources Defense Council federal court challenge. -
Trump’s Toxic Wake: 8 Ways the President Made Chemicals Less Safe in 2017
Jan 9, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
In his first year in office, President Trump has wreaked devastating damage on public health protections against hazardous chemicals. -
Ibuprofen Appears To Mess With Male Hormones. Should You Be Worried?
Jan 10, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
In recent decades, prompted by concerns that men's sperm quality is declining, researchers have looked at things they suspect of potentially disrupting the body’s endocrine system — from chemicals in water bottles to WiFi laptops to wearing tight underwear instead of boxers. -
Samsung 'Looking Into’ deca-BDE Found On Television
Jan 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Electronics giant Samsung is looking into how the restricted substance deca-BDE came to be found in one of its televisions sold in the US. -
Dow Chemical Pollution Case Redo Ordered on Appeal
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A California city doesn't have to show a direct link between Dow Chemical Co. and dry cleaners to hold the company liable for toxic chemicals disposed into city sewers, a California appeals court ruled Jan. 8. -
Trade Groups Call For Harmonised EU Regulations For FCMs
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission should develop fully harmonised regulations on all food contact materials (FCMs) and abandon its strategy of allowing member states to introduce national measures alongside EU rules, trade groups have said. -
Default EU Ban Needed On Hazardous Substances In FCMs, NGOs Say
Jan 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission must identify the loopholes in food contact materials (FCMs) legislation and impose a "by-default ban" on all hazardous substances in its revision of the framework, NGOs have said. -
U.K. Ban on Microbeads Takes Effect to Save Oceans from Plastics
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
U.K.’s ban on making products with microbeads—tiny plastic particles in everything from cosmetics to shampoo and toothpaste—takes effect Jan. 9 in an effort to protect marine life. -
(ACC Mentioned) Paper: Northeast Could Be Second U.S. Petrochemical Hub
Jan 9, 2018 | North America Shale
An abundance of gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in the northeastern U.S. offers great potential for jobs and economic development, but infrastructure, community support and a well-trained workforce are necessary to capitalize on the opportunity. -
NAFTA Critical to Continued Energy Development, Says API Chief
Jan 10, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The head of the American Petroleum Institute (API) on Tuesday diverged from the White House on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), arguing that if its benefits cannot be salvaged by modernizing the accord it should be left in place as it is. -
Oil Lobby Wants Pipelines In Trump’s Infrastructure Push
Jan 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry wants President Trump and Congress's infrastructure plan to include policies boosting oil and natural gas pipelines and making them easier to build. -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Draws Environmental Challenge
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
A federal appeals court should immediately block construction of a 300-mile pipeline project that would run from West Virginia to Virginia, environmental advocates said. -
States, Cities Urge Pruitt Recusal From Rollback
Jan 10, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A coalition of 19 states and cities called today for U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to recuse himself from the effort to repeal President Obama's signature climate regulation, the Clean Power Plan. -
Hogan Administration Criticizes EPA Plans To Repeal Clean Power Plan
Jan 9, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Rachel Siegel
Maryland’s environmental secretary is condemning the Trump administration’s moves to repeal a regulation aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. -
Energy Department to Release Grid Cyberattack Response Rule
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jimmy H. Koo
The energy secretary may order emergency measures to restore or protect the reliability of the nation's critical electricity infrastructure if the president declares an electric grid security emergency, under a final rule set for release Jan. 10 by the Department of Energy. -
DOE Finalizes Emergency Security Plan
Jan 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
The Department of Energy today finalized a rule aimed at developing procedures for responding to an electric grid security emergency. -
Vancouver Officials Deal Blow To Proposed Oil Terminal
Jan 9, 2018 | The Spokesman-Review
The port of Vancouver’s Board of Commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to terminate a rolling lease on property that would hold the nation’s largest rail-to-marine oil terminal if the project’s backers don’t provide all the necessary permits by March. -
Governor Pushes $20 Per Ton Carbon Tax in Washington
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington could generate $3.3 billion over the next four years as part of the $20 per ton carbon tax sought by Gov. Jay Inslee (D). -
Exxon Seeks to Depose Officials Bringing Climate Change Suits
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Exxon Mobil is alleging that climate change claims by several California municipalities are inconsistent with statements they made to investors in their bond offerings. -
How Much Has ‘Climate Change’ Been Scrubbed From Federal Websites? A Lot.
Jan 10, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Nearly a year into the Trump administration, mentions of climate change have been systematically removed, altered or played down on websites across the federal government, according to a report made public Wednesday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Scrap Flows To China Evaporate
Jan 10, 2018 | Recycling Today
By Brian Taylor
Government-approved quotes for plastic scrap imports into China for 2018 are thus far “only a fraction of the corresponding batches in the preceding year,” according to Steve Wong, president of the China Scrap Plastic Association (CSPA). Wong also is chairman of Hong Kong-based Fukutomi Corp. and serves on two Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) committees.
Citing government data in an e-mailed dispatch to CSPA members, Wong says “batch one” of the import quotas for 2018 have authorized just 9,335 metric tons of unprocessed (non-pelletized or -flaked) plastic scrap to enter China. That is a more than 99 percent reduction compared to the more than 3.8 million tons authorized in the first batch of quotas in 2017.
Writes Wong, “If this approval rate is continued for the subsequent import permit approvals, the major recycling operations in China, which used to rely on imports, would be forced to switch to sourcing from domestic supply. The common view of the industry is that there will be no reversal of China’s solid waste imports policies beginning in 2018.”
China imported 7.3 million tons of plastic scrap in 2016, according to Wong, which comprised more than 50 percent of the total volume of all exporting countries. “Such a large volume is difficult to be absorbed by the remaining importing countries within such a short time,” states Wong. “While increasing the volume of exports to Southeast Asian countries, India, and others, apart from raising domestic recycling and reuse, the low-end plastic items still have no alternative outlet other than landfills and incineration in [many] exporting countries,” he adds. “This is very concerning, as the capacity of [domestic recycling and waste destinations] in many exporting countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States and Japan, is not capable of handling the increased volume yet.”
In China, “The drastic change has caused a supply gap of around 5 million tons of plastic scrap, for which the recycled plastic pellets from Southeast Asian countries is far from enough,” states Wong. He adds, however, that production capacities in the rest of Asia “have been expanding rapidly.”
The long-term goal of China’s government is to raise the volume of collected plastic scrap through new waste and recycling policies, adds Wong.
A December 2017 article by Bloomberg speculates that American producers of primary plastic also are poised to fill China’s new gap for plastic resins.
The natural gas boom and glut has caused the U.S. to be the world’s lowest cost producer of primary plastic, according to the article’s author. Citing the American Chemistry Council, the article states that American petrochemical companies have invested some $185 billion in new plastics capacity to meet the anticipated demand.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/china-plastic-scrap-imports-disappear-2018/
-
EPA IG To Investigate Agency Hiring
Jan 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
EPA's inspector general is launching an investigation into the agency's use of a special hiring authority that could have shielded political appointees from the Trump administration's ethics pledge.
The IG's office notified EPA's acting head of the Office of Administration and Resources Management on Monday that it is beginning research on the agency's use of administratively determined positions created under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The law allows the agency to hire as many as 30 employees under expedited procedures.
Democrats have charged that the Trump administration has used this authority to shield political appointees from its ethics pledge, which is more comprehensive than the agency's ethics requirements. They have also asked the GAO to investigate the issue.
Nancy Beck, who was a top expert for the chemicals industry's lobbying group before being appointed deputy assistant administrator for EPA's chemical safety office this spring, was hired under this authority. She has made a number of controversial changes relating to implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA's senior ethics counsel told POLITICO in a statement last summer that she did not need an ethics recusal to do so, even though she had been heavily involved with the issue in her previous job.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Environmentalists Urge Court To Allow Broad TSCA Review Of Fluoride Risks
Jan 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental and public health groups are urging a federal judge to allow a broad de novo review when it hears arguments in their pending litigation challenging EPA's denial of their Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition, pushing back against agency claims that any risk review is limited to data in the agency's administrative record.
“EPA asks this Court for a sweeping order that would exempt this 'civil action' from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery,” the plaintiffs argue in a Jan. 5 reply brief. “This request is not only incompatible with the plain meaning of [TSCA], but runs directly counter to Congress’s clearly expressed intent in the legislative history.”
