Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/24/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Farm Hands on the Potomac - Gil Gonzalez back with USDA Rural Development
Jan 24, 2018 | AgriPulse
...Gerard joined API after serving as president and CEO of two large trade associations – the National Mining Association and the American Chemistry Council. He also worked for almost a decade in the U.S. Senate and House... -
Dourson, Controversial Toxics Nominee, Departs EPA
Jan 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
Michael Dourson, the Trump administration's failed nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, is leaving EPA, where he had served as an adviser on chemicals policy to Administrator Scott Pruitt since the fall. -
Pruitt Picks Acting Homeland Security, Science Board Chiefs
Jan 23, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA will have new acting officials in Administrator Scott Pruitt's office, including an incoming head of its homeland security shop. -
After SAB Changes, Academics Plan Panel To Review EPA Science Products
Jan 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A group of academic engineers and scientists is creating a new panel to peer review draft EPA science products, and will be chaired by a former member of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB), in reaction to their concerns with changes that Administrator Scott Pruitt... -
Scientists Sue EPA over Its Policy on Advisory Boards
Jan 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jacqueline Thomsen
A group of scientists is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for blocking scientists who receive agency funding from serving on the EPA's advisory boards. -
EPA Changes: Simply Simplifying or Causing Potential for Harm?
Jan 24, 2018 | MultiBriefs Exclusive
By Scott E. Rupp
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been undergoing an effort to streamline its safety review process for new chemicals, NBC News reported recently. But some former EPA officials and industry advocates are worried the changes will harm the public. -
Cancer Listing for Plastics Chemical Unlikely to Burden Companies
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A federal science panel soon will decide whether a chemical made or imported by BASF, DuPont, Campine NV, and Lanxess Corp. to make flame retardants, batteries, and plastics should be classified as a potential human carcinogen. -
'Environmental Chemicals Could Cost 10% of Global GDP'
Jan 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Preventable environmental chemical exposures contribute to health costs that may exceed 10% of global gross domestic product (GDP), a US government-funded study says. -
Grid Survives Cold Snap Despite Gas Constraints: Energy Regulator
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The nation's electric grid operated well during the cold snap in December and January, but concerns remain about gas pipeline constraints in the Northeast, an energy regulator and grid operator told a Senate committee. -
Five Workers Killed at Site of Oklahoma Gas Rig Disaster
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe and Sam Pearson
Five oilfield workers are dead after a natural gas well exploded and caught fire in eastern Oklahoma Jan. 22, authorities said. -
Court: Oil Company Can Be Sued When Worker Injured or Killed
Jan 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Tim Talley
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that oil and natural gas companies can be sued when a worker is killed or injured on the job. -
NEB Rejects 'Premature' Discounted Toll for U.S. Shale Gas to New Brunswick
Jan 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
A halt has been called to an attempt by Canada's biggest oil refinery to avoid looming pipeline cost increases for switching Canadian East Coast natural gas markets over to imports from the United States. -
(ACC Blog) Building a Strong Foundation for Chemical Security Regulations
Jan 23, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Amy Graydon
Chemicals are essential to our everyday lives. It is hard to think of a field that does not use chemicals—from developing medicines and providing refrigeration for our food supply, to manufacturing fuel for our vehicles and building microchips for our smartphones. -
Ferc Chair Sees Moderate Grid Risk from Coal, Nuclear Plant Closures
Jan 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre told lawmakers today that on a scale from one to 10, he'd put the seriousness of the risks facing the power grid from the retirement of coal and nuclear power plants at a five. -
Rail Workers Acquitted in Trial on Deadly Lac-Mégantic Oil Train Disaster
Jan 23, 2018 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
The train engineer and two additional rail workers who faced charges for the deadly July 2013 oil train accident in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, were acquitted on Friday after the jury deliberated for nine days. If convicted of all charges, they potentially faced life in prison. -
Industries Fear Dangerous Precedent from Exxon Citizen Suit Penalty
Jan 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
Groups representing refiners, manufacturers and other industries are urging a federal appeals court to undo a district court's almost $20 million penalty for Clean Air Act violations in a citizen suit against ExxonMobil Corp., fearing it creates a dangerous precedent... -
Trump Team May Not Have Time to Delay Water Rule
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Delaying a rule describing the scope of the nation's water pollution law in the next 25 days is “unlikely” as the Trump administration scrambles to withdraw the Obama-era regulation. -
Senate Dems Strategize Ahead of Pruitt Hearing
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Senate Democrats held a strategy session yesterday ahead of U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's planned appearance on Capitol Hill next week. -
Survey: Mayors View Climate Change as Pressing Urban Issue
Jan 23, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Bob Salsberg
U.S. mayors increasingly view climate change as a pressing urban issue, so much so that many advocate policies that could inconvenience residents or even hurt their cities financially. U.S. mayors increasingly view climate change as a pressing urban issue, so much so that many advocate policies that could inconvenience residents or even hurt their cities financially.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Farm Hands on the Potomac - Gil Gonzalez back with USDA Rural Development
Jan 24, 2018 | AgriPulse
...Gerard joined API after serving as president and CEO of two large trade associations – the National Mining Association and the American Chemistry Council. He also worked for almost a decade in the U.S. Senate and House. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo named Maggie Sklar...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/10509-farm-hands-on-the-potomac---gil-gonzalez-back-with-usda-rural-development
-
Dourson, Controversial Toxics Nominee, Departs EPA
Jan 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
Michael Dourson, the Trump administration's failed nominee to lead EPA's toxics office, is leaving EPA, where he had served as an adviser on chemicals policy to Administrator Scott Pruitt since the fall.
“I sincerely and deeply appreciate all the support from many of you during this confirmation process. I also look forward to continue working with you to determine safe levels of chemical exposure for both human health and ecosystems,” Dourson said in a Jan. 19 email to a number of his former colleagues.
An EPA spokesman said Jan. 23 that officials wish him “continued success in his future endeavors.”
The spokesman described Dourson as “a highly qualified scientist who worked at EPA for 15 years, founded a program that characterized the health hazards of chemicals, and performed pro-bono work that saved a family near Cincinnati - in addition, his expertise on [trichloroethylene (TCE)] helped 130 families near San Francisco.”
Dourson is a former EPA risk assessor who President Donald Trump nominated to lead the agency's toxics office. But his nomination was widely condemned by environmentalists and Senate Democrats, who argued that Dourson was too closely tied to industry whom he had worked with as a consultant through his non-profit group Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) on numerous chemicals.
After Republican senators from North Carolina joined Democrats in declining to confirm him, Dourson asked Trump to withdraw his nomination.
But Dourson, who had worked at EPA as an advisor to Pruitt since his nomination last fall apparently remained at EPA, though the agency's press office has for weeks declined to respond to requests regarding his status.
Dourson's Jan. 19 email to a number of his former colleagues indicates he is now leaving the agency. He has also updated his Linked In page to suggest that his tenure as senior advisor to Pruitt ends in January.
Dourson called his nomination to serve as EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention “quite exciting, but also humbling ... The ensuing months of web-based stories about my work at the nonprofit [TERA] and the University of Cincinnati were surprising. Seldom mentioned was TERA's balance of work between industry and government (1/3 industry, 2/3 government ...”
Dourson explained that he asked Trump to withdraw his nomination “[i]n order to avoid unnecessarily politicizing the important environmental protection goals of Administrator Pruitt … The office is currently being lead under the capable hands of Charlotte Bertrand, Nancy Beck and Louise Wise.”
EPA's spokesman did not respond to a query regarding a new nominee. Observers have suggested that the office will likely continue operating under the leadership of Beck, a political appointee in a deputy, non-confirmed position, for the foreseeable future, though they expect a nomination at some point.
It is unclear what Dourson's next steps are. His risk analysis group TERA became the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati in 2015, but Dourson's name no longer appears on the online directory of faculty and staff at the university's environmental health department.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dourson-controversial-toxics-nominee-departs-epa
-
Pruitt Picks Acting Homeland Security, Science Board Chiefs
Jan 23, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA will have new acting officials in Administrator Scott Pruitt's office, including an incoming head of its homeland security shop.
EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson said in an internal email obtained by E&E News that he has asked Ted Stanich to serve as acting associate administrator of the agency's Office of Homeland Security, effective Jan. 29.
Stanich is currently deputy director of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division. He has also worked in the agency's region 3, 4 and 5 branches and has served as the special agent in charge of the Washington, D.C., office.
Stanich replaces Mario Caraballo, who will return to his original deputy position in the homeland security office. Caraballo had replaced Dave Kling, who retired in October last year as head of OHS.
In addition, Jackson announced that Tom Brennan has agreed to serve as acting director of the Science Advisory Board, starting Feb. 5.
Brennan is currently the chief of staff in the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education at EPA. He has also been a deputy director for SAB and worked in several roles for the agency's chemicals office.
Brennan replaces Chris Zarba, who is retiring from EPA early next month. Zarba and his staff were tasked with notifying members of EPA's science advisory panel who were in conflict with Pruitt's ban on receiving EPA grants (Greenwire, Jan. 10).
In his email to EPA employees this afternoon, Jackson thanked both Zarba and Caraballo for their service at the agency. He also said the search continues for permanent heads of OHS and SAB.
"Thanks to Tom and Ted for stepping up as we begin the process for permanently filling these important positions," Jackson said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/23/stories/1060071721
-
After SAB Changes, Academics Plan Panel To Review EPA Science Products
Jan 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A group of academic engineers and scientists is creating a new panel to peer review draft EPA science products, and will be chaired by a former member of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB), in reaction to their concerns with changes that Administrator Scott Pruitt has made to SAB in recent months.
The Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP), a 55-year-old organization whose more than 800 members include professors, graduate students and others, is creating a new committee that will be tasked with tracking EPA's output of draft scientific reports and other products, and peer reviewing those deemed appropriate for the committee's review, two members tell Inside EPA.
"When we started hearing about the changes [to EPA advisory committees we became concerned] about science playing a role in decisions being made [at EPA]," Linda Weavers, president of AEESP, said of the organization's impetus for creating the new committee. "That's where we're coming from."
The new committee will be known as the Environmental Science and Policy Advisory Committee (ESPAC), and is intended to "provide unbiased reviews of the science supporting selected planned regulatory actions under consideration by the EPA. The committee will also assess the appropriateness and scientific soundness of the conclusions presented in the EPA reports. The ESPAC will operate in a manner similar to that of the . . . [SAB]," according to a press release on the organization's website.
Weavers said that a "good number" of the organization's members are or have been members of SAB or its many subcommittees or ad hoc panels for addressing specific requests from the agency. She said AEESP's board selected David Dzombak, a longtime AEESP member, former SAB member and chairman of Carnegie Mellon University's civil and environmental engineering department to chair the new panel.
"We sought him out; he's very thoughtful and a National Academy of Engineering member as well," Weavers said. "We're looking to populate the committee with very high level people in the field. I know he's thinking very carefully about how this can and should be done to maintain the highest level of credibility."
Their effort comes in response to controversial changes that Pruitt has made to SAB and other advisory committees. Last year, the administrator adopted a new policy that barred EPA grant recipients from serving on the panels, charging they have conflicts of interest in favor of regulation.
Pruitt also forced the removal of a several advisory panel members whose terms were expiring -- even if they were eligible for a customary second term -- and replaced them with new advisors, many drawn from states and industry who generally favor Pruitt's deregulatory approaches.
And Pruitt replaced the chairs of SAB and two other key advisory committees, the Board of Scientific Counselors, and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Advisory Changes
The move has drawn significant criticism and litigation: several environmental groups and former advisory panel members are suing the agency, alleging procedural and substantive violations of federal advisory committee laws.
In a Jan. 9 letter to Pruitt, two Democratic senators raised concerns that two of the new advisors Pruitt selected have conflicts of interest because they have received funding from industry groups and suggested they may lack "appropriate" scientific qualifications.
Dzombak, who is slated to chair the new panel, served on SAB from 2002 to 2016, a particularly long tenure due to his role leading SAB's long-running panel reviewing a draft EPA report on whether hydraulic fracturing leads to systemic adverse impacts to drinking water.
Dzombak tells Inside EPA that he is in the process of creating an operating plan for the new committee which will be presented to the organization's February board meeting for approval. "The [committee] membership is evolving," Dzombak said. "We are getting a detailed plan together."
Like Weavers, Dzombak explains that the committee's creation is "driven by changes in the membership of the SAB at EPA and the concern about the state of science review for EPA products. . . . Our goal is to engage the expertise of the whole [AEESP] organization and be focused on scientific peer review for EPA."
Dzombak adds that the committee might "potentially" consider reviewing draft scientific documents from agencies beyond EPA, but it will depend on its ability to do so. "EPA is a big enough charge to take on to start with," he acknowledges.
Potential sources of materials that the committee will consider include "products out for public comment, released in draft form, scientific documents serving as the basis for agency guidance, other various program offices -- the kind of thing SAB and other advisory groups at EPA undertake to provide scientific peer review of EPA products." After reviewing the materials, the committee will choose whether and how to act upon it, Dzombak said.
"We might choose to take no action, or to alert [AEESP] members to provide peer review comment as individual experts. Or, we could select a group of AEESP members to peer review [the document and submit the result to EPA] as a comment from AEESP."
Dzombak and Weavers said that the AEESP committee will limit its reviews to topics appropriate for the organization. Weavers explained that would include largely focusing on certain items assigned to the chartered SAB, and its drinking water and environmental engineering subcommittees, to focus the committee's work "on where we have expertise."
Both said that AEESP's reviews will not include toxicology or risk assessment type work often conducted by SAB's Chemical Safety Assessment Committee and ad hoc panels, because the membership does not have that expertise. "We're not going to do toxicology," Weavers said. "We don't generally have people from a public health background" among AEESP's members.
One concern is the small organization's limited staff to track ongoing work at EPA or other agencies. Dzombak says he plans "to leverage the activity in other professional organizations that monitor activities of EPA and the products it releases. Our committee would interact with and receive information from entities of government affairs groups or our organization and others we work with. . . . We don't have the professional staff to do that, but other organizations do."
Dzombak declined to name the other organizations he is contacting.
Limited Requests
Another concern for the group may be, however, a limited pipeline of science activities or requests from Pruitt on scientific questions that he would like SAB to address, as has been the practice of previous administrators. At its last meeting last August, SAB members questioned staff about new reviews and workload. Christopher Zarba, the SAB staff director, told the board that he would survey leaders in EPA's research office and other scientific offices to see whether they had new requests for SAB review in 2018.
But Joe Arvai, a former SAB member and director of the Erb Institute at the University of Michigan, tells Inside EPAthat agency staff have told him "there is a reluctance to raise issues to the level of requiring [SAB] review. The strategy, I think, is to keep science out of the hands of hacks that are perceived to be influential on, for instance, the SAB."
Dzombak said that during his years on SAB, he observed a "declining amount of products brought to SAB for review," even before the transition to the Trump administration. "It appears there is pretty little activity at SAB right now. But as I told my colleagues at AEESP, we'll look broadly, not just what's coming through SAB. We'll monitor that and see what our members are interested in. We're trying to set something up for the long haul."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/after-sab-changes-academics-plan-panel-review-epa-science-products
-
Scientists Sue EPA over Its Policy on Advisory Boards
Jan 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jacqueline Thomsen
A group of scientists is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for blocking scientists who receive agency funding from serving on the EPA's advisory boards.
The non-profit Protect Democracy, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Tuesday, claiming the policy violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act and “is an attack on science itself.”
“By accusing academic and non-profit grant-funded scientists of having a conflict of interest, [EPA Administrator Scott] Pruitt seeks to portray legitimate, independent scientists — who provide accurate, evidence-based information backed by verifiable, peer-reviewed research in order to inform environmental policy — as just another interest group seeking to advance an agenda,” Protect Democracy wrote in a blog post.
“A policy that excludes the nation’s most eminent scientists not only silences key, unbiased voices in EPA policy development, but signals government disapproval of the former committee members’ work — including, for example, critical climate change research,” the group wrote.
The Union of Concerned Scientists slammed the policy as a way “to make it easier for Pruitt to delay, rollback, or dismantle the EPA regulations that are designed to protect clean air, water, and public health.”
“Under the guise of improving advisory board balance, Pruitt is using this directive to populate advisory boards with industry-funded scientists and state government officials who have made a career fighting federal regulations,” Josh Goldman, a senior policy analyst, wrote about the lawsuit.
The EPA did not immediately return The Hill’s request for comment. An EPA spokesman told CNN that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The EPA announced last year that it would no longer allow scientists that receive EPA grants to sit on the agency's advisory boards.
The policy stops hundreds of scientists from advising EPA officials, and likely increases the number of representatives from industries and companies who sit on the boards.
Pruitt said at the time that the policy was created to reduce conflicts of interest.
“Those advisory committees have given us the bedrock of science to ensure that we’re making informed decisions,” Pruitt said in October.
“And when we have members of those committees that have received tens of millions of dollars in grants at the same time that they’re advising this agency on rulemaking, that is not good and that’s not right,” he continued.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370419-scientists-sue-epa-over-policy-blocking-scientists-with-epa-grants
-
EPA Changes: Simply Simplifying or Causing Potential for Harm?
Jan 24, 2018 | MultiBriefs Exclusive
By Scott E. Rupp
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been undergoing an effort to streamline its safety review process for new chemicals, NBC News reported recently. But some former EPA officials and industry advocates are worried the changes will harm the public.
The most notable change is that the EPA will no longer require manufacturers to sign legal agreements that would restrict the use of new chemicals under certain conditions.
These "consent orders" will still be necessary if EPA officials believe a manufacturer's intended way to use the chemical poses a hazard for public health and the environment. But the orders will no longer be necessary when the chemical product is used beyond its intended purpose, but in a way that could be "reasonably foreseen" as a use in the future.
"A broader regulation known as significant new-use rules will be used for chemicals likely to pose a risk if they are used for a different purpose than intended," said Jeff Morris, the director of the EPA's toxics program, adding that dropping consent orders in these cases would improve efficiency.
Some public health experts and former EPA officials say these new-use rules do not require testing, but could be recommended if a manufacturer wants to use a chemical that has been restricted. However, chemical industry groups say the EPA is still placing stricter regulations on the use of chemicals and expanding the scope of reviews.
This news comes shortly after the EPA announced in December that it would indefinitely postpone bans on the use of three toxic chemicals found in consumer products, in an effort to curb "unnecessary regulatory burdens." The proposed bans targeted methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), ingredients in paint strippers; and trichloroethylene (TCE), used as a spot cleaner in dry-cleaning and as a degreasing agent.
Under an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 2017, the EPA is reviewing the risks of 10 chemicals, including other uses of the three listed above. The updated law is known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named after the late New Jersey senator who had long championed an overhaul of the loophole-ridden toxic substances law.
“The revised law had strong bipartisan support," The New York Times wrote. "The Senate passed the measure on a voice vote; the House approved it 403 to 12. The intention was to give the EPA the authority necessary to require new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products, from laundry detergents to hardware supplies."
Additionally, the law requires the EPA to examine about 20 chemicals at a time for no longer than seven years per chemical, but it allows for faster action on high-risk uses of methylene chloride, NMP and TCE.
The NBC report says some former EPA officials, experts and advocates think the EPA is "skipping vital steps that protect the public from hazardous chemicals that consumers have never used before, undermining new laws and regulations that Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2016."
This could mean that manufacturers receive approval to introduce a new chemical for one purpose without the need for a thorough review of the chemical's safety if it is later used for a different purpose, they say. Experts cite asbestos as an example that was once used for building insulation but is still found in brake pads for automobiles and is used to manufacture chlorine.
Bob Sussman, a former EPA attorney during the Obama administration, disagrees with the EPA changes, telling NBC News that the "EPA is explicitly disavowing and downplaying a tool that's really been a cornerstone of new chemical regulation. We believe the EPA is taking a big step backward in the protection of health and the environment without an offsetting benefit."
Some consumer advocates agree with Sussman, saying that the EPA's moves are "sabotaging a safety review process that Congress had taken great pains to bolster." For example, Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, told NBC that the 2016 law requires the EPA to assess the broad use of chemicals because manufacturers frequently find different uses for hazardous substances over time, as in the use of asbestos.
When President Donald Trump took office, the EPA was facing a backlog of new chemicals awaiting safety reviews, with about 600 cases piling up after Congress approved reforms to Lautenberg Act, passed in June 2016. For the first time, the EPA was required to make a determination that a new chemical was safe before it could be sold to consumers, using stricter criteria to evaluate their health and environmental risks. The new law also required the EPA to evaluate the risks of chemicals already in commercial use, by specific deadlines.
The Trump administration says that its safety reviews will be just as robust under its changes to the program. If a manufacturer wants to use a chemical for a new purpose that might be risky, it's still legally required to seek the EPA's approval if there are significant new-use restrictions in place. The EPA can then mandate more testing at that point.
"The end result is that there would be the same amount of testing," Morris said.
Under Obama, the EPA didn't have to sign off on new chemicals if it concluded that they were likely to be safe. If the manufacturer heard nothing from the agency within 90 days, it could go ahead and start making its new product. Under the new law, the EPA has to make an affirmative decision that a new chemical is safe before it can be commercialized.
http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/epa-changes-simply-simplifying-or-causing-harm/waste-management-environmental
-
Cancer Listing for Plastics Chemical Unlikely to Burden Companies
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A federal science panel soon will decide whether a chemical made or imported by BASF, DuPont, Campine NV, and Lanxess Corp. to make flame retardants, batteries, and plastics should be classified as a potential human carcinogen.
The classification is not expected to immediately impose new labeling or hazard communications, industry spokespeople said.
The science panel's backing would be one more step toward an official classification of antimony trioxide in the U.S., which eventually could trigger tighter regulations in California, other U.S. states, and in other countries, an industry official with Belgium-based Campine who opposes the classification told Bloomberg Environment. Despite his opposition, the panel's vote and even the potential classification won't immediately harm business, he said.
BASF, DuPont, and Lanxess are among the chemical companies that have made antimony trioxide or imported it into both the U.S. and the European Union for a variety of applications, according to information the companies provided the European Chemicals Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Five physicians described the federal scientific analysis underlying the proposed classification as “comprehensive and well-written.” Antimony trioxide, however, can raise possible health concerns beyond cancer, they said in comments submitted for the science panel's review.
Antimony trioxide is used as a synergist that helps make flame retardants more effective in plastics, paints, specialty textiles, and other products, the International Antimony Association said.
Worker Exposures
Antimony trioxide also is used to make polyethylene terephthalate (PET), plastics that are used for bottled water containers and other beverages. While it's used in the production process, the compound isn't found in final consumer products, reducing the potential for public exposure.
Exposure also can occur during lead acid battery production, the National Toxicology Program said in a draft analysis of the chemical. Antimony is among the materials that are added to lead to provide strength and to improve electrical properties.
Workers are the population that potentially has the greatest exposure, according to the program's analysis.
A panel of scientists is scheduled to peer review the draft analysis Jan. 24 and vote on the toxicology program's draft classification of antimony trioxide as a “reasonably anticipated” human carcinogen. The proposed listing was based on test animal evidence backed by cellular studies of biological activity.
The peer review panel's recommendation is one step toward what could be antimony trioxide's listing in the federal Report on Carcinogens, which lists known and reasonably anticipated carcinogens. The steps, detailed by the toxicology program, conclude with a final decision, which is made by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Science Dispute
Michael Greenberg, a physician and public health professors at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, along with four colleagues praised many aspects of the toxicology program's analysis.
Their comments also listed additional ways workers could be exposed and health concerns beyond cancer, such as spontaneous abortions among pregnant workers, that some studies have associated with antimony trioxide.
But Wim De Vos, chief executive officer of Campine, a Belgian company that's been in the antimony business for 100 years, told Bloomberg Environment the science about how antimony trioxide affects human health doesn't warrant the proposed cancer classification.
While very high doses of antimony trioxide have caused lung cancer in laboratory animals, “comparable evidence has not been observed in workers,” he said. “Modern workplaces do not have high occupational presence of antimony trioxide in workplace air and have not observed a particularly increased incidence of lung cancer in their workforce, compared to the normal population.”
Campine and the International Antimony Association detailed their objections to the National Toxicology Program's interpretation of scientific studies involving antimony trioxide and offered their evaluations in comments submitted to the peer review panel.
“There is no reason to conclude that antimony trioxide would be a potential human carcinogen,” Campine wrote.
Business Impacts
The inclusion of antimony trioxide in the Report on Carcinogens (RoC), “is still under discussion, but could indeed yield a number of consequences, said De Vos, who is also chairman of the International Antimony Association's board.
“Substances listed on RoC are more likely picked up in regulations at the U.S. federal or state level, and can also inspire other territories beyond the U.S. But it is important to note that the RoC is not regulation and does as such not trigger any changes in the value chain which are determined by regulations only,” he said.
There are several reasons the classification won't be an immediate effect, according to De Vos.
First, a World Health Organization agency classified antimony trioxide as probably carcinogenic to humans in 1989. “As antimony trioxide has been classified as a potential carcinogen for decades now, exposure controls are probably in place already,” De Vos said. The listing, however, could prompt companies to reinforce the safe use conditions they employ, he said.
DuPont's comments echoed Campine's. “We do not expect the proposed classification of antimony trioxide will significantly impact our business operations,” said company spokesman Dan Turner.
Protecting workers’ safety and health is the company's top priority, Turner said. “DuPont already uses internal safety standards, guidelines, and personal protective equipment to protect workers, he said. “If the agency reclassifies the substance, we will review our standards and protective equipment to ensure worker safety.”
A second reason the RoC listing would be unlikely to have an immediate business impact involves the market, De Vos said. The price of the metal spiked in 2011 after the closure of antimony mines in China, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Companies that could use antimony trioxide alternatives already switched to them, according to De Vos. The companies that use the metalloid now, “would hence not consider using less antimony trioxide or changing to another substance, as their priority is to guarantee performance,” he said. Antimony trioxide is a metalloid, because it has metallic and nonmetallic characteristics.
Lanxess is monitoring the potential classification closely, Frank Grodzki, a company spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127298059&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127298059&jd=127298059
-
'Environmental Chemicals Could Cost 10% of Global GDP'
Jan 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Preventable environmental chemical exposures contribute to health costs that may exceed 10% of global gross domestic product (GDP), a US government-funded study says.
The researchers gathered available exposure data from the published literature, by searching for key terms in the PubMed database. They also made use of the websites of:
· the European Commission's Directorate General for statistics, Eurostat;
· the OECD; and
· the World Health Organization.
The study focused on neurotoxicants, air pollution and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
The impact of a health problem – the burden of disease (BoD) – is often calculated in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). But the researchers say that this can lead to significant underestimates for several reasons.
DALY calculations are available for only a few environmental chemicals, they say, and those are based primarily on mortality and clinical morbidity, meaning less serious conditions are disregarded.
Genon Jensen at Brussels-based NGO HEAL described the results as "a wake-up call for decision makers in Europe and beyond".
Philippe Grandjean at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in the US and Martine Bellanger at the EHESP School of Public Health in France conducted the research. It was part funded by a National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant and is published in the journal Environmental Health.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63268/environmental-chemicals-could-cost-10-of-global-gdp
-
Grid Survives Cold Snap Despite Gas Constraints: Energy Regulator
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The nation's electric grid operated well during the cold snap in December and January, but concerns remain about gas pipeline constraints in the Northeast, an energy regulator and grid operator told a Senate committee.
While there were stresses on several regions, “overall the bulk power system performed relatively well,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Kevin McIntyre said during a Jan. 23 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of the grid after the unusually cold winter weather in the eastern U.S.
Regional grid operators and utilities learned from the 2014 polar vortex, the last cold weather event, which led to frozen coal piles and plants going offline, McIntyre said. The operators were better prepared this time during the cold spell known as the “bomb cyclone” in late December through early January.
Large price spikes occurred in the Northeast due to greater demand for natural gas to use as home heating. Day-ahead daily average peak-period power prices for Jan. 5, one of the coldest days of the winter freeze, reached $247 per megawatt-hour in New England and New York and $262 per megawatt-hour in the Mid-Atlantic, compared with average prices of $30 to $50 per megawatt-hour in the preceding six weeks, according to the Energy Information Administration.
But ultimately, the wholesale electricity markets, which FERC oversees, operated as intended, McIntyre said.
“We did experience significant price increases and that's the kind of thing that can, in a broad sense, be helpful,” he said at the hearing. A market signal that indicated short-term spikes in demand was important because “it sends proper signals to both providers of the resource and consumers.”
Pipeline Constraints in Northeast
The Northeast faces obstacles to building new pipelines to meet the demand for natural gas, Gordon van Welie, chief executive officer of ISO New England, the regional operator that runs the New England grid, said at the hearing.
Primarily, no customers are prepared to sign a long-term contract to have a pipeline built in the region, he said.
Even if there is a contract, developers face siting challenges in New England and New York. New York has a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and its Department of Environmental Conservation has denied water permits for natural gas pipelines.
“For us to move the gas from the Marcellus Shale into New England, you'd have to overcome those two obstacles,” van Welie said. Instead, ISO New England has had to turn to alternative energy sources, such as oil and liquefied natural gas imports from Canada and Russia.
Environmental groups oppose building new natural gas pipelines in the Northeast and favor more renewable energy.
“We are concerned for sure about new pipelines that would lock in fossil fuel infrastructure and the emissions that go along with it for decades,” John Moore, director of the Sustainable FERC Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg Environment after the hearing.
“That's why we're looking for other supply sources, along with demand response and energy storage,” he said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the committee, stressed the need to address natural gas pipeline constraints, while also noting the pitfalls of relying too heavily on one resource.
“We must ensure that our nation's natural gas supply—a boon to our economy and to our national security—can be reliably delivered to a changing marketplace,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127298064&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127298064&jd=127298064
-
Five Workers Killed at Site of Oklahoma Gas Rig Disaster
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe and Sam Pearson
Five oilfield workers are dead after a natural gas well exploded and caught fire in eastern Oklahoma Jan. 22, authorities said.
Pittsburg County Sheriff Chris Morris confirmed at a news conference Jan. 23 that authorities recovered five bodies from an area of the drilling rig known as the “dog house,” a room adjacent to the rig floor that is the main work area for staff and where the fire would have been most intense. He previously stated that 17 of the 22 workers on site managed to evacuate.
Morris described a chaotic scene when an explosion and fire shot up the rig at about 9 a.m. Jan. 22. He said one worker climbed high up the rig's derrick and slid down on a cable.
“Everybody was trying to survive,” Morris said.
The bodies were being taken to the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Oklahoma City for identification, Morris said.
Morris identified the workers as Matt Smith, 29, of McAlester, Okla.; Parker Waldridge, 60, of Crescent, Okla.; Roger Cunningham, 55, of Seminole, Okla.; Josh Ray, 35, of Fort Worth, Texas, and Cody Risk, 26, of Wellington, Colo.
Patterson-UTI Energy Inc., owner of the rig drilling at the blast site near the town of Quinton, said in a statement late Jan. 22 that three of the five were its employees.
“We've reached out to their families and are providing support during this difficult time,” Andy Hendricks, chief executive officer at Houston-based Patterson, said in the statement. “At this moment, no one knows with certainty what happened and it would be unwise to speculate.”
Multiple Investigations Possible
OSHA is investigating the incident, said Chauntra Rideaux, a spokeswoman for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regional office in Dallas, which covers Oklahoma. In an email to Bloomberg Environment Jan. 23, Rideaux said OSHA can't share more information until the investigation is complete.
Local officials at the news conference Jan. 23 said the Chemical Safety Board would soon be at the scene. CSB spokeswoman Hillary Cohen said in an email to Bloomberg Environment that the board had decided to send two investigators to Oklahoma “to gather additional information in order to determine if the CSB will be pursuing a full investigation.”
The board does not appear to have previously investigated an incident at a natural gas drilling facility. In 2006, the CSB released a case study on a fatal explosion in a rural oil production field in Raleigh, Miss., that year that killed three contract workers and seriously injured another.
The board has conducted one previous case study in Oklahoma after two incidents in which bystanders were killed in explosions at unmonitored oil and gas production sites.
Investigation and Regulation
If the CSB investigates, it would attempt to determine the root cause of the explosion and could issue safety recommendations to the well operator and government agencies to prevent a future explosion.
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who represents the area where the explosion occurred, said at the news conference it was important to determine what happened at the site.
“If there's something that we can do to prevent it in the future, that's great,” Mullin said. “Sometimes, it's just a freak accident.”
Mullin introduced a resolution (H.J. Res. 59) last year to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency chemical facility safety regulation. The rule was the Obama administration's response to a Texas fertilizer explosion that killed 15 people in 2013.
Mullin's resolution would have prevented the agency from issuing a substantially similar regulation in the future. He said it was important that “if there's something that was preventable, let's make sure we highlight it and it doesn't happen again.”
Dousing Fire
Morris said the fire was brought under control late Jan. 22 and authorities let it cool down overnight.
Halliburton Co.’s Boots & Coots well-control unit was called to the burning site, Matt Skinner, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, said in a phone interview.
Skinner told Bloomberg Environment the OCC will investigate whether the operators violated environmental laws. The OCC does not have jurisdiction over potential worker safety violations.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127298060&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127298060&jd=127298060
-
Court: Oil Company Can Be Sued When Worker Injured or Killed
Jan 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Tim Talley
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that oil and natural gas companies can be sued when a worker is killed or injured on the job.
The state’s highest court struck down a state workers’ compensation law that exempted oil and gas well operators and owners from lawsuits, including one filed by a worker who was fatally burned in 2014 at an Oklahoma County oil well site operated by Stephens Production Co.
The ruling was handed down one day after a fiery explosion at an Oklahoma gas drilling rig in southeastern Oklahoma left five workers missing. Officials said Tuesday they had recovered the remains of all five workers who were unaccounted for.
The family of trucker David Chambers Sr. filed a lawsuit after he was dispatched to the oil well site in Crescent, Oklahoma, to pick up waste water and was severely burned on Oct. 6, 2014. Chambers, who was 59, died three days later. The family’s attorney, T. Luke Abel, said Chambers was “horrifically burned” and “never made it out of the hospital.”
Among other things, the lawsuit seeks at least $300,000 in damages and alleges that the company negligently operated the well and failed to warn Chambers of dangerous conditions at the site.
But attorneys for Stephens argued that a workers’ compensation law adopted by the Oklahoma Legislature in 2013 granted the oil well’s operator immunity from the lawsuit. The law was among a series of civil justice reform measures adopted by the Republican-dominated Oklahoma Legislature and signed into law by GOP Gov. Mary Fallin in 2013 that supporters said would help block frivolous lawsuits and reduce malpractice and liability insurance costs for doctors and businesses.
In an 8-0 ruling with one recusal, the Supreme Court agreed with a district court judge who ruled the statute is an unconstitutional special law designed to treat the oil and gas industry differently than other industries.
“...No valid reason exists for the special treatment of the oil and gas industry” under Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation system, the high court’s ruling states.
An attorney for Stephens, E. Edd Pritchett Jr., didn’t immediately return a telephone call from The Associated Press seeking comment.
The lawsuit was sent back to the district court for additional arguments. Abel said the family hopes to “work toward a resolution” of the case.
“We’re pleased with the result,” Abel said.
The Supreme Court ruling is the latest in a series of decisions that have invalidated civil justice laws adopted by the Legislature that critics said created barriers to court access in violation of the state constitution.
“They need to ensure that the legislation they pass is constitutional,” Abel said.
Bob Burke, a workers’ compensation attorney in Oklahoma who lectures nationwide on the subject, said in an email he is not aware of any law passed in any other state that gave special treatment to any industry.
Burke said Tuesday’s ruling was particularly significant following the tragic deaths of the five workers in Quinton.
“Before today’s decision, all employers in the state could be sued....except oil and gas operators,” Burke said.
A total of 15 workers were killed in Oklahoma while working in mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction jobs in 2014, the year Chambers was fatally burned, including six that involved transportation incidents, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration reports that from 2003 to 2010, 823 oil and gas extraction workers were killed on the job in the U.S. — a fatality rate seven times greater than the rate for all U.S. industries. Hazards that led to the deaths of oil and gas workers included explosions and fires, falls and chemical exposures, according to OSHA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/court-oil-company-can-be-sued-when-worker-injured-or-killed/2018/01/23/12b2cd92-009b-11e8-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.ebbf4bb72d0d
-
NEB Rejects 'Premature' Discounted Toll for U.S. Shale Gas to New Brunswick
Jan 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
A halt has been called to an attempt by Canada's biggest oil refinery to avoid looming pipeline cost increases for switching Canadian East Coast natural gas markets over to imports from the United States.
The National Energy Board (NEB) rejected, as "premature," a discounted toll "load retention service" that Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NP) proposed for delivering U.S. shale gas to Irving Oil's 313,000 b/d Saint John plant in New Brunswick.
The ruling observed that during a lengthy review of the plan, "significant broad concerns and uncertainties were raised about the future of the natural gas market in the Maritimes and the impact on shippers, in particular those captive to M&NP."
Devising solutions was postponed for a later, larger case. The NEB said "an examination of possible alternative toll and tariff approaches would be more fruitful when M&NP's supply, markets and contract billing determinants post-2019 are known."
The main "determinant" is declared intentions to plug and abandon Atlantic Canada's aging, depleted and expensive subsea production networks: the ExxonMobil-operated Sable Offshore Energy Project (SOEP) and Encana Corp.'s Deep Panuke.
A target date of 2021 has been set for completing the cleanup by removing all traces of the facilities, with well plugging scheduled to start this year. SOEP intends to file a formal work application soon. Encana is recruiting cleanup contractors.
The provincial governments in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have ruled out replacing offshore gas with supplies from wells on land. Both have enacted popular bans against "fracking" their shale deposits with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Neither has responded to an earth sciences reminder, in a new geological atlas, that they have the shale resources to build a multibillion-dollar industry.
The supply loss confronts Canada's Atlantic seaboard market with covering costs of switching to imports from the U.S. by reversing flows on M&NP. Expenses are expected include a high level of excess capacity.
M&NP chiefly delivered Canadian gas exports to New England. The combined gas consumption of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, currently about 175 MMcf/d, is less than one-third of the M&NP system's capacity.
The NEB rejected claims that M&NP had no choice but to grant the Irving refinery a reprieve from the looming cost increases because a bypass delivery route was available and would not require extensive construction or regulatory approvals.
The foiled deal rested on predictions that gas flows via a parallel conduit -- Emera Brunswick Pipeline, built for exports from Repsol's Canaport LNG terminal next door to the Saint John refinery -- could be easily reversed for low-cost imports from the United States.
The NEB observed that evidence in the contested case showed that the rejected bargain would have given the refinery 13 years of delivery service for 65 MMcf/d for C$79 million (US$63 million) -- which would have been a C$176-million (US$140 million) discount off current M&NP tolls.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113134-neb-rejects-premature-discounted-toll-for-us-shale-gas-to-new-brunswick
-
(ACC Blog) Building a Strong Foundation for Chemical Security Regulations
Jan 23, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Amy Graydon
Chemicals are essential to our everyday lives. It is hard to think of a field that does not use chemicals—from developing medicines and providing refrigeration for our food supply, to manufacturing fuel for our vehicles and building microchips for our smartphones. We rarely think of these helpful building blocks as having the potential to be weaponized or used to cause significant harm by terrorists. Chemicals have been used in terrorist attacks in the past causing great injury, and even death. When certain chemicals are not secure, we are not secure.
It is precisely this concern that gave rise to congressional efforts to address chemical security. In 2007, Congress established, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, a regulatory framework aimed at identifying and regulating high-risk facilities that possess certain hazardous chemicals at specific concentrations and quantities. In 2014, Congress reauthorized and amended the program through the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014.
CFATS is now 10 years old, and covers approximately 3,500 facilities nationwide. Over the last few years it has become clear that, with every year that goes by, the program becomes more mature. The success of CFATS can be attributed not only to the work done by the men and women of DHS’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), but also to the members of industry. These owners and operators have spent millions of dollars and have implemented thousands of new security measures in place and provided continuous feedback to the Department on how to better secure America’s highest-risk chemical facilities. The CFATS risk-based performance standards have become the new normal and the cornerstone of America’s chemical security culture.
The CFATS program works with covered chemical facilities to ensure they have security measures in place to reduce the risks associated with certain hazardous chemicals, called chemicals of interest (COI), and prevent them from being exploited in an attack. NPPD has designated 322 chemicals as COI in a list known as the Appendix A. Facilities are regulated on a risk-based approach that allows us to focus resources on high-risk chemical facilities according to their specific level of risk. NPPD conducts inspections as part of the security plan review and approval process, as well as regular compliance inspections once security plans are approved.
Many think of CFATS as a regulatory program for large chemical facilities. However, chemicals of interest are used in a variety of fields. The program’s community of interest is very diverse, and the regulation is applicable to many industries, including chemical manufacturing, storage and distribution, energy and utilities, agriculture and food, explosives, mining, electronics, plastics, universities, laboratories, paint and coatings, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, pools and waterparks, wineries and breweries, and even a few prisons.
In fall 2016, CFATS embarked on a new chapter. After working for nearly three years with experts from across the chemical security community, NPPD rolled out the enhanced tiering methodology and improved Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) 2.0 tool. The new enhanced methodology further solidified the science behind the risk models, and CSAT 2.0 reduced the burden on industry by decreasing the amount of time it takes to submit the required paperwork to comply with CFATS.
At the beginning, the initiative of reevaluating risk for approximately 27,000 chemical facilities felt enormous. NPPD began the process of notifying each facility to resubmit their Top-Screen survey and re-tier them based on the enhanced methodology. But, for the CFATS team, every challenge is turned into an opportunity. In just one year, the program not only notified all facilities, but also received over 28,000 unique facility Top-Screen submissions, and issued more than to 29,000 tiering determination letters. Of the roughly 3,500 facilities that are currently assessed as high-risk, 2,327 have approved security plans in place, while the rest are in the works.
As we wrap up CFATS’ first decade, we will continue to work on the retiering efforts and compliance inspections, as well as challenge ourselves to identify additional ways to more efficiently execute the program going forward. This goes hand-in-hand as we work with Congress on new authorizing legislation that continues to streamline the process while advancing security, and providing well-deserved longer-term stability to the chemical security community.
Chemical security is not a temporary issue. As threats evolve, the CFATS mission continues to be more relevant than ever. The Department is committed to continue working with stakeholders from industry, labor, and the public sector to protect America’s highest-risk chemical infrastructure.
Amy Graydon is the Acting Director of the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s National Protection and Programs Directorate.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/01/building-a-strong-foundation-for-chemical-security-regulations/
-
Ferc Chair Sees Moderate Grid Risk from Coal, Nuclear Plant Closures
Jan 23, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre told lawmakers today that on a scale from one to 10, he'd put the seriousness of the risks facing the power grid from the retirement of coal and nuclear power plants at a five.
“I can tell you, conceptually, that we’re probably clearly at a five,” he told Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who asked him to rate his concern about those plant retirements on a scale where 10 represented the most severe risk to the grid.
“I say that on the basis just of what we know today of the resilience challenges that have presented themselves in prior weather events and other circumstances. And I say that because of the potential irreversibility of the situation of unit retirements,” McIntyre said. “An individual unit retirement of a particularly sizable plant is a serious matter to the grid, let alone an entire class of power plants.”
One industry group estimated that about 14,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation is expected to retire by the end of 2020. McIntyre said that he might revise his assessment after the nation’s grid operators respond to questions FERC sent them about their ability to deal with "naturally occurring and man-made threats.”
Murkowski said she understood FERC's stance in rejecting DOE's grid proposal, but said she hoped the agency would take input from a broader group of organizations.
“I’m happy to say, madam chairman, it is broader,” he said, noting invitations to DOE and NERC.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Rail Workers Acquitted in Trial on Deadly Lac-Mégantic Oil Train Disaster
Jan 23, 2018 | DeSmog
By Justin Mikulka
The train engineer and two additional rail workers who faced charges for the deadly July 2013 oil train accident in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, were acquitted on Friday after the jury deliberated for nine days. If convicted of all charges, they potentially faced life in prison.
The end of the trial of these three employees for their role in the Canadian oil train disaster that resulted in 47 deaths and the destruction of much of downtown Lac-Mégantic appears to have brought some closure to residents of the still-recovering town — although most are still waiting for justice.
As the trial began, the BBC reported the sentiments of Lac-Mégantic resident Jean Paradis, who lost three friends in the accident and thought the wrong people were on trial.
“It's clear to me the main shareholder, MMA, are not here. Transport Canada is not here. Transport Canada have let cheap companies run railroads in Canada with less money for more profit…” Paridis told the BBC. Transport Canada is the Canadian regulatory agency with rail oversight.
Another resident, Jean Clusiault, who lost his daughter in the disaster, told the CBC that after the decision, “I felt relieved because these are not the right people who should be there.”
The sentiment that these three men should not have been found guilty was even expressed by the former CEO of the rail company that operated the train that caused the disaster.
“I was happy when I heard the verdict. I think the jury made the right decision,” Edward Burkhardt, former chairman of rail company Montreal, Maine and Atlantic (MMA), told Radio-Canada.
No rail executives, politicians, or regulators were ever charged with any crimes relating to the Lac-Mégantic disaster.
Based on the past four years of reporting on the literal and figurative boom in Bakken oil trains, I have written a book about the story of the bomb trains — from Lac-Mégantic to Trump — which addresses the question of who was to blame for the lethal accident in this small Quebec town and for the many oil train accidents across North America that followed.
The following is the first chapter of that book, detailing what happened in Lac-Mégantic on July 6, 2013.Chapter 1: Lac-Mégantic
On the evening of July 5, 2013, Thomas Harding finished his shift for the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic (MMA) Railway driving a train full of Bakken crude oil across rural Canada. Harding parked the train on a track siding in Nantes, Quebec, and called to tell the dispatcher that the train was secure.
Harding then called another rail traffic controller in Bangor, Maine, and noted that there had been excessive smoke coming from the locomotive on his trip. He was advised not to worry about it and another engineer was scheduled to take the train in the morning from Nantes to its destination — an oil refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. Nothing was done about the smoking engine, despite the fact that the train’s cargo was classified as a hazardous flammable material.
And so Harding followed these instructions. The train was left on a track siding in Nantes — running, unlocked, and unattended — as was standard practice and perfectly within regulations. The tracks run right alongside the rural road that connects Nantes to the town of Lac-Mégantic. Harding called a taxi and was taken to a nearby hotel in Lac-Mégantic for the night.
Investigations later revealed that Harding made a critical error that night. After applying manual hand brakes on the locomotives and two tank cars, he was supposed to turn off the air braking system and make sure that the hand brakes would hold the train on their own. He ran that test with the air brakes on, which combined with the hand brakes, provided sufficient braking force to keep the train in place.
At some point that evening after Harding had left, someone driving down the road noticed the locomotive was on fire and called the local fire department — which responded and put out the fire.
According to the accident report, “the firefighters moved the electrical breakers inside the cab to the off position, in keeping with railway instructions. They then met with an MMA employee, a track foreman who had been dispatched to the scene but who did not have a locomotive operations background.” 1
Turning off a locomotive that had been on fire seems like a reasonable thing to do, especially because no one on the scene had expertise in operating a locomotive.
Reasonable except for one fact. The braking system on this oil train was based on technology designed in the late 1800s — the same braking system used on most oil trains in North America — and requires constant air pressure to keep the train braked. Air brakes were revolutionary safety technology when introduced to the rail industry in the 1860s, but now, understandably, are no longer state of the art.
As the firefighters drove away from the train that night, the air pressure in the braking system began to decrease. When they shut off the locomotive engine, they also unwittingly shut off the power that was maintaining the air pressure in the braking system.
Eventually the brake system’s air pressure decreased to a point where the train began to move down the hill towards Lac-Mégantic. Despite this obvious flaw in rail safety, at the time there were no regulations saying that a train full of flammable liquids parked on a hill above a residential area needed to also have a mechanical device placed on the track to make sure the train could not “run away.” Years later, there still is no such regulation, despite this being a cheap and effective safety measure.
And, so, the train began to roll towards Lac-Mégantic. The rail tracks and road next to it are essentially a straight shot downhill into the center of town. With no curves to navigate, the runaway train remained on the tracks, gaining speed on the six miles of track from Nantes to Lac-Mégantic.
When the train reached town, it was moving over 60 miles per hour. At this point the train passed Gilles Fluet, a local resident who had just left the popular nightspot the Musi-Cafe.
“It was moving at a hellish speed … no lights, no signals, nothing at all,” he said. “There was no warning. It was a black blob that came out of nowhere.” 2
Once the train passed Fluet, it quickly arrived at a point where the tracks turned left. Here the train left the tracks and shot straight into the heart of downtown Lac-Mégantic and the Musi-Cafe that Gilles Fluet had just left.
More than half of the people who died that night were in the Musi-Cafe. One lucky survivor described what happened to The Globe and Mail.
“The entire bar went pitch black, then turned orange — brighter than the middle of the day, a blinding, lively orange … That was the last time I saw any of them.”3
The sounds of the accident woke Thomas Harding and much of Lac-Mégantic at around 1:15 a.m. At 1:47, Harding called a rail dispatcher and described the scene:4
“Everything is on fire — from the church all the way down to the Metro, from the river all the way to the railway tracks. From what I can see, RJ, the box cars have all burnt in the yard — the ties, everything. Whatever is in the yard, rolling stock, is now gone — completely.”
However, neither Harding nor the dispatcher, RJ, were yet aware it was their MMA train involved in the crash and fires.
RJ: What the f*** happened?
TH: I don’t know. I don’t know, but everything, everything … I woke up 20 minutes ago. Evacuate, evacuate, right away.
Harding reportedly helped firefighters move some of the full oil tank cars that were still on the tracks away from the fires. He then called the dispatcher again at 3:29 a.m., at which point he was informed it was his train.
RJ: It’s uh, it’s your train that rolled down.
TH: No!
RJ: Yes, sir.
TH: No, RJ.
RJ: Yes, sir.
TH: Holy f**k. F**k!
TH: She was f***ing secure. F**k!
RJ: That’s what, that’s what I got as news.
Another person awakened in downtown Lac-Mégantic that night was the local fire chief Denis Lauzon. When he opened his front door to see the disaster, his response was simply: “Ok, We’re in hell.” 5
While firefighters worked to evacuate people, they were not equipped to deal with the fire, and as Chief Lauzon noted, there was no way to rescue the 47 people who died.
“The 47 people were at the wrong place at the wrong moment. They couldn’t survive that type of fire.”
Around 3:45 a.m., as the explosions stopped, the firefighters attempted to move in to deal with the fire — when another tank car exploded in front of them. The firefighters retreated and the fire would end up burning for three days.
The train was carrying Bakken crude oil in DOT-111 tank cars. For over 20 years, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had warned against using the DOT-111 tank cars for moving flammable liquids like oil.6 These tank cars were known to easily puncture at speeds of under 20 miles per hour. At over 60 miles per hour there was no question what would happen. More than 60 of the 72 loaded oil tank cars derailed, spilling over one million gallons of oil.
The spilled oil ignited immediately, creating “rivers of fire” throughout downtown Lac-Mégantic, consuming much of the area and 47 people. Those rivers of fire traveled downhill from the tracks all the way to the river and destroyed almost everything in between.
When the reports of what went wrong were filed, it was clear that the oil and rail industries’ quest for profits over safety was to blame, along with lax regulatory oversight. Long before official accident reports detailed what led to the disaster, a columnist in The Guardian accurately described Lac-Mégantic as “a corporate crime scene.” 7
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s accident report for Lac-Mégantic found 18 discrete factors that contributed to the accident. It started with a cheap and improper repair to the locomotive that resulted in the engine fire but extended to lax regulatory oversight and a culture of cost-cutting at the expense of safety at the railroad.
Additionally, regulations allowed these oil trains to operate with only one person on board — another cost-saving measure. That meant Harding did not have anyone to double-check his work braking the train.
After reviewing all of the accident’s details, Wendy Tadros, head of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, had the following question.8
“Who was the guardian of public safety? That is the role of the government to provide checks and balances and oversight, yet this booming industry where unit trains were shipping more and more oil across Canada and across the border ran largely unchecked.”
So who was held accountable for this disaster? MMA only had a small amount of insurance and quickly declared bankruptcy. The owner of MMA was not charged. And later, as part of the bankruptcy hearing, one of the largest hedge funds in the world bought the rail company and resumed moving trains through Lac-Mégantic — something strongly opposed by the residents.
While there were no immediate answers to why the fires and explosions in Lac-Mégantic were so intense, oil companies continued to load the same Bakken oil into the same DOT-111 tank cars and ship it across North America through towns and cities as if nothing had happened.
Less than six months later, in November 2013, a Bakken oil train derailed in the wetlands of rural Alabama where it exploded like the train in Lac-Mégantic and spilled over 500,000 gallons of oil.
A month later, a Bakken train derailed in Casselton, North Dakota, resulting in more mushroom clouds of fire, an oil spill of 400,000 gallons, and the evacuation of the local town. And then another Bakken oil train derailed and exploded in Canada. As the evidence piled up about the dangers of these new Bakken oil trains, rail workers began calling them “bomb trains.”9
And people in Lac-Mégantic and across North America began demanding change.
In May of 2014, a tactical unit of the Quebec provincial police force, La Sûreté du Québec, the equivalent of a U.S. SWAT unit, arrived at Thomas Harding’s house where they found him in his backyard with his son and a friend. The three were thrown to the ground, and Harding was handcuffed, despite being cooperative throughout the investigation.
The official response to what was described as a “corporate crime scene” was to blame the lowest level employee involved and send in a SWAT team to arrest him at his home. Two other employees were arrested as well. Was Thomas Harding the one who had let the growth of these oil trains go “largely unchecked”?
A columnist for Canada’s National Post called the event “embarrassing” and a “politically motivated stunt.”10
There is one more fact about this accident that makes the arrest of Harding all that more outrageous. There were three braking systems on the train parked at Nantes. There are the hand brakes, as well as two air-brake systems: the independent brake on the locomotives, and the automatic brake, which holds the rest of the rail cars in place.
Harding set the independent brake and hand brakes but did not set the automatic brake, because he was following MMA’scorporate policy.
The brakes he did apply were sufficient to hold the train. But then the locomotive caught fire that night and the fire department cut power to the engine, which led to the loss of pressure in the independent brake and the train “running away” down the hill towards Lac-Mégantic.
It would have taken Harding 10 seconds to engage the automatic brake. If this had been done, the train most likely would have remained in place until it was scheduled to continue the next morning — even with the locomotive powered down. But company policy was to not engage the automatic brake even when parking a loaded train of explosive Bakken oil on a hill above a town. Why not?
Because while it takes only 10 seconds to engage the braking system, it takes between 15 minutes and an hour to disengage the system when the train is restarted the next day. And in the rail industry, time is money. So, in order to save that time, the company simply chose not to instruct its engineers to engage the automatic brakes and enshrined this in corporate policy, as was noted in the Transportation Safety Canada report on the accident, where it states:
While MMA instructions did not allow the automatic brakes to be set following a proper hand brake effectiveness test, doing so would have acted as a temporary secondary defence, one that likely would have kept the train secured, even after the eventual release of the independent brakes.11
Harding was simply following the rules.
The Globe and Mail first reported this situation in March of 2016 in an article titled, “Ten-second procedure might have averted Lac-Mégantic disaster.”
The publication asked the Canadian regulatory agency how this could be possible:
Asked why the railway was able to issue such an instruction to its staff, Transport Canada told The Globe that its role is “to monitor railway companies for compliance with rules, regulations and standards through audits and safety inspections.” However, the department added, “Transport Canada does not approve or enforce company instructions.”12
No SWAT teams have been sent to the offices of oil or rail company executives. And yet they knowingly still ship trains full of oil in unsafe tank cars throughout North America. In 2016 — three years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster — the head of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board warned that a “Lac-Mégantic” type accident could happen in an American city at any time.13
When Harding and two other rail employees were frog marched into court by the police after their arrest, Ghislain Champagne, the father of a woman who died in the Lac-Mégantic accident, yelled out, “It’s not them we want.”
1. Transportation Safety Board of Canada, “Lac-Mégantic runaway train and derailment investigation summary,” October 28, 2014
2. David Crary and Sean Farrell, “In Lac-Mégantic, ‘the train from hell’”, Associated Press, July 14, 2013
3. Justin Giovannetti,”Last moments of Lac-Mégantic: Survivors share their stories,” The Globe and Mail, November 28, 2013
4. Alex Finnis, “Audio emerges of the panicked moment driver realised his train had derailed, killing 47 people,” DailyMail.com, August 22, 2014
5. Erik Atkins, “‘Okay, we’re in hell’: Lac-Mégantic fire chief recounts night of train explosion”, The Globe and Mail, October 16, 2014
6. Curtis Tate, “Railroad tank-car safety woes date decades before crude oil concerns,” McClatchy, January 27, 2014
7. Martin Lukacs, “Quebec's Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster not just tragedy, but corporate crime,” The Guardian, July 11, 2013
8. Rob Gillies, “Investigators release Quebec train disaster report,” Associated Press, August 19, 2014
9. James MacPherson and Matthew Brown, “Safety questions after ND oil train derailment,” Associated Press, December 3, 2013
10. Matt Gurney, “Arrest of Lac Mégantic engineer an embarrassing sideshow,” National Post, May 14, 2014
11. Transportation Safety Board of Canada, “Railway Investigation Report - R13D0054,” TSB.ca
12. Grant Robertson, “Ten-second procedure might have averted Lac-Mégantic disaster,” The Globe and Mail, March 7, 2016
13. Ashley Halsey III, “NTSB’s ‘10 Most Wanted’ list for 2016 underscores need for rail safety,” Washington Post, January 13, 2016
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/23/rail-workers-acquitted-trial-deadly-lac-megantic-oil-train-disaster
-
Industries Fear Dangerous Precedent from Exxon Citizen Suit Penalty
Jan 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
Groups representing refiners, manufacturers and other industries are urging a federal appeals court to undo a district court's almost $20 million penalty for Clean Air Act violations in a citizen suit against ExxonMobil Corp., fearing it creates a dangerous precedent in which such suits are used as vehicles to drive environmental policy.
In a Jan. 19 amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al. a coalition of industry groups argue that the lower court erred in its April 26 decision imposing the penalties, which are the largest of their kind in an air law citizen suit.
The groups, including the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and others, say that citizens who brought the suit lack standing for the vast majority of claims they brought against Exxon, and that the penalty should be vacated. The citizens used Exxon's own records to build a case alleging thousands of air permit violations over nearly eight years, but the industry groups say that citizens cannot show harm from most of them -- and therefore cannot sue.
If allowed to stand, the findings of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas would risk that future citizen suits “supplant” state enforcement, rather than supplementing it, the groups warn.
Citizens “only presented testimony linking their alleged injuries to five of the alleged emissions events. This empowered the district court to adjudicate those five events, and, if it found liability, to impose an appropriate penalty for violations arising from those events. Instead, the district court asserted authority to adjudicate all 16,386 days of alleged violations, without requiring plaintiffs to establish that they were injured by 99.8% of them,” the groups say.
“Finding standing-in-gross like this flatly contradicts Supreme Court precedent. If followed more broadly, it threatens to transform citizen suits from civil actions designed to resolve concrete controversies into regulatory vehicles for dictating environmental policy,” the groups say.
The companies say that the district court also erred in its expansive view of which ExxonMobil projects to consider when assessing penalties, including the economic benefit of noncompliance with the air law.
“The district court’s approach of assessing penalties based upon any project that is “generally correlated” to pollution control has no limiting principle; virtually any improvement project or upgrade could be generally correlated to the reduction of pollution,” the amicus brief says.
The groups ask the 5th Circuit to amend the district court's approach “lest it become a national roadmap for a new quasi-regulatory program through citizen suits.”
However, the district court's ruling has already been revised once to be more generous to citizens, following an earlier appeal in which the appeals court vacated the district court's initial, more industry-friendly ruling.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industries-fear-dangerous-precedent-exxon-citizen-suit-penalty
-
Trump Team May Not Have Time to Delay Water Rule
Jan 24, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Delaying a rule describing the scope of the nation's water pollution law in the next 25 days is “unlikely” as the Trump administration scrambles to withdraw the Obama-era regulation.
The U.S. Supreme Court will issue by Feb. 16 the mandate for its Jan. 22 unanimous decision directing federal district courts—rather than a single federal appeals court—to hear challenges to the currently stayed 2015 Clean Water Rule, and to dismiss all litigation pending against this regulation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The rule describes those waters and wetlands that fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
Once mandated, the high court's decision will have the immediate effect of lifting the Sixth Circuit's national hold on the waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule—a consequence that the Trump administration wants to avoid as it seeks to rescind and rewrite the regulation.
Lagging Final Rule
But that may be a difficult task.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers haven't yet completed a final rule that would push the effective date of the Obama-era rule until 2020. And the agencies haven't even submitted the draft of the final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review yet.
“It's unlikely or even unrealistic to think they will pull off this timeline,” Steve Miano, an attorney in Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller's Philadelphia office, told Bloomberg Environment.
Geoff Gisler, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which challenged parts of the water rule in the Sixth Circuit, agrees the timeline is unrealistic, but added, “what we have seen from this administration is that they are willing to cut corners and ignore requirements to federal laws to get these rules out.”
However, the water rule delay could be possible if the agencies are able to get the Office of Management and Budget to conduct an expedited review, Thaddeus Lightfoot, an attorney with the Minneapolis office of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, said.
Similar Pattern
President Donald Trump's EPA hasn't had much success in trying to prevent Obama-era rules from taking effect.
For instance, the agency has tried since June to delay the effective date of Obama-era methane limits for new oil and gas drilling operations. The rule took effect in July after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the agency's initial attempt to stay the rule.
Meanwhile, the EPA told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 22 its regulatory attempt to postpone implementation of the 2015 water rule and avoid this consequence will “very likely be complete” before the Supreme Court's judgment is finalized.
Justice Department attorneys Jan. 22 asked the Sixth Circuit to wait 25 days before dismissing pending litigation against the water rule. The attorneys noted that the Supreme Court waits 25 days to see if it will receive any rehearing petitions before issuing its final judgment, though that would be unlikely given the unanimous decision.
“The opinion was pretty clear,” Gisler said. “It would be surprising if anyone filed a petition.”
What Will District Courts Do?
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine who led the 30-state coalition in support of a federal district court review of the water rule remains confident that the Trump administration will be able to keep the 2015 rule from being implemented.
If the Trump administration isn't successful, “we will be evaluating our options, which include whether to file for a stay of the rule in the district court,” Dan Tierney, DeWine's spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment.
But, the real question is what will district courts do, Lightfoot said.
“Will these cases be consolidated by the multidistrict panel into a single court or will each case be handled by individual district courts?” Lightfoot asked.
Litigation over the water rule will be a drawn out affair that will involve extraordinary costs, he said.
The case is Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA (In re EPA and Dep't of Def. Final Rule), 6th Cir., No. 15-03751, notice of decision 1/22/18.
—With assistance from Abby Smith
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127298058&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127298058&jd=127298058
-
Senate Dems Strategize Ahead of Pruitt Hearing
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Senate Democrats held a strategy session yesterday ahead of U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's planned appearance on Capitol Hill next week.
Led by Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, chairman of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, the panel questioned three former EPA employees about what the lawmakers see as willful neglect, staff intimidation and a lack of regulatory enforcement under President Trump's EPA.
They asked witnesses for examples of wrongdoing at the agency that they could use as they question Pruitt on Tuesday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Testifying yesterday were Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Mustafa Santiago Ali, former EPA assistant associate administrator for environmental justice; and Mike Walker, former director of EPA's National Enforcement Training Institute.
Tom Ripp, EPA employee from 1990 to 2017, submitted written testimony after a summons to jury duty prevented him from attending the meeting.
"We're just trying to make public what is going on at the EPA," Markey told reporters after the meeting.
"They are turning EPA into 'Every Polluter's Ally.' They are systematically undermining generations of support for environmental enforcement, and that's what we're trying to do here heading into next week's big hearing where Scott Pruitt will be testifying."
Lawmakers had been pressing Pruitt to come before Congress for some time, and EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) announced late last year the EPA chief would testify before his panel this month (E&E News PM, Nov. 16, 2017).
Markey said yesterday's meeting served as "coming attractions" for what Democrats would address at the hearing.
Democratic senators attending the meeting were EPW ranking member Tom Carper of Delaware and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ben Cardin of Maryland.
Lawmakers questioned the witnesses about the lack of enforcement of environmental regulations at EPA. Markey noted the agency has gone from a "watchdog to a lap dog on enforcement."
Ruch said that when Pruitt announced the agency would return to its core mission, he assumed that meant enforcement. But he said he's heard from current employees that enforcement efforts are lacking. The EPA Criminal Investigation Division's staff is at a 30-year low, Ruch said. And the number of enforcement cases has decreased by one-third.
He also criticized Pruitt's long-term strategic plan, which doesn't refer to climate change but endorses "cooperative federalism," setting a broad goal of rebalancing "the power between Washington and the states to create tangible environmental results for the American people."
Ruch said this amounts to the federal government renouncing oversight of state programs. States are not funded well enough to operate with maximum efficacy without federal assistance, he said.
Walker echoed this sentiment, saying oversight is needed — "boots on the ground."
"State boots and federal boots," he said. "The problem at EPA right now is there is a chilling effect on enforcement."
Ali noted that the communities that are likely to be hurt most by the lack of enforcement are the most vulnerable — low-income communities. He said 125 million people live in communities with low air quality and 25 million people in this country have related asthma.
"The administration seems to be disconnected about what's actually happening," he said.
Carper asked the witnesses what they would ask Pruitt if given the chance. Ruch noted that Pruitt often "brags" that he's a tough prosecutor. "So what are his enforcement goals?" he asked.
Ali said he would ask Pruitt how cooperative federalism works for states that have a track record of poorly enforcing environmental regulations.
Walker remarked that even under the banner of "cooperative federalism," EPA is not clearly delineating responsibilities. For example, he said, EPA has a 30-page document outlining the strategy for regulating large-scale commercial ammonia refrigeration systems.
But he said the document does not lay out how many inspections should be conducted or the breakdown between federal versus state inspections.
Whitehouse noted that Pruitt's strategy seems to be one of "procedural delay." With former President Obama's signature climate regulation, the Clean Power Plan, for example, Pruitt is adhering to the motto "kill it with process," Whitehouse said.
The Supreme Court 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA found that the agency must regulate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases as pollutants. That plus the endangerment finding would make it very hard for Pruitt to deregulate CO2, Whitehouse said.
"He's not going to touch it," he said. So how do we combat his "procedural fan dance strategy?"
Pruitt will appear before the EPW Committee at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/01/24/stories/1060071757
-
Survey: Mayors View Climate Change as Pressing Urban Issue
Jan 23, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Bob Salsberg
U.S. mayors increasingly view climate change as a pressing urban issue, so much so that many advocate policies that could inconvenience residents or even hurt their cities financially.
The annual survey of big-city executives, released Tuesday by the Boston University Initiative on Cities, also reflected the nation’s sharp political divide. Ninety-five percent of Democratic mayors who responded believed climate change was caused by human activities, a view shared by only half of Republican mayors.
A clear majority of mayors were prepared to confront President Donald Trump’s administration over climate change and felt their cities could be influential in counteracting the policies of the Republican president, who at times has called global warming a hoax and last year withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.
“A striking 68 percent of mayors agree that cities should play a strong role in reducing the e?ects of climate change, even if it means sacrificing revenues or increasing expenditures,” a report accompanying the survey stated.
In all, 115 mayors of cities with at least 75,000 residents answered the fourth annual survey named for Thomas Menino, a longtime Democratic mayor of Boston who founded the university program before his death in 2014. The survey was sponsored in part by The Rockefeller Foundation and Citigroup.
Organizers of the survey declined to release a list of the 115 mayors who responded, citing confidentially agreements. According to the report, nearly two-thirds of the mayors were Democrats and the cities had an average population of 233,000.
The survey cited the availability and affordability of housing as the single most pressing concern of mayors, followed closely by climate change and municipal budget pressures caused in part by federal and state cuts.
A foreword to the report, signed by Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Betsy Price, the Republican mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, argued that cities can exert formidable influence over U.S. and global policies.
“At a time when the national conversation is divisive, cities offer a sense of hope and shared identity,” the mayors said.
Sixty-eight percent of mayors said they would be willing to expend additional resources or sacrifice revenue to combat climate change.
Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to promote environmental policies that might inconvenience motorists in their cities, and almost three times as likely to support entering into regional climate pacts or networks. Yet only 26 percent of Democrats and 5 percent of Republican mayors were eager to slap any costly new regulations on the private sector.
The survey found that attitudes about climate change differed geographically as well as politically. For example, 90 percent of all Eastern mayors and 97 percent from the Midwest blamed human activities for climate change, compared to 70 percent from Southern cities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/survey-mayors-view-climate-change-as-pressing-urban-issue/2018/01/23/9a22f1e8-000b-11e8-86b9-8908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.d7367fc52233
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested