Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/21/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cutting Global Cancer Agency Funds Splits Republicans
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Republicans on the House science panel want to cut funding for an international agency they say twists research data on cancer to meet preconceived conclusions, but the GOP's appropriator for health isn't convinced. -
(ACC Mentioned) US February PP Contracts Settle Lower, Tracking Propylene Costs
Feb 21, 2018 | ICIS
By Zachary Moore
-February contracts for US polypropylene (PP) settled 6 cents/lb ($132/tonne) lower, tracking a similar decline in monomer costs for the month -
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Mouthpieces: House Science Committee, EPA, EU-EFSA
Feb 20, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
I was very pleased to have the opportunity to testify in Congress to defend the reputation and integrity of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization. It has been the target of an orchestrated attack campaign from Monsanto Co. and other corporate giants whose toxic products are being linked to cancer. -
Court Rejects Delay In US Formaldehyde Emissions Rule
Feb 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA had no authority to delay emissions standards for formaldehyde in composite wood products, a federal court has ruled, finding for NGOs that challenged the delay. -
Formaldehyde Delay rule – Another Defeat For Trump EPA
Feb 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
On February 16, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suffered another defeat in the courts. -
Court Vacates Formaldehyde Rule Extension Date, Seeks Options
Feb 20, 2018 | Woodworking Network
By Karen M. Koenig
A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White vacates the Formaldehyde Rule extension dates and puts in limbo manufacturers of composite panels and products, including cabinetry, furniture and retail fixtures. A temporary stay on the vacate order has been granted and parties have until 4 p.m. on March 9 to confer on an alternative compliance date, and submit either a joint proposed submission or simultaneous briefs. -
3M May Settle $5 Billion Scotchgard Suit as Trial Abruptly Halts
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Kary
3M Co. may be poised to settle a lawsuit with Minnesota that sought $5 billion over pollution from former Scotchgard ingredients after a trial was abruptly halted. -
3M to Pay $850 Million to Settle Suit Over Chemical Disposal
Feb 21, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
3M Co. has agreed to pay the state of Minnesota $850 million to settle a major case alleging the manufacturer damaged natural resources and contaminated groundwater by disposing of chemicals over decades, Minnesota's attorney general announced Tuesday. -
Minnesota Settles Landmark PFAS Damages Case Against 3M
Feb 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson (D) announced Feb 20 that the state is settling its landmark damages case with 3M for $850 million, after initially seeking $5 billion for damages to the environment and health of residents who were exposed to the substances near the company's plant. -
Canada Proposes Adding Selenium To Toxics List
Feb 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Canada's government has proposed adding selenium to schedule 1 of the country's Environmental Protection Act (Cepa) – its list of toxic substances. -
Finnish Agency Warns of Emerging Chemical Threats
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
The Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency (Tukes) has warned of new risks related to the emerging circular economy, which entails keeping materials in the value chain as long as possible and extracting the maximum benefit from each one. -
U.S. to Lead in Natural Gas Production, Exports by 2040, Says BP
Feb 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Supported by broad-based demand, increases in low-cost supply and expanding export trade, natural gas is expected to grow strongly worldwide to 2040, although the once turtle-like growth of renewables will be transformed into a hare by then, BP plc is forecasting. -
Pennsylvania Extends Public Comment Period on Shell's Cracker Pipeline
Feb 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has extended the comment period on the Chapter 105 water obstruction and encroachment permit applications for Shell Pipeline Co. LP’s Falcon Ethane Pipeline System, which would supply the multi-billion dollar cracker under construction in the western part of the state. -
Total, Borealis, NOVA Joint Venture Cracker in Texas Already Under Construction
Feb 20, 2018 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
-The 1m tonne/year ethane cracker as part of the joint venture (JV) between Total, Borealis and NOVA Chemicals in Port Arthur, Texas, US, is already under construction, the companies confirmed on Tuesday. -
4 Ways Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Puts Americans At Risk
Feb 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By David Festa
Under the pretense of rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, President Trump’s recent plan guts health and environmental protections that guided major construction projects for 40-plus years. -
Environmentalists To Rally In Support Of Baltimore Council Bill Banning Construciton Of Oil Terminals
Feb 20, 2018 | The Baltimore Sun
By Ian Duncan
Environmental groups plan to rally in front of Baltimore City Hall on Wednesday as the City Council takes up a bill that would ban the construction of crude oil terminals as part of an ongoing effort to limit the number of oil trains passing through the city. -
Trump Faces Pushback on Plan to Speed Environmental Permits
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Alan Kovski
The Trump administration wants more authority from Congress to speed up environmental reviews that can delay infrastructure projects, but is it really using all the authority it already has? -
Louisiana Regional Haze Plan Target of Advocates’ Lawsuit
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Environmental groups want a federal appeals court to review the EPA's approval of Louisiana's plan to comply with the regional haze rule. -
Utilities, States, Environmentalists Clash Over Obama EPA CSAPR 'Update'
Feb 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Utilities, states and environmentalists are clashing in legal fights over the Obama EPA's “update” to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program, with disputes over the update rule's merits including its implementation costs, how to address international emissions, and “over-control” of upwind states. -
Senators Seek EPA Rule Limiting HFC Production As Officials Split On Kigali
Feb 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A bipartisan group of six senators is floating legislation that would require EPA to write a rule to phase down production of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, amid reports that the Trump administration is split on whether to embrace an international deal to restrict the chemicals. -
Bipartisan Bill Would Authorize U.S. EPA To Ratchet Down HFCs
Feb 20, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Supporters say measure would protect domestic chemical manufacturing jobs and environment -
Connecticut Threatens Suit Over EPA's Proposed Ozone Petition Denial
Feb 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) is threatening to sue EPA over its proposed decision to deny the state's petition for direct federal regulation of a Pennsylvania power plant that top state officials say is compromising Connecticut's ability to meet federal ozone standards.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cutting Global Cancer Agency Funds Splits Republicans
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Republicans on the House science panel want to cut funding for an international agency they say twists research data on cancer to meet preconceived conclusions, but the GOP's appropriator for health isn't convinced.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has drawn the ire of some Republicans because of its work linking glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide, to cancer.
“I don't know what that particular agency is, but the total funding for cancer research [in the budget] is going to be going up, not down,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), top House appropriator for the Department of Health and Human Services, which supports a substantial amount of the agency's work, told Bloomberg Environment.
The White House's Feb. 12 budget proposal for fiscal 2019 also makes no mention of plans to reduce funding for IARC, a Lyon, France-based agency under the auspices of the World Health Organization.
The relatively obscure IARC gained attention in 2015 when it concluded that glyphosate was a “probable” carcinogen. Monsanto and industry groups criticized the finding because it was at odds with the assessments of many other regulatory agencies around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The American Chemistry Council launched a campaign last year to promote a “reform” of IARC's monographs program—a division of the agency that assesses the potential cancer harm of substances and activities to humans.
‘Cherry Picking’ Data
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee held a hearing Feb. 6 to examine why the National Cancer Institute under HHS was funding the organization. Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) accused IARC of “cherry picking” scientific information.
“The selective use of data and the lack of public disclosure raise questions about why IARC should receive any government funding in the future,” Smith said.
But Cole's comments show that the campaign to highlight weaknesses hasn't trickled past the House Science committee and the Oversight and Government Reform committee, the latter which unsuccessfully tried to compel documents from IARC using the Freedom of Information Act. Even the Science Committee's vice chairman, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), couldn't be sure that efforts to strip IARC's monograph program of funds would come up in a spending bill.
“I'd say it's certainly possible that it's something that could wind up as a rider in a House appropriations” bill, Lucas told Bloomberg Environment. “I don't know if it would be something necessarily that the Senate would pay attention to.”
Thea McDonald, spokeswoman for the House Science committee's majority, told Bloomberg Environment that Smith “is considering all of his options” for addressing what he sees as discrepancies in the monograph program.
Monsanto didn't specifically comment on the possibility of defunding IARC, stating that the company is more focused on highlighting lapses in scientific integrity, transparency, and accountability.
“There are important questions that need to be asked about IARC's cherry-picking of data and distortion of science, and we are glad that elected officials are doing just that,” Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, told Bloomberg Environment in a statement.
Monograph Funding Expires in 2020
According to IARC's website, the U.S. contributes about 7 percent of its overall budget. Twenty-five countries contribute varying amounts to IARC, depending on their gross domestic product. The U.S. share is far more substantial for the monographs program within the agency, covering about half of the costs to run the division through a five-year cooperative agreement with NIH's National Cancer Institute.
IARC was formed in 1965 to drive international collaboration in cancer research and to identify the causes of cancer to help prevention. The current cooperative agreement with the National Cancer Institute sends IARC about $825,000 per year and expires in 2020.
The cooperative agreement makes up the “lion's share” of the program's funding, Jerry Rice, head of the IARC monographs program from 1996 to 2002 and currently an adjunct oncology professor at Georgetown University, told Bloomberg Environment. IARC officials say the National Cancer Institute's money is crucial to operate the program smoothly.
“The monograph program would continue, with funding from the regular budget and other sources, albeit with a reduced capacity in the short-term,” IARC spokeswoman Veronique Terrasse told Bloomberg Environment. Rice said the European Commission could make up some of the loss of the funding if the U.S. were to pull out.
IARC's glyphosate finding has already created troubles for the pesticide industry. The monograph sparked thousands of lawsuits from cancer victims in the U.S. against Monsanto and labeling requirements for the herbicide in California.
Monsanto controls about 40 percent of the global glyphosate market. Other manufacturers of the chemical include Bayer AG, BASF Corp., and Syngenta, but Monsanto has taken the lead in defending glyphosate.
—With assistance from Dean Scott.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128485920&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128485920&jd=128485920
-
(ACC Mentioned) US February PP Contracts Settle Lower, Tracking Propylene Costs
Feb 21, 2018 | ICIS
By Zachary Moore
HOUSTON (ICIS)--February contracts for US polypropylene (PP) settled 6 cents/lb ($132/tonne) lower, tracking a similar decline in monomer costs for the month.
Late last week, February propylene contractssettled at a decline of 6 cents/lb from January, following several consecutive weeks of declining spot prices as well as rising inventory levels.
US PP contracts are generally formula-based and are set at polymer grade propylene (PGP) values plus an adder.
The decline in PP prices was welcomed by buyers, who had responded to the sharp spike in January contracts, which sent US PP contract values to a 26-month high, by reducing operating rates or looking towards imports as cost mitigation techniques.
Preliminary data from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) indicates that PP production in the US and Canada was down 12% year on year and 15% month on month in January.
While import volumes for January and February are likely to be higher than usual, the flow of imports is expected to slow in March as import cargoes are less attractive now that domestic prices are coming down.
Offers for import homopolymer PP cargoes were last heard at around 67-68 cents/lb cost and freight (CFR) US, with some Asian producers heard to be sold out for February. With additional price declines possible in March and a six-to-eight week lead time required for product to be delivered from Asia to the US, these offers are no longer considered competitive by US buyers.
Export volumes out of the US have down sharply over the past several months as higher propylene costs have pushed US PP prices to levels which made US PP exports uncompetitive compared with product from other major global regions.
However, export activity may pick up in the weeks ahead now that the decline in propylene prices is bringing US PP values back into line with prices in other regions. Export prices for US homopolymer PP raffia and injection were quoted as of the week ended 16 February at 67-70 cents/lb free on board (FOB) US Gulf.
ICIS assessed February contracts for homopolymer PP injection at 71-75 cents/lb delivered in bulk US, while contracts block copolymer PP were assessed at 72-76 cents/lb with the same terms.
Major US PP producers include Braskem, ExxonMobil, Formosa, INEOS, LyondellBasell and Total Petrochemicals.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/02/20/10195363/us-february-pp-contracts-settle-lower-tracking-propylene-costs/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Mouthpieces: House Science Committee, EPA, EU-EFSA
Feb 20, 2018 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
I was very pleased to have the opportunity to testify in Congress to defend the reputation and integrity of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization. It has been the target of an orchestrated attack campaign from Monsanto Co. and other corporate giants whose toxic products are being linked to cancer.
In Spring, 2015, IARC convened a Working Group of 17 cancer science experts from 11 countries to review the evidence, and they concluded that glyphosate, the main ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, “probably” causes cancer in humans (Group 2A, Volume 112). In immediate response, Monsanto and the agrochemical industry launched a ferocious anti-IARC campaign that IARC Director Dr. Christopher Wild described as, “unprecedented, coordinated efforts to undermine the evaluation, the program and the organization”. The goals of Monsanto’s anti-IARC propaganda campaign are to:support glyphosate registration and approval worldwide;defend itself against litigation claims by farmers that were once Monsanto customers and are now cancer patients;prevent labeling of glyphosate-containing products as containing a carcinogen in the State of California.
The House Congressional Hearing was titled: In Defense of Scientific Integrity: Examining the IARC Monograph Programme and Glyphosate Review (Feb 6, 2018). The House Science Committee in recent years has become known for holding hearings to advance the chemical industry’s agenda of attacking government chemical assessment programs. The full three-hour show trial can be viewed on the Committee website, along with the testimony of all four witnesses – three aligned with Monsanto, and my lone testimony defending the process and conclusions of the IARC Working Group.
The industry-led criticisms of the IARC Monographs are part of a documented public relations campaign described by Dr. Jonathan Samet, a prestigious medical professor and frequent Chair of National Academies committees, as, “…archetypical of strategies for creating ‘doubt’ about scientific evidence that has policy implications. Such strategies can be traced to the ‘playbook’ of the tobacco industry for discrediting findings related to active and passive smoking.” (Samet 2015)
It seems that these tobacco industry strategies have also captured the pesticide regulatory agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Both the US EPA Pesticide Office and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have classified glyphosate as not linked to cancer, breaking with long-standing practice of aligning with the IARC cancer hazard assessments. To quote an internal Monsanto memo, “[Monsanto Regulatory Affairs] is not aware of a situation where a regulatory body took a different position than IARC”. (Monsanto memo, Feb 23, 2015).
So, why are the US and EU pesticide regulatory agencies so closely aligned with the perspective of the big agrochemical companies? We may never know the full story, but we know this much:There has been a disturbing level of communication and collaboration over a number of years between Monsanto employees and senior EPA Pesticide Office official Jess Rowland, who headed up the EPA pesticide Cancer Assessment Review Committee. Monsanto internal emails in late 2015 specifically identify that Rowland, “will be retiring from EPA in 5-6 [months] and could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.” Rowland has retired from EPA, but concerns of collusion sparked an investigation by the EPA Inspector General that is ongoing.The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessment of glyphosate was essentially drafted from Monsanto documents. The European Parliament hosted a public hearing and launched an investigation of conflicts of interest at all levels regarding whether the European Commission followed its own regulations when approving glyphosate for another five years. That investigation is also ongoing.
The Science Committee’s hearing and the associated campaign against IARC have featured a series of misleading or made-up claims that target IARC’s glyphosate assessment, while promoting an alternate approach – which has largely been adopted by both the EPA Pesticide Office and EFSA -- in which evidence of cancer or other health harms is disregarded.
Industry’s methods are aggressively promoted by corporate chemical trade organizations that include Monsanto among its members; the International Life Sciences Institute(representing food manufacturers); CropLife America International (representing Agrochemical manufacturers); and, the American Chemistry Council (representing chemical manufacturers) that was dubbed The Cancer Lobby by NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
Setting the Record Straight on False Science
I’ve blogged in the past about how the EPA Pesticide Office’s and EFSA’s cancer assessments differ from IARC, and also how the EPA Pesticide Office veered from the Agency’s own Cancer Guidelines in coming to its conclusions. Below I untangle some of the most oft-spouted false or manipulative claims of the chemical industry, using the IARC and EPA glyphosate assessments as a case study.
False: IARC is an extreme organization that says everything causes cancer
The Truth: only about 20% of substances examined by IARC have been classified as known or probable human carcinogens
To date the IARC Monographs have evaluated over 1,000 chemicals or other agents, all with at least enough cancer data to support a nomination for consideration. Yet, only 120 are classified as known human carcinogens (Group 1) and only about 80, including glyphosate, as probable human carcinogens (Group 2A). About half have too little data to classify at all (Group 3), which is a terrible gap in our chemical regulatory process given that many of them are used in workplaces and in commercial products.
False: Two Monsanto-sponsored review articles prove glyphosate is safe
The Truth: The review articles available at the time of IARC’s review did not report enough study details to be independently verified – had the detailed data been available, it may have strengthened the link with cancer
The centerpiece of the industry-manufactured criticism of IARC is that it allegedly disregarded two Monsanto-sponsored review articles, Greim et al 2015 and Kier and Kirkland 2013. In both cases, however, the publications didn’t provide sufficient details of the underlying studies “for independent evaluation of the conclusions reached by the Monsanto scientist and other authors,” according to IARC. IARC only considers publicly available information, and no other information or study details were available to the Working Group or the public.
Greim et al (2015) deserves special mention because the study details in the review article have since been made available to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), so we now know that there are many more tumors in the animal studies than the authors reported, making the link to cancer even stronger. These are the data sets that the Republican majority witness, industry consultant Dr. Tarone claims in his Hearing testimony were not reviewed by IARC, and which he alleges would have exonerated glyphosate. But rather than exonerating glyphosate, an analysis of those data conducted by Dr. Christopher Portier identifies an excessively high number of malignant lymphomas and hemangiosarcomas in male mice (see report, p. 37, Table 15).
Dr. Helmut Greim is himself of questionable scientific integrity. Dr. Greim chaired a ‘scientific panel’ funded by carmakers to counter the 2012 IARC determination that diesel exhaust is a known human carcinogen. Dr. Greim's panel conducted studies on monkeys – reported as ‘Monkeygate’ - exposing them in a chamber to diesel exhaust. However, the studies were rigged because the cars in the chambers were using the “cheating” device that reduced emissions. The study was never published, but the events were reported in the NY Times. Reuters reported that the German government said such studies are unjustifiable.
False Claim: The recently published update of the National Cancer Institute’s Agricultural Health Study does not show a link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), and therefore IARC is wrong
The Truth: The AHS update and other epidemiology studies show a link with cancer
The IARC Working Group identified epidemiologic studies from the US, Canada and Sweden that reported an elevated risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NLH), a type of blood cancer, associated with exposure to glyphosate, even after adjusting for exposure to other pesticides (see IARC Monograph on glyphosate, p.75-76).
However, the Agricultural Health Study (Ag Health Study), which was included in the IARC Working Group assessment, did not show an excess NHL risk among the study subjects. This study has been ongoing since 1993 by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. It tracks pesticide exposures and health status for almost 90 thousand farmers and their spouses (called a prospective cohort study). The incremental results for many pesticides have been published in dozens of studies.
Lost or buried in much of the reporting of the Ag Health Study is that the 2017 study did find some evidence of a possible association between glyphosate and another type of blood cancer called acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The possible link with this type of leukemia should be very concerning to the public and particularly to pesticide applicators, because AML is a very serious fast-growing blood cancer, with only about one-quarter of the people that have it surviving longer than 5 years. The authors warn, “Given the prevalence of use of this herbicide worldwide, expeditious efforts to replicate these findings are warranted.”
Also published since IARC’s assessment is a 2016 Monsanto-sponsored systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies, including the Ag Health Study, which specifically identifies a statistically significant risk of NHL from glyphosate exposure (Chang and Delzell 2016), strengthening the IARC assessment conclusions from a year earlier.
With the epidemiology studies identified in the 2015 IARC review linking glyphosate-based products to blood cancer, the 2016 Monsanto-sponsored systematic review and meta-analysis of studies identifying a link to blood cancer, and the 2017 Ag Health Study report of a possible association with another blood cancer type, there is compelling evidence that glyphosate-based products used out in the fields under real-world conditions pose an elevated risk of blood cancers.
False: The dose makes the poison, so things at low doses are safe even if they are toxic at high doses
The Truth: This statement – a favorite of chemical industry consultants and lobbyists -- is about 500 years out of date
The chemical industry mantra is that the dose makes the poison, so that any consideration of hazard without its “context” – by which the industry means the exposure or dose – is outdated. This was the main – actually, the only – thrust of the Hearing witness Dr. Tim Pastoor, who retired from agrochemical giant Syngenta in 2015. This wisdom traces back to Paracelsus, a 16th Century physician, alchemist, and astrologer, who – consistent with medical understanding at the time – treated his syphilis patients with enough mercury to kill some of them, and drained the blood of others.
While the dose is certainly an important part of characterizing the potential risk posed by a substance, additional factors like genetics, co-exposures to other toxic substances, diet and lifestyle effects, health status, age at exposure, and duration or pattern of exposure can all have a strong, or even dominant impact on whether cancer or other adverse effects occur. For example, exposure to mercury or lead for even a short duration may cause severe neurological impacts to children, but have less or even no obvious effects on adults. A 2017 National Academies report emphasizes the importance of these factors when evaluating low-dose toxicity of chemicals.
False Claim: Tumors in rodents in the high-dose treatment group shouldn’t count as evidence of cancer risk
The Truth: Tumors in the high dose group predict cancer risks at lower doses
Laboratory studies in animals are conducted over a wide range of doses, often including high doses far above what the average person is exposed to, in order to have enough statistical power to detect an effect in a small number of animals. For example, if we are testing a chemical at a dose that causes cancer in 1-in-a-thousand people – a very high rate of cancer -- we would need at least one thousand rodents at that dose just to see one rodent with tumors. For ethical, practical, and economic reasons, most of the glyphosate tests conducted by Monsanto used about 50 rodents per dose, which is standard practice. So, it is routine practice to have a high-dose treatment group, and then extrapolate from risks at the high dose down to lesser risks at lower doses. According to EPA’ own Cancer Guidelines, tumors at all doses should be considered relevant. (EPA 2005, p. 41).
EPA’s last assessment of glyphosate failed review by the independent expert Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), with the Panel pointing out that EPA’s numerous ways of discounting tumors in the test animals (see details in my March 28, 2017 blog) was “flawed” and that it had failed to follow its own Cancer Guidelines in numerous critical ways (for example, see SAP March 2016 report, pages 18-21). The majority of SAP members also disagreed with EPA’s classification of glyphosate as ‘not likely’ a carcinogen, and felt that there was enough evidence of cancer risks to “suggest human carcinogenic potential of glyphosate…” (SAP March 2016 report, pages 16-17).
In its most recent revised draft assessment, EPA’s Pesticide Office has still not addressed the Science Advisory Panel’s concerns. The draft ignores most of the concerns raised by the Panel, and instead simply repeats the mantra that it is following a systematic review process for determining which studies to assess and rely upon. But nobody has seen or had an opportunity to review or comment on the Pesticide Office’s review methods. It is a black box in which, it appears, EPA is still relying upon the same approach that ran afoul of the Science Advisory Panel and violates the Agency’s own Cancer Guidelines, including improperly discounting cancer evidence.
False Claim: EPA followed international standards and best practices for study evaluation and data integration (systematic review)
The Truth: EPA and EFSA followed the agrochemical industry recommendations, which led to disregarding evidence that glyphosate may cause cancer
The EPA Pesticide Office and the European EFSA that approves pesticides for food crops both followed Monsanto’s methods for discarding and downplaying evidence of tumors in glyphosate studies (detailed in my blog, March 28, 2017). While EFSA developed their assessment from a draft provided to them by Monsanto directly, the EPA Pesticide Office says that it is using a systematic review process of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). This office, known as the Toxics Office, is now under the management of Nancy Beck, a chemical industry lobbyist prior to her recent political appointment at EPA. Dr. Beck’s previous foray into developing risk assessment guidelines was a failure, as evidenced by the National Academies conclusion that the draft government-wide risk assessment bulletin which she authored while at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was “fundamentally flawed” and the unprecedented recommendation for its withdrawal (NAS 2007).
The OCSPP review method used for the glyphosate assessment has not been subjected to public and stakeholder scrutiny, or peer review. Further, it veers from the recommendations of the National Academies and best practices of the EPA chemical testing program, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in a number of critical ways, all of which are promoted by the chemical industry, and favor industry outcomes including:preferentially relying on Guideline studies, which are conducted by the regulated industry to support the approval of its products; and,preferentially relying on studies following so-called Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), which are required by industry product-testing labs to prevent malfeasance and misconduct.
An internal EPA memo indicates that the Pesticide Office failed to follow EPA Cancer Guidelines, and had it done so its assessment, and conclusions, might look more like IARC’s (ORD memo, Dec 14, 2015).
The problem with relying on Guideline (validated protocol) studies is that they are meant for chemical manufacturers to support the review and approval of their products. For that reason, they are most often designed to identify only major toxic effects (apical effects). However, a focus on only major health endpoints will not be predictive or indicate early-warnings of potential toxicity that may lead to other major adverse health outcomes. Guideline studies don’t necessarily use modern methods for evaluating chemicals and aren’t designed to grapple with the problems of low-dose exposures, endocrine or hormonal effects, behavioral or learning effects, immunotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, or pre-adverse ‘upstream’ effects like reduced sperm count or reduced anogenital distance which are predictors of infertility.
Dr. James Bus – previously a chemist for Dow Chemical -- in testimony before the House Science Committee on behalf of the chemical industry, said high quality studies were ones that adhered to ‘Good Laboratory Practices’, i.e. GLP standards. The GLP standards have been required for industry test labs since the 1970s after flagrant violations and fraud were identified (Industrial Bio-Test laboratory was shut down and its directors were imprisoned as a result of the investigations). The chemical industry has used its considerable powers of alchemy to transform the restrictions imposed to prevent rampant fraud into a badge of honor and good housekeeping seal of approval. The industry likes to promote so-called “GLP studies” as higher quality and more reliable, because it favors the industry’s own studies over those of independent scientists in academia and government who aren’t subject to the same standards. Since those independent sources are also more likely to identify concerns over the safety of chemicals, whether or not the studies are “GLP” is a useful way of excluding studies that pose the greatest threat to the industry. However, while GLP standards are useful for ensuring that commercial laboratories don’t commit outright fraud, they are not a reliable indicator of whether a particular study is of low or high quality. A 2014 National Academies of Sciences report noted that GLP guidelines fail to prevent flawed, unreliable or biased-by-design studies (pages 62-63). The same report praised the EPA IRISprogram systematic review methods which are not weighted to favor either GLP or Guideline studies.
Bad Science Also Bad for Health
Chemical corporations and their Cancer Lobby trade groups have been shown many times to defend their toxic products using manipulative tactics, false scientific information and phony front groups (see Chicago Tribune series on defending toxic flame retardants in household furniture and other consumer products, for example). As Nicholas Kristof states in his NY Times column, “The larger issue is whether the federal government should be a watchdog for public health, or a lap dog for industry.” That is, when regulated agencies are captured by the economic interests they are supposed to regulate, public health is sacrificed.
IARC Monographs are considered essential for informing cancer prevention strategies and effective public health decision-making around the world. Fundamentally, the recent Congressional Hearing and the larger public debate, which is mostly being fueled by Monsanto’s high-powered public relations and product defense campaign -- is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if the carcinogen makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation.
The predictable next step after the House Science Committee Hearing is an effort during the budget and appropriations negotiations this spring and summer to cut off U.S. funding for IARC and other public-funded chemical assessment programs. Of course, even without government chemical hazard assessment programs, the cancers will still occur – with their obvious terrible toll on individuals, families, health care costs, and the economy – but the tumors won’t be counted, and the causes won’t be tracked, making successful prevention more difficult.
We must continue to resist the endless lobby campaign of Monsanto and the chemical industry and protect government scientists and chemical assessment programs, to let them do the important work of generating credible publicly-available chemical hazard assessments on glyphosate, and all the other chemicals to which we are routinely exposed in our food, our drinking water, in household products, in building materials and through so many other every day routes of exposure. Our health depends on it.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/monsanto-mouthpieces-house-science-committee-epa-eu-efsa
-
Court Rejects Delay In US Formaldehyde Emissions Rule
Feb 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA had no authority to delay emissions standards for formaldehyde in composite wood products, a federal court has ruled, finding for NGOs that challenged the delay.
The parties involved had agreed that if the court ruled against the agency, they would "confer to address the timely implementation of the court's order." The judge ordered them to submit a plan by 9 March.
The formaldehyde rule extends the California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards nationwide. They are applicable to:
· plywood;
· fibreboard;
· particleboard; and
· finished goods containing these products.
In the 2010 Formaldehyde Act, Congress required the EPA to issue the regulations by January 2013, and said they were to go into effect 180 days after publication. An initial proposal was published in 2013, but the agency did not publish a formal regulation until 2016 and set the first compliance deadlines for December 2017.
However, the Trump administration pushed back the deadlines in a new rule finalised in September last year. That rule extended:
· the 12 December manufactured-by date for emission standards, record-keeping and labelling provisions, to 12 December 2018;
· the 12 December 2018 date for import certification provisions, to 22 March 2019; and
· the 12 December 2023 compliance date for provisions applicable to producers of laminated products, to 22 March 2024.
The New Orleans-based group A Community Voice and the Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit in October arguing that the EPA had no authority to delay implementation.
In agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court said the agency's action "leads to the absurd result of permitting the perpetual delay of the effectiveness of the Formaldehyde Rule, and fails to satisfy the stated purpose of the Act".
"At long last, the EPA will protect people from hazardous formaldehyde in everyday furnishings and building materials," Earthjustice Attorney Patti Goldman said in a statement.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64172/court-rejects-delay-in-us-formaldehyde-emissions-rule
-
Formaldehyde Delay rule – Another Defeat For Trump EPA
Feb 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
On February 16, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suffered another defeat in the courts.
In the latest case, the United States District Court for Northern California found that EPA violated the law when it gave industry a one-year delay to comply with formaldehyde emission standard for composite wood products. The standard was supposed to go into effect on December 12, 2017, one year after it was published in the Federal Register. Administrator Pruitt originally proposed a three month delay because, with the change in Administration, the agency failed to make a certification program essential to industry compliance operational, as originally planned. On September 25, 2017, the agency issued a final rule that gave a one-year extension instead, concluding that the delay “provides a balanced and reasoned timeline for importers, distributors, and regulated entities to establish compliant supply chain and comply with the [rule].” It also extended other deadlines in the rule.
The litigation is part of a long process that started in March 2008 when more than 5,000 organizations and individuals representing every state in the country, led by Sierra Club, submitted a TSCA citizen’s petition to EPA. The Sierra Club was driven by its findings of extensive exposure to formaldehyde among Gulf Coast residents forced to live in FEMA trailers made with pressed wood products after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The 2008 petition asked EPA to issue a TSCA Section 6 rule to protect people from formaldehyde emitted from pressed wood products commonly used in flooring, furniture, and cabinets. It called for EPA to extend a standard adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in April 2007 in order to protect all Americans from this carcinogen that also causes and exacerbates respiratory ailments.
When EPA was effectively unable to act due to limitations under TSCA (which was finally revised in 2016), Sierra Club and the Composite Panel Association, the trade association for the North American producers of the product, went to Congress for a fix. Under the leadership of Senators Klobuchar and Crapo and Representative Matsui, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards in Composite Wood Products Act in 2010 (Formaldehyde Act), which directed EPA to promulgate a rule based on the CARB standard. EPA badly missed the deadlines laid out in the law, finally signing the regulation on July 31, 2016 and publishing it in the December 12, 2016 Federal Register.
After being patient with delay after delay, Sierra Club and New Orleans-based A Community Voice decided that Pruitt’s one-year delay was the last straw. With Earthjustice as their attorney, they filed a lawsuit on October 31, 2017 asking the court to vacate the rule imposing the one-year delay. In a tortured reading of the law, EPA and the Department of Justice argued that the one-year delay was consistent with the law and also said that the plaintiffs had waived their rights by not properly raising the concerns with the delay during the comment period.
On February 16, Judge Jeffrey White ruled on dueling motions for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. He found “the Delay Rule is beyond the scope of the EPA’s authority and is not in accordance with the Formaldehyde Act,” which required the formaldehyde limits. He said:
It is clear from the legislative history of the statute that Congress was foremost concerned with the expeditious implementation of emission standards designed to protect both the health of vulnerable populations affected by the use of composite wood products as well as domestic manufacturers who were, in large part, compelled to abide by California emissions levels and not able to compete fairly with imported goods that had not been subject to the same manufacturing standards.
Since the judge ruled after the original December 12, 2017 compliance deadline, he decided to stay