The plaintiffs' reply brief in Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, pushes back against agency efforts to limit the scope of any risk review the court may conduct to determine whether drinking water fluoridation presents human health risks that EPA must regulate.
If the court rules for the plaintiffs, it would allow them to present expert testimony to make their case that the substance poses an “unreasonable risk” in drinking water that EPA is required to regulate under section 6.
That would be advantageous for the plaintiffs in this case as it would allow them to place before the judge the results of a new study, published since they first petitioned EPA to regulate the substance in December 2016, that shows developmental harms to children exposed to fluoride in utero.
But even before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California late last month denied EPA's motion to dismiss, the agency began seeking to limit the scope of the court's review to the administrative record.
In a brief filed last month, EPA argued that any review the court conducts should be based on the administrative record, an effort to limit any data the court considers.
Attorneys are expected to press their clients' cases during a Jan. 25 hearing before Judge Edward Chen.
How the court rules could impact any future legal challenges to agency petition responses under the reformed TSCA because a ruling for environmentalists could open the door to plaintiffs choosing what scientific evidence courts review on chemicals' risks, and allow broad discovery of EPA information.
That could be especially significant as Chen's ruling denying EPA's motion to dismiss is expected to open the door to more petitions from environmentalists and other petitioners.
In their reply brief, petitioners and environmentalist amici argue that EPA is ignoring the plaint text of TSCA section 21, which governs citizen petitions to the agency, and has taken relevant case law out of context.
“Congress has commanded, without exception, that TSCA citizen petitioners 'shall' be provided a 'de novoproceeding,'” plaintiffs say, citing TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B).
They also point to the 1990 D.C. Circuit case, Environmental Defense Fund v. Reilly, arguing that “federal courts have long recognized that a 'de novo proceeding' is an all-encompassing term that includes both the standard and scope of review.”
Record Review
EPA sought in its Dec. 14 motion to parse the meaning of section 21(b)(4)(B), which allows for “such a petition” to be considered by a court de novo, suggesting that the term referred to the standard, but not the scope, of the review. The agency argues that “the term 'de novo' does not, by itself, provide that a reviewing court may consider evidence outside the administrative record."
But plaintiffs point in their Jan. 5 briefing to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion in the 1987 D.C. Circuit Case Doe v. United States, which states, “'[d]e novo means here, as it ordinarily does, a fresh, independent determination of ‘the matter’ at stake; the court's inquiry is not limited to or constricted by the administrative record, nor is any deference due the agency's conclusion.' While there are certain laws that limit a court’s de novo review to either the standard or scope of review, Congress did not carve out any such limitation in Section 21.”
Plaintiffs also argue that “TSCA citizen suits are ordinary 'civil actions' for which the normal rules of discovery apply.” Those rules are contained within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which “'govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81.' Rule 81 contains no exception for TSCA citizen suits.”
And plaintiffs argue that “EPA repeatedly cites inapposite [Administrative Procedures Act (APA)] case law as authority for the scope of review for de novo proceedings under Section 21. … EPA’s reliance on these APA cases is misplaced because both Reilly and the Ninth Circuit precedent make clear that the APA is inapplicable to TSCA citizen suits.”
Plaintiffs and amici Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families question EPA's interpretation of Congress' intent in the original section 21, that it intended to limit such suits to the administrative record.
Like the plaintiffs, amici argue in their Jan. 5 brief that “TSCA’s legislative history confirms what section 21 plainly says. The [1976] Senate committee report on [the original] TSCA stated that, in a section 21 proceeding, a court would 'gather[] evidence in a de novo procedure.' A court does not normally 'gather evidence' in a record-review case.”
Further, the environmental groups add, the 1976 report “explains why Congress thought the district court would need to gather evidence … Congress made the section 21 proceeding de novo in part because it believed that the court would need to consider evidence that EPA -- having denied the petition -- had not yet gathered.”
And plaintiffs point to language in section 21(b)(4)(C) which “specifically contemplates experts testifying at trial, thereby further confirming Congress’s intent to not limit Section 21 civil actions to the administrative record. As set forth in the statute, a district court 'may award costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses if the court determines that such an award is appropriate.'”
Fluoride Risks
This possibility for de novo review of fluoridation risks was one reason petitioners, who have long sought to end the practice, filed their request with EPA. They argue fluoridation can result in people ingesting too much fluoride, and they point to recent studies showing neurotoxic health risks from fluoride exposure at lower levels than previously considered of concern, but believe their case has received short shrift from EPA.
A de novo review would also allow the plaintiffs to place before the judge the results of a new study published since they petitioned EPA. Michael Connett, attorney for the petitioners in the case told Inside EPA last fall that the National Institutes of Health-funded study, showing IQ losses in children exposed to fluoride in utero, could bolster the groups' case because it could be used to challenge EPA science in court in a de novo review.
The study, by Morteza Bashash of the University of Toronto's public health school and colleagues, compared fluoride levels in more than 200 pregnant women with IQ scores in their children four or more years after birth. It found that “higher prenatal exposure to fluoride . . . was associated with lower [General Cognitive Index (GCI)] scores in children at approximately 4 years old, and with lower Full-Scale IQ scores at 6--12 years old.”
The study estimates that “GCI and IQ scores were about 3 and 2.5 points lower in association with a 0.5 [milligram per liter (mg/L)] increase in prenatal exposure, respectively.”
Connett describes the study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives last September, as strengthening “our case considerably, especially given the low doses [that pregnant women and children were exposed to] in the study. EPA has always criticized the human studies we rely on. I think this study addresses those concerns.”
Connett also told Inside EPA last year that the TSCA petition provides a new avenue to advance petitioners' efforts. "One of the reasons I was interested in the TSCA petition was to obtain a different forum" for fluoride and its risks, Connett said at the time. "It will be good to get the issue considered by people not entrenched in the issue," he added. "EPA never really applied its own risk assessment procedures to fluoride. We believe if EPA does, then it will see . . . that fluoridation would be incompatible with the dose that would be appropriate."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-urge-court-allow-broad-tsca-review-fluoride-risks
-
(ACC Mentioned) Canadian Plant Needs Cash to Address Asbestos, Industry Group Says
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
Canada's only chlor-alkali facility to use asbestos should receive government financial support for having to adjust to a proposed ban on the carcinogenic mineral, the country's chemical association told Bloomberg Environment.
Olin Canada ULC, which operates a manufacturing plant in Quebec, should receive around C$119 million ($96 million), corresponding to the amount that federal authorities concluded the company would have to dish out to comply with a ban on asbestos, said Bob Masterson, president and chief executive officer of the Chemical Industry Association of Canada.
“What we don't see here, which was seen in Europe, was a committed program to help the industry to adjust given the competitive nature of where investments can take place,” said Masterson, referring to federal draft regulations published Jan. 5.
Olin uses asbestos-containing diaphragms during chlorine production to help protect against explosions.
The diaphragms are installed every few years and only represent a health risk when they're being installed or removed. Asbestos-free alternatives, however, are currently on the market, according to regulators.
Competition Concerns
Olin's facility in the city of Becancour is just over 100 miles from the U.S. border, where some of its products are shipped. The Canadian government is already proposing that the facility be given six years to comply with the ban because of competition concerns. Other sectors will have to comply in 2019, according to the regulations.
Production at the Becancour would drop by C$8 million ($6.4 million) a year if Olin, a subsidiary of Clayton, Mo.–based Olin Corp., decided to move some production out of Canada because of the ban, said an economic analysis that accompanied the federal regulations.
Olin would save C$29 million ($23.4 million) in energy costs a year after installing asbestos-free diaphragms, according to the federal economic analysis.
The proposed ban is a deviation from Canada's Chemicals Management Plan, which regulates substances based on minimizing risk, said Masterson. The asbestos ban, which the federal government announced was coming in December 2016, uses a hazard-based approach that seeks to eliminate a product, he said.
Olin offices in the U.S. or Canada didn't return requests for comment from Bloomberg Environment.
U.S. Reactions
“Canada's proposed phase out of asbestos in the chlor-alkali industry was driven by political pressure rather than an objective examination of the scientific evidence and industry safety performance,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement.
The council represents at least two U.S. chemical manufacturers with chlor-alkali plants: Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Olin Corp.
The proposal fails to recognize the chlor-alkali industry's track record of using safety protocols that minimize potential asbestos exposure to workers, the public, and the environment, the council continued.
Linda Reinstein, co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, told Bloomberg Environment that the group is disappointed in Canada's proposal.
The failure to totally ban asbestos from mining through use to disposal can cause life-threatening diseases such as asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer, she said by email.
The federal government's proposal would be “an irreversible step backward and jeopardize the efficacy of Canada's ban,” she said. Reinstein described it as reprehensible that the Canadian government “may fall prey to the chemical industry's propaganda about so-called safe and controlled use.”
U.S. Economic Impacts
Occidental referred Bloomberg Environment to the American Chemistry Council for comment. Neither Olin nor Westlake Chemical Corp., which also owns chlor-alkali manufacturing facilities, returned Bloomberg Environment's calls or emails seeking their views on Canada's proposal or whether it could have economic effects such as boosting the prices for their chlorine and caustic soda production.
The American Chemistry Council did not comment on economic issues, but Matthew Kastner, its director of chlorine issue management, said there would be minimal to no impact on U.S. supplies of chlorine and caustic soda.
“The U.S. imports a small percentage of the chlorine it consumes from Canada. Those imports are predominantly intra-company trading,” Kastner said.
Sectors other than the chlor-alkali industry will have to stop importing or making products with asbestos in 2019 under Canada's proposed rules.
The main business impact will be the elimination of cement pipes and brake pads that contain asbestos, the regulations said.
The Automotive Retailers Association (ARA) said the regulation's impacts will be minimal. The automotive sector is already using less asbestos due to rules and business decisions in the U.S., said ARA spokesman David Ribeiro.
“It appears the impact may be greater to the trucking industry, whom we understand still utilize asbestos as a product of choice for its performance characteristics,” he added.
The Automotive Recyclers Association, which represents approximately 1,800 facilities that dismantle vehicles, said the ban's hands-off approach toward brake pads that have already been manufactured does not mitigate all safety concerns.
“The ban is good; it will be expedite the drag-down of that inventory,” said executive director Stephen Fletcher, but “they could be on the road for quite a while.”
Exemptions
The only exemptions aside for the chlor-alkali industry that the regulations proposed are for asbestos used in a museum exhibit, asbestos used during laboratory testing, and for the use of mine waste that contains asbestos residues.
Mining waste containing asbestos was used for decades as a foundation for roads in the region where asbestos was traditionally mined in southern Quebec, said Alexandre Meilleur, director of public works with the city of Thetford Mines.
Quebec lobbied the federal government to exempt asbestos-containing mine waste because banning it could limit future road restoration, according to the federal regulations. The federal government approved the exemption for mining residues if the use is approved by a provincial authority.
But Meilleur, who said the use of mining waste for road construction was mostly done in his city, said the practice stopped several years ago. Thetford Mines is in talks with the Quebec and federal government on how to remove road foundations containing asbestos in a practical way, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638053&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638053&jd=126638053
-
Environmentalists Challenge Safety of EPA's New Chemical Reviews
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A strategy the EPA is using to review and regulate new chemicals as they enter the market fails to protect people and the environment, according to a Natural Resources Defense Council federal court challenge.
The advocacy group objects to the Environmental Protection Agency's New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework, which the agency released Nov. 7, and which allied environmental, health, and labor organizations opposed during a Dec. 6 agency public meeting.
Under the agency's approach, the EPA could allow a new chemical to be made and sold even if it recognized that some potential uses of the compound might pose risks to people or the environment.
The agency would issue “significant new use rules” designed to prevent the new chemical from being used in ways that caused concerns. The originating company asking the EPA to allow the new chemical could, however, proceed to make and use it in a way the agency determined would be unlikely to pose health or environmental risks.
The NRDC's petition doesn't describe the group's reasons for challenging the EPA's framework. An an attorney for the group could not be reached for comment Jan. 9. But, insight into the organization's concerns are found in comments it and other environmental health groups jointly submitted to the agency Dec. 11.
The five-page framework that outlined the EPA's approach “is legally dubious, poorly conceived, and a major step backward in protecting health and the environment,” the groups said. The EPA should not use its framework until it examines public comment on it, they continued.
“EPA does not comment on pending litigation,” Jahan Wilcox, an EPA spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
The New Chemicals Coalition, which Bergeson & Campbell P.C. launched in 2017 as a forum for companies interested in bringing new chemicals to market, has not decided whether or not it will intervene. The firm will continue to track the case, Lynn Bergeson, managing partner for the law firm, told Bloomberg Environment.
The case is Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 2d Cir., No. 18-25, 1/5/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638040&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638040&jd=126638040
-
Trump’s Toxic Wake: 8 Ways the President Made Chemicals Less Safe in 2017
Jan 9, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
In his first year in office, President Trump has wreaked devastating damage on public health protections against hazardous chemicals. He has reversed or indefinitely postponed chemical bans, rubber-stamped new chemicals, cooked the books when assessing older chemicals, postponed rules to protect farm and factory workers, and appointed chemical safety officials who have spent decades defending chemicals for polluters.
Let’s take a look at the details. So far, Trump has:
1. Reversed chemical bans. Trump has reversed a proposed ban of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that can permanently harm kids’ brains. He also indefinitely delayed proposed bans on methylene chloride, a toxic chemical in paint strippers that has killed at least 50 people in recent decades, and TCE, a known carcinogen that poses special risks to pregnant women. Trump also postponed a decision on whether to ban NMP, which is used in paint and coating strippers, and is also a developmental toxin.
2. Rubber-stamped new chemicals. At the request of chemical companies, Trump has allowed dozens of new chemicals into commerce without adequate safety reviews, violating the nation’s new chemical safety law. What’s more, he has decided to hide any concerns Environmental Protection Agency scientists might have with new chemicals from the public.
3. Cooked the books. Under pressure from industry, Trump’s EPA violated the new chemical safety law by using junk science to review old chemicals that have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems. For example, Trump has excluded many uses from the EPA’s review of cancer-causing substances like asbestos and 1,4-dioxane, and changed agency rules to give less weight to the unique impacts of toxic chemicals on children and other vulnerable groups.
4. Undermined worker safety. Trump delayed a rule designed to prevent catastrophic accidents at chemical manufacturing plants until at least 2019. Just months after Trump’s decision, flooding from Hurricane Harvey caused an explosion at a Texas chemical plant. Trump also delayed implementation of new protections for farm workers from toxic pesticides, and recently announced plans to revise – read: weaken – farm worker standards in 2018.
5. Put industry lobbyists and lawyers in charge. Trump’s nominees and appointees to oversee chemical safety include a long-time chemical industry lobbyist, the industry’s favorite scientist-for-hire and a lawyer who once defended a company that made toys contaminated with lead. He’s also purgedthe EPA’s science advisory panels of contrary voices. This week, Trump renominated a White House environment czar who cooked the books to hide radiation in tap water.
6. Cut funding for the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration. Trump’s first budget proposed deep cuts to both the EPA and the FDA, undermining their efforts to review the safety of chemicals in consumer products and food.
7. Hidden chemical risks. As EWG has documented again and again, the chemical industry has abused so-called trade secret claims to keep safety information from the public. Now, in violation of the new chemical safety law, Trump’s EPA is again proposing to let industry hide risks about chemicals and their uses.
8. Ignored pesticide risks. Trump’s EPA has claimed the pesticide glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer (contradicting other experts), granted “emergency” approvals of toxic pesticides and delayed a review of the impacts of three organophosphate pesticides on endangered species. Over the next three years, Trump will make big decisions on the fate of chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, atrazine, malathion, and five different neonicotinoids, which have been linked to bee deaths.
https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2018/01/trump-s-toxic-wake-8-ways-president-made-chemicals-less-safe-2017#.WlX883aWaUk
-
Ibuprofen Appears To Mess With Male Hormones. Should You Be Worried?
Jan 10, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
In recent decades, prompted by concerns that men's sperm quality is declining, researchers have looked at things they suspect of potentially disrupting the body’s endocrine system — from chemicals in water bottles to WiFi laptops to wearing tight underwear instead of boxers.
You can add ibuprofen to the list.
In a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found that a concentrated dose of the over-the-counter painkiller taken by young, healthy men appears to be linked to a testicular condition that typically only appears at middle age and has been linked to infertility.
The experiment involved 31 men under 35 in Denmark and France who were split into two groups, with the first taking 1,200 milligrams of ibuprofen each day for six weeks and the other a placebo. While 1,200 milligrams of ibuprofen is considered on the high side for general aches, pains and fever, it's not unusual for doctors to prescribe twice that much for athletes.
In two weeks, the concentration of testosterone hormone dropped as ibuprofen concentrations grew in the blood of those taking ibuprofen — resulting in the men having a condition known as hypogonadism. Bernard Jégou, a co-author at French National Institutes of Health and Medical Research, and co-authors wrote that ibuprofen appears to “affect the hormonal balance in adult men” and “alters human testicular physiology” — creating a situation where the body has to work harder to maintain some degree of normal testosterone.
Studies about environmental factors that may impact male fertility have become more urgent with growing evidence that sperm quality is falling globally. While this worry has been around for a long time, there was a lot of skepticism about it until recently. In July 2017, in a large analysis published by the American Society of Andrology, researchers looking at data from 42,000 men between 1973 and 2011 confirmed that there appears to have been a 52.4 percent drop in sperm concentration in those 40 years.
The current study focuses on a different measure of the male reproduction system — testosterone production rather than semen analysis.
Shanna Swan, a professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and co-author of the 2017 male sperm study, said that the team that worked on the ibuprofen study is known for its pioneering work on the effect of analgesics, until now focused largely on acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol), on reproductive function.
That research focused on a link between prenatal exposure to acetaminophen and a condition known as cryptorchidism, or the absence of one or both testes from the scrotum, in both animal models and humans. Swan explained that “a large body of evidence points to the role of prenatal exposure to environmental factors that alter the in utero hormonal milieu, causing decreased male reproductive health that persists throughout life.” However, she said, “this would not likely be an issue for ibuprofen” because it's not typically recommended for use during pregnancy.
Michael L. Eisenberg, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford and who was not involved with the new study, said the work is very important and points to a need for additional research on the topic.
“I do not think the message should be to stop taking ibuprofen. Rather this is an important but small study. Larger studies with more follow up are needed to understand the implications of ibuprofen use,” he said.
Eisenberg also wondered, “It may be the shorter term use, which would be more common for most, would not have these effects.”
Jesse N. Mills, an associate clinical professor at UCLA Health, said the results that “these guys did have a pretty profound effect on their hormone levels post exposure . . . brought up a lot of issues.” Paradoxically, he said that previous studies have shown that ibuprofen and other compounds in the same class of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, can have a positive effect on measures of semen quality. “It may work like an antioxidant,” he said, referring to compounds in foods like blueberries and pomegranate that may have the ability to neutralize harmful molecules in cells.
Mills said there's not enough information yet to advise patients to change the way they take ibuprofen. However, he added: “I have a lot of fit guys in my practice that are trying to initiate pregnancies. I may tell them to be a little more cognizant about how much they are taking.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/01/10/ibuprofen-appears-to-mess-with-male-hormones-should-you-be-worried/?utm_term=.a7f7cabbca6c
-
Samsung 'Looking Into’ deca-BDE Found On Television
Jan 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Electronics giant Samsung is looking into how the restricted substance deca-BDE came to be found in one of its televisions sold in the US.
The flame retardant, which is restricted in the EU and banned in five US states, was identified in the NGO study TV reality: Toxic flame retardants in TVs.
Toxic Free Future and Clean Production Action – which oversees the Chemical Footprint Project – tested the plastic enclosures of 12 televisions for the presence of seven types of flame retardants.
They found deca-BDE in televisions manufactured by Samsung and Element.
A Samsung spokesperson told Chemical Watch, the company implemented a policy in 2008 to stop using deca-BDE in all its televisions sold worldwide.
They said:"We recently became aware of the matter in question and are currently looking into it."
Deca-BDE is banned from use in the states of Washington, Maine, Oregon, Vermont and Maryland, due to concerns about its persistence, bioaccumulation, and effects on nervous system development.
The EU restricted its use in electronics in 2008 as part of the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) Directive. It is also on Annex A of the Stockholm Convention,which requires countries signed up to the treaty to eliminate listed substances from production and use.
In 2009, the largest importer of deca-BDE came to an agreement with the US EPA to stop producing and importing the flame retardant for televisions by the end of 2012.'Lack of commitment'
The NGO report found flame retardants present in 11 televisions at concentrations of up to 33% or one third by weight, in the plastic enclosures.
Only one television, by electronics retailer Best Buy’s private label brand Insignia, did not contain any flame retardants.
The study tested for:decabromodiphenyl ether (deca-BDE);decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE);1,3,5-triazine, 2,4,6-tris(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy) (TTBP-TAZ);octabromotrimethylphenylindane (OBIND);2,4,6-tribromophenol (2,4,6-TBP);resorcinol diphosphate (RBDPP); andbisphenol A bis-(diphenylphosphate) (BPA-BDPP)
The NGOs also reviewed the websites of 12 television manufacturers for their chemicals policies and goals to phase out chemicals of concern
They reported "a disappointing lack of public commitment among television manufacturers to eliminate toxic flame retardants".
Six companies had no statements on their website, four had those that were vague or did not apply to televisions and only two demonstrated "proactive efforts to avoid chemicals of concern".'Layer of protection'
Bryan Goodman of the North American Flame Retardant Alliance told Chemical Watch: "Flame retardants in plastic components are a critical layer of protection against inadvertent electrical ignition, so it should come as no surprise that flame retardants were found in these television casings."
He added that although companies voluntarily phased out deca-BDE several years ago, "there may still be pockets of use abroad that explain the report's findings."
Gordon Nelson, professor of chemistry at the Florida Institute of Technology, was involved in developing TV flammability standards in the 1970s. He told Chemical Watch that flame retardants are necessary in televisions to prevent household fires.
"Their absence presents a demonstrable life-safety risk. While deca-BDE was the initial flame retardant used in polystyrene, there are numerous material alternatives available today to meet the performance needed," he said.
In September last year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted to ban the use of organohalogen flame retardants in the external casings of electronics devices, as well as several other consumer product categories.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62852/samsung-looking-into-deca-bde-found-in-television
-
Dow Chemical Pollution Case Redo Ordered on Appeal
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A California city doesn't have to show a direct link between Dow Chemical Co. and dry cleaners to hold the company liable for toxic chemicals disposed into city sewers, a California appeals court ruled Jan. 8.
The partly unpublished decision is the latest wrinkle in long-running hazardous waste cost recovery litigation brought by Modesto, Calif., that has seen three appeals over 14 years.
The trial court wrongly applied a previous appellate decision in the case that Modesto had to prove chemical manufacturers did more than place PCE-containing cleaning solvents into the stream of commerce, the three-judge panel said.
Dow, dry cleaning manufacturers, and other defendants may be liable if they take “affirmative steps” to facilitate perchloroethylene (PCE) disposal—such as by instructing users of its products to dispose of wastes improperly—but the Polanco Redevelopment Act wasn't intended to erect a special causation rule to prove nuisance-related claims, the court said.
The earlier decision didn't support the “incontrovertible linkage” test advocated by the defendants and applied by the trial court, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, said.
The question on remand is whether “it is more likely than not that defendant's improper instructions, and any other relevant conduct, were a substantial factor in causing the pollution,” the court said.
Justice Maria P. Rivera wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Ignazio J. Ruvolo and Jon B. Streeter.
Miller, Axline & Sawyer, Bien & Bennett, and Davidowitz & Bennett represented Modesto and its affiliated agencies.
King & Spalding represented Dow. Beveridge & Diamond represented PPG Industries Inc. Hicks & Thomas represented R.R. Street & Co.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638072&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638072&jd=126638072
-
Trade Groups Call For Harmonised EU Regulations For FCMs
Jan 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission should develop fully harmonised regulations on all food contact materials (FCMs) and abandon its strategy of allowing member states to introduce national measures alongside EU rules, trade groups have said.
In feedback to the Commission's consultation on a roadmap for the evaluation of FCM legislation, the groups say harmonised measures would ensure the same high safety standards across the EU and allow innovations developed in one country to be available to all member states.
The current FCM Regulation was put in place in 2004, although some of its basic provisions were set out in 1976 and have never been systematically assessed.
In its comments, Cefic sector group Food Contact Additives (FCA) said it strongly recommends the development of EU harmonised rules for all FCMs not already covered by specific measures. It also wants to "abandon the approach suggested in the document of having national measures alongside EU measures".
The roadmap suggests this as a policy tool for securing a high level of protection of human health.
The European Printing Ink Association (EuPIA) also calls for harmonised legislation, adding that "modern approaches to risk assessment should take precedent and be implemented in future FCM legislation".
It stresses, however, that roadmap activities should not jeopardise a timely development of the EU measure on printed FCMs.
The Commission has been working on a draft harmonised measure for these since late 2016. And industry has recently warned that member states might introduce their own legislation if this is further delayed.
In its comments, the European Plastics Converters Association (EuPC) also addressed the need for modern risk assessment tools. It says tools used on plastic FCMs are outdated, the risk is "overestimated" and it adopts "unrealistically overprotective" tools to address the potential risk for FCMs. In addition, it focuses "almost entirely" on plastics.
The European Federation of Ceramic Table- and Ornamental ware (FEPF), meanwhile, says lower migration limits from metals, likely to be imposed on ceramic tableware, "must be realistic".
The Commission is considering a review of the 1984 ceramics Directive, but the FEPF says the current limits under discussion "would pose severe aesthetical limitations" on artisanal production.Consistent approach
The FEPF also flags different compliance practices, adopted by individual member states for FCMs. Some countries, it says, require testing in an accredited laboratory in addition to a declaration of compliance and appropriate documentation.
This leads to "high to very high" compliance costs, it notes, and the lack of a watchdog limits the benefits the FCM Directive could deliver.
In its comments, imaging and printing association I&P Europe warns against the dangers of a non-uniform approach, calling EU regulators to "implement clear decisions, regulations, tools and test methods" to support industry compliance with FCM regulation.
SME trade body Ueapme says a clear structuring of supply from outside the EU is also necessary for legislation to be effective. Where FCMs are supplied from outside the EU, the traceability and reliability of FCM is questionable, it says.
Stakeholder comments on the roadmap will be followed by a 12-week public consultation in the second or third quarter of this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62948/trade-groups-call-for-harmonised-eu-regulations-for-fcms
-
Default EU Ban Needed On Hazardous Substances In FCMs, NGOs Say
Jan 10, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission must identify the loopholes in food contact materials (FCMs) legislation and impose a "by-default ban" on all hazardous substances in its revision of the framework, NGOs have said.
In comments submitted to the Commission's consultation on a roadmap for the evaluation of the legislation, the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) says the Commission must use all sources of available information in imposing the ban. This should include REACH candidate list SVHCs, as well as the broader SIN (Substitute it Now) List run by NGO ChemSec, it adds.
Legislation must be "future-proof" on nanomaterials, Ciel says, and adds that it should not just deal with substances that are already on the market but also those currently in development.
ClientEarth proposes a similar default ban, with a "legal presumption" overturned only when there is strong evidence that leaching cannot happen and safe recycling is possible. This is essential, it says, as a safety threshold cannot be found for every substance and food consumption habits drastically vary between individuals.
Meanwhile, CHEM Trust says the current regulations are "grossly inadequate" for protecting consumer health.
The EU's FCM Regulation was put in place in 2004 but some of its basic provisions date back to 1976 with no formal evaluation work or reports taking place since. CHEM Trust says this is "truly remarkable" and an "extreme" contrast to other legislative text, such as REACH, which has five-year review periods written in.
It is "notable", CHEM Trust adds, "how far behind REACH the FCM laws are" and cites the headway REACH has made in identifying and substituting the most hazardous chemicals and in processes for updating data.
NGOs also call for "full traceability" of all FCMs and say legislation must be fully integrated with the EU's circular economy objectives.
They add that future legislation must take into account the latest knowledge on chemical risks, including those caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), non-intentionally added chemicals and the mixture effect of substances.
The Food Packaging Forum says it is "especially concerned" about the effects of migrating chemicals on the hormone, nervous and immune systems. Regulation should focus on the chemicals that migrate from finished food contact additives, rather than starting substances that undergo significant transformation during manufacturing, it says.
And the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) says it is concerned about the Regulation’s "inadequacy" to protect human health because member states currently adopt different regulations to fill in the gaps of the European framework. In practice, it says, this means that citizens "are not protected equally" across Europe from the risks arising from the presence of chemicals used in food packaging.
Trade groups have also urged harmonisation of FCM regulations in their comments to the Commission.Transparency
One of the key messages to emerge from the NGO feedback is the need for greater transparency on food contact materials.
They demand an "open and participative" FCM regulatory regime, in which the Commission makes public all evidence used and collected in the process of the evaluation and includes civil society in a meaningful way.
CHEM Trust has previously criticised the Commission for conducting regulatory discussions in secrecy. In response, the EU executive said it is envisaging a stakeholder forum "to ensure that perspectives on current and future policy relating to FCMs are taken into account".
The Commission will conduct a new 12-week public consultation in the second or third quarter of this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62979/default-eu-ban-needed-on-hazardous-substances-in-fcms-ngos-say
-
U.K. Ban on Microbeads Takes Effect to Save Oceans from Plastics
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
U.K.’s ban on making products with microbeads—tiny plastic particles in everything from cosmetics to shampoo and toothpaste—takes effect Jan. 9 in an effort to protect marine life.
“I am delighted that from today cosmetics manufacturers will no longer be able to add this harmful plastic to their rinse-off products,” said Environment Minister Therese Coffey. “The world's seas and oceans are some of our most valuable natural assets. I am determined we act now to tackle the plastic that devastates our precious marine life.”
The plastic beads are added to these products to act as an exfoliant. They are typically so small that they flow through treatment filters, polluting waterways with particles that are ultimately eaten or absorbed by wildlife in rivers and seas.
Other countries have also taken steps to banning them in products. Former U.S. president Barack Obama signed a bill to outlaw microbeads in rinse-off products in the U.S. in 2015. New Zealand and Canada have also prohibited them, effective this year.
The U.K.’s is “the strongest and most comprehensive ban to be enacted in the world and will help to stem the flow of micro plastics into our oceans,” said Sue Kinsey, senior pollution officer at the Marine Conservation Society.
The nation added a 5 pence charge to plastic bags in supermarkets and other shops in 2015. It may also enact other initiatives to try to reduce waste, according to Coffey. Next up will be a ban on the sale of products with microbeads, according to an emailed statement.
“Now we have reached this important milestone, we will explore how we can build on our world-leading ban and tackle other forms of plastic waste,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638070&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638070&jd=126638070
-
(ACC Mentioned) Paper: Northeast Could Be Second U.S. Petrochemical Hub
Jan 9, 2018 | North America Shale
An abundance of gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in the northeastern U.S. offers great potential for jobs and economic development, but infrastructure, community support and a well-trained workforce are necessary to capitalize on the opportunity.
That’s the conclusion of the U.S. Northeast Petrochemical Industry Market Outlook 2018, a new white paper from Petrochemical Update. The publication provides a near-term market overview for petrochemical industry in the northeast U.S. It also includes an update of current and proposed projects, a perspective on regional challenges to petrochemical sector expansion, an update on the Appalachian natural gas liquids storage hub and a construction cost analysis.
“While the region with its ample and reliable supply of ethane is primed for the emergence as a second major petrochemical manufacturing hub in the United States, it faces the challenges of rapidly developing a workforce, as well as storage and pipeline infrastructure to fuel such development,” the report says.
The paper notes that discoveries of natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shale extending from New York through Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia prompted announcements of three new ethane cracking plats in the area. However, the Shell Appalachia LLC petrochemical complex in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, is the only one on track to be constructed. It will be the first major U.S. project of its type to be built outside the Gulf Coast in 20 years.
The paper cites Energy Information Administration (EIA) data showing that the demand for natural gas is growing along the U.S. Gulf Coast by about 20 percent year because of the commissioning of LNG export facilities, stronger industrial demand and the increases in pipeline exports to Mexico.
According to the paper, “This demand is also being met by recent shale gas activity in the West Texas Permian Basin, Woodford Basin and Eagle Ford Basin, all of which have good connectivity to the Gulf Coast ethylene cracker market.”
EIA data shows that in the northeast region, natural gas production of 20 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day in 2017 should double in the next 35 years, accounting for 40 percent of total U.S. natural gas production. Dry natural gas production in the eastern region of the U.S.is forecast to grow by a third between 2015 and 2025.
The U.S. produces 25 percent of all the world’s NGL and more than 25 percent comes from the northeast, according to the American Chemical Council (ACC). From 2026 to 2030, NGL production for U.S. demand alone is expected to reach nearly 6.3 million barrels per day (bpd). More than 1 million bpd of NGL will be sourced from the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays.
Unique to the region is that up to 40 percent of the natural gas produced from the Marcellus and Utica shale play is rich in NGL. More than 70 percent of it is ethane and propane.
However, the paper notes that while the northeast region is exporting its ethane to Canada, the Gulf Coast and Europe, “lack of pipelines restricts what is sold, and the balance of at least 150,000 b/d is downgraded in value as it is mixed with the natural gas that supplies homes and businesses for heating and cooking.”
The Petrochemical Update white paper says that a second petrochemical hub in the U.S.—in addition to the one on the Gulf Coast—could “provide supply-chain redundancy for the nation which now relies primarily on production from a region susceptible to hurricanes and tornados.”
Even when pipeline shipments of ethane out of the northeast region are factored in, up to 350,000 to 400,000 bpd of ethane is available for petrochemical feedstock within New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia—enough for five or six ethane crackers, the paper says.
http://northamericanshalemagazine.com/articles/2221/paper-northeast-could-be-second-u-s-petrochemical-hub
-
NAFTA Critical to Continued Energy Development, Says API Chief
Jan 10, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The head of the American Petroleum Institute (API) on Tuesday diverged from the White House on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), arguing that if its benefits cannot be salvaged by modernizing the accord it should be left in place as it is.
API CEO Jack Gerard said the petroleum industry association was "very focused" on NAFTA, and has engaged the Trump administration and Congress regarding negotiations, stressing that the 20-year-plus agreement benefits all U.S. business, not just the energy industry.
In his annual State of American Energy address, Gerard was generally bullish on the prospects for the U.S. oil and gas sector given the "courage and foresight" of President Trump's energy policies and the technology and innovation of member companies to produce energy while cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a 25-year low point.
North America presents a valuable example, he said, of how global trade agreements are good for the energy sector and NAFTA is “critical" to that success, "making energy more affordable and creating opportunities for U.S. companies in Canada and Mexico."
"As the Trump administration continues negotiations with Canada and Mexico, we urge them to seek modernization in ways that maintain these benefits."
Gerard urged an approach with NAFTA that would strengthen U.S. relationships with its neighbors and avoid adding uncertainty between the three nations. "So for the time being, our view is that if we can't modernize and strengthen it, we ought to leave the existing agreement in place."
Stressing that the industry is promoting "environmentally responsible domestic energy production" in the onshore and offshore, Gerard said. He lauded the Trump administration's new five-year plan for offshore development and praised the recently enacted tax reformlegislation, which he said would help the energy industry.
Gerard also encouraged the administration and Congress to push forward with an infrastructure initiative that includes energy. He said API estimates that there is more than $1 trillion of U.S. infrastructure development potential to 2035, and more than one million jobs annually that could be created during the same period.
The draft offshore development plan, he said, would lift unnecessary restrictions and opens up about 90% of Outer Continental Shelf areas to energy resources. However, many coastal states are opposed, and it will take at least a year before a final plan is approved.
"It's not complicated; it's relatively straightforward," Gerard said of the offshore draft. "I thank this administration for having the courage and foresight to ask, 'Why would we restrict our U.S. capability and our natural resources?'”
Many areas of the Gulf of Mexico, for example, "haven't been looked at with our modern technology." The nation shouldn't "continue to deny that opportunity."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112997-nafta-critical-to-continued-energy-development-says-api-chief
-
Oil Lobby Wants Pipelines In Trump’s Infrastructure Push
Jan 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry wants President Trump and Congress's infrastructure plan to include policies boosting oil and natural gas pipelines and making them easier to build.
American Petroleum Institute (API) head Jack Gerard told policymakers and reporters on Tuesday that the group is making a push to jump on the bipartisan excitement for a promised infrastructure bill.
The oil lobby group, which represents numerous parts of the industry, has long been looking for regulatory and permitting changes to simplify and speed up pipeline decisions.
“We’re not looking for a government program, we’re not looking for funding in that way,” Gerard said after delivering his annual “State of American Energy” speech, which he uses to set the group’s annual agenda.
“We’re merely looking for certainty and predictability in things like permitting processes and the ability to get the requisite permit necessary to build infrastructure.”
The oil sector also relies on railroads and maritime transportation to move products, but pipelines are usually the cheapest and safest option when they’re available.
The API’s push comes after years of high-profile protests of pipelines by environmentalists, fueled by major projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline.
Combined with increased local opposition to pipelines, the oil industry is having more difficulty than it has before in developing its infrastructure.
API wants reforms at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and elsewhere to reduce opportunities to block pipelines and to streamline the permitting process, among other changes.
Gerard sought to highlight New York, where the state and activists have sought to stop development of various natural gas pipelines. State regulators tried last year tried to block the Millennium Pipeline, but they were overridden by federal officials.
“We think everybody ought to have a right to come and comment. But once the decision’s made, the process should move forward,” he said.
Gerard repeatedly boasted that pipelines are built with private money, unlike roads and bridges, which are usually built with government money.
“We have resources ready to go, ready to be developed,” he said, citing research that about $1.1 trillion is due to be spent on energy infrastructure over the next 17 years.
“By expanding our focus beyond traditional infrastructure conversation and considering the great opportunity of energy infrastructure investments, we could literally potentially double the economic benefits of infrastructure in this country as we now turn our attention to what we need to do to expand our resources and provide the infrastructure necessary.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/368131-oil-lobby-wants-pipelines-to-be-part-of-trumps-infrastructure-push
-
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Draws Environmental Challenge
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
A federal appeals court should immediately block construction of a 300-mile pipeline project that would run from West Virginia to Virginia, environmental advocates said.
The Sierra Club and other environmental organizations Jan. 8 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to immediately suspend regulatory approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to prevent the start of property taking and land-clearing activities. The lawsuit challenges an October 2017 approval for the project granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline would carry natural gas from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia and connect to the existing Transco Pipeline. The pipeline would be constructed and owned by Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC, a joint venture of EQT Midstream Partners, LP, Con Edison Transmission, Inc., and three other companies, according to the project's website.
The pipeline would pose an unnecessary threat to the environment, according to the environmental petitioners. They alleged that FERC failed to adequately consider those effects in approving the project.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
According to environmental groups, the pipeline would cut through a 3.5-mile stretch of the Jefferson National Forest and cross waterways more than 1,000 times, among other adverse impacts to the environment and natural resources. Federal regulators also failed to show a public need in approving the construction of the project and taking of private property, the groups claim.
“Construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline would devastate communities in West Virginia and Virginia, threatening their water and permanently damaging pristine mountain landscapes to transport natural gas that is not needed,” Peter Anderson, Appalachian Voices’ Virginia program manager, said in a Jan. 9 statement emailed to Bloomberg Environment. “We must hold FERC accountable for failing to evaluate the need for this project in a rational manner, and for dismissing the legitimate environmental concerns outlined by its staff and the public.”
Pipeline company representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case is In re Appalachian Voices, D.C. Cir., No. 18-1006, 1/8/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638047&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638047&jd=126638047
-
States, Cities Urge Pruitt Recusal From Rollback
Jan 10, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A coalition of 19 states and cities called today for U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to recuse himself from the effort to repeal President Obama's signature climate regulation, the Clean Power Plan.
"Administrator Pruitt must be recused from any involvement in the EPA's attempt to repeal the Clean Power Plan," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said in a statement. "He has made a name for himself as someone who will do everything in his power to axe this important environmental policy, and he cannot credibly claim to have an open mind about it."
Becerra's 30-page letter to EPA on behalf of the group details alleged due process violations, lack of fairness and ethical lapses they say arise from Pruitt's involvement in the proposed repeal.
"The Clean Power Plan would reduce coal and gas-fired power plant emissions by 16 percent by 2030, while avoiding 3,500 premature deaths per year. This is what Administrator Pruitt is against," Becerra said in a press release. "He ought to do his job and protect our environment instead of catering to the fossil fuel industry."
The letter was signed by officials from Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington state, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Florida's Broward County, and the cities of Boulder, Colo.; Chicago; New York; Philadelphia; and South Miami.
The authors argue Pruitt cannot serve as a "neutral and fair" decisionmaker on the proposed repeal of the climate rule given his work as Oklahoma attorney general, where he moved to thwart the regulation in its infancy.
They point to Pruitt's disparaging remarks about the CPP, calling it a "so-called Clean Power Plan" and saying it is "outside the authority granted to the EPA by law."
"If we're serious about tackling climate change, we need the Clean Power Plan," Becerra wrote in a post on the website Medium.
"However, there is one person who has long had a personal vendetta against the CPP: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt," Becerra said in the post. "During his time as Oklahoma Attorney General, he worked tirelessly through the courts, legislature, and the media to try to stop the EPA from moving forward with the CPP, hand in hand with the coal industry."
He added: "And now, well, the fox isn't just guarding the henhouse; the fox is inside the henhouse, having a feast."
Pruitt formally initiated the repeal last year and has begun the process for issuing a replacement rule. While there has been debate about what the nature of a new rule would be, the Trump administration is believed to be looking for an "inside the fence line" rule, which would target specific plants. This move is supported by business groups that argued against a total repeal of the rule (Greenwire, Dec. 15, 2017).
The administration has said it intends to finalize the repeal of the Clean Power Plan by October (E&E News PM, Dec. 14, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/09/stories/1060070537
-
Hogan Administration Criticizes EPA Plans To Repeal Clean Power Plan
Jan 9, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Rachel Siegel
Maryland’s environmental secretary is condemning the Trump administration’s moves to repeal a regulation aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan.
In a letter sent Monday to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles said states need federal support to tackle regional and global climate challenges.
He pointed to Maryland’s strides in addressing climate change, including legislation requiring a 40 percent in-state reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and an investment of $44 million for clean-energy products, $3 million of which will go toward green-jobs training.
In a state where Democratic lawmakers have pressed Gov. Larry Hogan (R) to more forcefully reject President Trump’s climate policies, the letter marks the latest push among Maryland’s Republican leadership in support of green-energy standards.
“The Clean Power Plan is not perfect, and it creates some winners and losers,” the letter from Grumbles said. “Nonetheless . . . states have demonstrated that carefully designed carbon dioxide (CO2) emission limits on electricity generation can make states winners both environmentally and economically.”
The letter comes three months after Pruitt moved to repeal the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era climate rule that Pruitt and others in the Trump administration have deemed an assault on the nation’s coal industry. The plan aimed to reduce carbon emissions from existing U.S. power plants by 32 percent from 2005 output levels by 2030.
Hogan has resisted calls from Maryland Democrats that he speak out against Trump, who remains deeply unpopular in Maryland. Hogan faced acute pressure to do so after Trump announced in June that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement.
But Hogan also has touted his own environmental record. He has supported measures promoting electric cars and upheld Maryland’s part in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a collaboration among nine states to cap the amount of carbon pollution emitted from power plants.
Grumbles’s letter cited the regional initiative as “an economically beneficial way” to reduce emissions from power plants. Participating states have reduced their emissions faster than the rest of the country, Grumbles wrote, while growing faster economically.
The secretary cautioned against a repeal of the Clean Power Plan without a strong replacement and said the EPA should hold a public hearing in Annapolis or the Baltimore region to hear from residents, businesses and communities that would be affected if the regulations were rolled back.
Pruitt said in October that “any replacement rule will be done carefully, properly, and with humility, by listening to all those affected by the rule.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/hogan-administration-criticizes-epa-plans-to-repeal-clean-power-plan/2018/01/09/e2c7d45a-f55b-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html?utm_term=.ab37f66ff4bd
-
Energy Department to Release Grid Cyberattack Response Rule
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jimmy H. Koo
The energy secretary may order emergency measures to restore or protect the reliability of the nation's critical electricity infrastructure if the president declares an electric grid security emergency, under a final rule set for release Jan. 10 by the Department of Energy.
The final rule regulates electric grid security emergencies, including cyberattacks that may damage electricity infrastructure or the reliability of the grid.
The Grid Security Emergency Orders: Procedures for Issuance (RIN: 1901-AB40) grants the energy secretary the ability to issue emergency orders and is intended to help prevent or eliminate threats to electricity reliability as quickly as possible.
The contents of an emergency order would be highly dependent on the nature of a particular emergency, meaning the “order itself, rather than theses procedures,” would specify the requirements necessary to address that grid security emergency,” according to an advance copy of the final rule published Jan. 9.
The Energy Department said in the rule it expects to issue such emergency orders rarely, and that the orders will have “no significant impact” on small companies “due to the nature of the orders to protect and/or restore infrastructure.” The Energy Department said it will likely consult with large businesses to formulate proper emergency measures.
The final rule implements certain provisions in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, which defined grid security emergencies to include physical attacks, cyberattacks, electromagnetic pulse—one or more pulses of electromagnetic energy by a device capable of destroying or disrupting hardware or software—and geomagnetic storms impairing the reliability of the U.S. power grid. The FAST Act authorizes the Energy Department to issue emergency orders only to specific entities, including the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) and any “owner, user or operator of critical energy infrastructure or defense critical energy infrastructure,” the final rule said.
NERC is a non-profit international regulatory authority that addresses the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America.
Emergency orders issued by the energy secretary remain effective for up to 15 days, and can be extended up to 15 additional days if the president issues another emergency order.
The final rule allows the energy secretary to grant temporary access to classified information to the essential personnel of entities subject to emergency measures. It also exempts companies affected by emergency orders from being liable for what would otherwise be violations of the Federal Power Act or existing reliability standards, except in cases of gross negligence.
The rule will take effect Jan. 10.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638060&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638060&jd=126638060
-
DOE Finalizes Emergency Security Plan
Jan 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
The Department of Energy today finalized a rule aimed at developing procedures for responding to an electric grid security emergency.
The rule, first proposed in December 2016, "establishes a consistent yet flexible set of procedures by which the Secretary will engage potentially impacted parties in the issuance of orders" under a provision in the Federal Power Act.
Under the new procedures, the secretary of Energy would issue an emergency order after the president declares a grid security emergency — potentially resulting from a physical or cyberattack, an electromagnetic pulse, or a geomagnetic storm event.
The substance of the order, which could apply to the North American Electric Reliability Corp., regional entities, or any other infrastructure owner or operator, would depend on the specific circumstances of the event.
"Because the nature of a grid security emergency is uncertain, the procedures allow for flexibility in response measures," the agency wrote.
One of the first steps DOE would take would be to activate its internal Emergency and Incident Management Council to coordinate the response. Next, the rule lays out how the agency would start reaching out to those affected.
"The Department understands that electric reliability organizations and private industry will likely be impacted by grid security emergencies, and can offer important situational awareness and expertise to assist the Department in identifying mitigation or protection measures," the agency wrote.
DOE can also take enforcement action if parties fail to comply with the emergency orders. Those would remain effective for up to 15 days, and could be extended for additional 15-day periods if the president issues a new directive.
The final version of the rule contains several changes the agency said it added following public comment, including some more clearly defined terms.
Another significant change was that DOE added language to encourage entities to seek immediate clarification if they think an emergency order is unclear or conflicts with existing requirements.
One type of comment the agency did not agree with, however, concerned limiting DOE's ability to issue emergency orders. One suggestion, for example, urged prior vetting by the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/09/stories/1060070519
-
Vancouver Officials Deal Blow To Proposed Oil Terminal
Jan 9, 2018 | The Spokesman-Review
VANCOUVER, Wash. – The port of Vancouver’s Board of Commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to terminate a rolling lease on property that would hold the nation’s largest rail-to-marine oil terminal if the project’s backers don’t provide all the necessary permits by March.
The 3-0 vote is another blow to the Vancouver Energy terminal. A key state energy council recommended in November that Washington Gov. Jay Inslee deny the project, meaning it will be almost impossible for the backers to meet the deadline on the lease.
Inslee has until the end of February to decide whether to accept the recommendation of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
“It’s gratifying to have our commission be united in its vision for the future of the port and community,” said Commission President Eric LaBrant said in an emailed statement. “We still await the Governor’s decision on the project and we continue to be focused on supporting businesses, growing jobs and providing benefit to our community.”
The joint venture of Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies would receive about 360,000 barrels of North American crude oil a day by trains at the port of Vancouver, in southwest Washington state. The oil would then be loaded onto tankers and ships for transport to oil refineries up and down the West Coast.
The lease had automatically renewed every three months until Tuesday’s action.
Developers have said the terminal is needed to bring crude oil from North Dakota and other areas to a western U.S. port to meet growing fuel demands and future energy needs. They’ve argued it could be built safely and would secure a reliable supply of energy for the state.
Tribes, environmental groups and municipalities such as the city of Vancouver lined up against the project.
Opponents argued the terminal would mostly benefit the energy needs of California – and potentially overseas markets in the future – while exposing Washington communities to all of the public safety and environmental risks.
An environmental study released last year found the proposed project included risks to health and safety that could not be entirely mitigated.
Those four risks were identified as train accidents, emergency response delays, negative impacts on low-income communities and the possibility that an earthquake would damage the facility’s dock and cause an oil spill.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jan/09/vancouver-officials-deal-blow-to-proposed-oil-term/
-
Governor Pushes $20 Per Ton Carbon Tax in Washington
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington could generate $3.3 billion over the next four years as part of the $20 per ton carbon tax sought by Gov. Jay Inslee (D).
Inslee introduced the plan Jan. 9 in his annual state-of-the-state speech to a Legislature where Democrats recently gained control of both chambers. But Republicans, whose votes may be necessary to pass the bill, were skeptical.
“We must recognize an existential threat to the health of our state, a threat to the health of our children, and a threat to the health of our businesses that demands action,” Inslee told lawmakers. “That threat is climate change.”
“Now is the time to put a price on carbon,” Inslee asserted to applause in the chamber.
Inslee's proposal would tax emissions from power plants and transportation fuels at an initial rate of $20 per ton beginning July 1, 2019.
Pegged to Inflation
The rate would subsequently go up by 3.5 percent plus inflation per year, according to a policy brieffrom the governor's office.
About 50 percent of the revenue would go to measures supporting a transition to a post-carbon economy, including clean transportation incentives as well as investments and commercialization of clean-energy technologies.
“The problem with a carbon tax is that it disproportionately” impacts the middle class and certain industries such as those that are heavy users of energy and reliant on foreign trade, Senate Minority Leader Mark Schoesler (R) told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 4.
House Republicans are working on a “very, very tiny” carbon bill of their own, House Minority Leader Dan Kristiansen (R) said, calling Inslee's proposal “tax heavy and policy short.”
Inslee said during his speech that “support for enacting a price on carbon is growing. Members of the business, tribal, environmental, and labor communities from across our state are coming to the table to talk about carbon pricing.”
That coalition could drive a carbon tax through a ballot measure if the legislature doesn't, Inslee told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 4.
Spend to Assuage Skeptics?
Inslee added that he is hopeful his proposal will get support from both sides of the aisle because Republican funding priorities could be met with carbon tax revenue.
Discussions with Republican lawmakers are just beginning, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638049&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638049&jd=126638049
-
Exxon Seeks to Depose Officials Bringing Climate Change Suits
Jan 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Exxon Mobil is alleging that climate change claims by several California municipalities are inconsistent with statements they made to investors in their bond offerings.
The company asked a Texas trial court Jan. 8 to order pre-suit discovery “to determine whether legal action is warranted,” arguing that the municipalities are “abusing law enforcement authority and legal process to impose their viewpoint on climate change.”
The filing is the latest salvo in climate change public nuisance litigation, which observers say is likely to expand beyond California.
In the underlying suits filed in California, the counties of Marin and San Mateo, and the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and Imperial Beach allege that emissions from Exxon Mobil, BP PLC, Chevron, and several other energy producers threaten their communities with sea level rise, and constitute a public nuisance.
The Exxon Mobil filing seeks to depose the public officials and attorneys involved in the California suits.
The company argues that the municipalities claims of sea level rise are inconsistent with their statements to investors.
“Notwithstanding their claims of imminent, allegedly near-certain harm, none of the municipalities disclosed to investors such risks in their respective bond offerings,” the petition said.
The company claims that the cities and counties are “attempting to stifle Exxon Mobil's exercise, in Texas, of its First Amendment right to participate in the national dialogue about climate change and climate policy.”
Michael Burger, a professor and director of the Sabin Law Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York, was critical of the filing.
“There is little question that the underlying claims are legitimate and there is nothing frivolous or sanctionable about bringing them,” Burger told Bloomberg Law.
“This is consistent with other legal measures taken by Exxon Mobil and other companies to push back against state officials pursuing climate action in the courts,” Burger said.
“One might construe this as a way to harass the officials bringing suit,” he said.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, Cantey Hanger LLP and Haynes & Boone LLP represent Exxon Mobil.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=126638071&vname=dennotallissues&fn=126638071&jd=126638071
-
How Much Has ‘Climate Change’ Been Scrubbed From Federal Websites? A Lot.
Jan 10, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
WASHINGTON — Nearly a year into the Trump administration, mentions of climate change have been systematically removed, altered or played down on websites across the federal government, according to a report made public Wednesday.
The findings of the report, by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, an international coalition of researchers and activist groups, are in keeping with the policies of a president who has proudly pursued an agenda of repealing environmental regulations, opening protected lands and waters to oil and gas drilling, withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord, shrinking the boundaries of federal monuments, and appointing top officials who have questioned or denied the established science of human-caused climate change.
The authors of the study said that the removal of the words “climate change” from government websites, and a widespread effort to delete or bury information on climate change programs, would quite likely have a detrimental impact.
“We have found significant loss of public access to information about climate change,” the authors wrote.
“Why are these federal agencies putting so much effort into ‘science cleansing’ instead of using time and resources to fulfill agency responsibilities, such as protecting the environment and advancing energy security?” they wrote. “Removing information regarding climate change from federal websites does not affect the reality of climate change, but may serve to obfuscate the subject and inject doubt regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity.”Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEgraphic60 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump OCT. 5, 2017E.P.A. Scrubs a Climate Website of ‘Climate Change’ OCT. 20, 2017U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump OfficialsNOV. 3, 2017graphic2017: The Year in Climate DEC. 6, 2017
The report tracks the Environmental Protection Agency’s removal of hundreds of websites connected to state and local climate change programs; the removal of information about international climate change programs from the State Department, Energy Department and E.P.A. websites; and the deletion of the words “climate change” from websites throughout the federal government.
In many cases, the report found, “climate change” was replaced by vaguer terms such as “sustainability.”
In a separate report, also made public Wednesday, the group found that the Bureau of Land Management had deleted its climate change website and removed text about the importance of climate change mitigation from its main site.
The researchers took care to note that raw government data on climate change, such as historical records of temperatures and emissions levels, had not been deleted. However, Toly Rinberg, a co-author of the report, said: “The data is certainly less accessible. Links to websites that host the data have been removed. That data is still available online but it’s been made harder to find on the agency’s websites.”
Trump administration officials have noted that it is the administration’s prerogative to highlight its agenda — repealing climate change policies and promoting the exploration of oil, gas and coal — on its websites. The Obama administration sought to promote climate change policies and elevate the issue in the public eye, but the Trump administration is under no obligation to continue that effort.
And some information about government programs related to climate change, while no longer easily found on the main federal agencies’ websites, was still accessible. Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in an email that pages were “archived and available” on the agency’s website.
But the report concluded that of all federal agencies, the E.P.A. — the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environment and public health — had removed the most information about climate change. An E.P.A. website once titled “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local and Tribal Governments,” which included prominent links to programs like “Climate Showcase Communities,” now contains no mention of the term “climate change” and no prominent links to state and local climate information.
The E.P.A. has also removed a website on the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s signature climate change regulation, which was designed to reduce planet-warming pollution from power plants. The Trump administration has put forth a legal plan to repeal that regulation, and part of that process includes a public comment period. The new report suggests that when people cannot easily find the original rule on the E.P.A.’s website, they may be less likely to submit comments against repealing it.
“Beyond reducing access to actionable information, removing public web resources can undermine democratic institutions such as notice-and-comment rulemaking,” the report’s authors wrote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/climate/climate-change-trump.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested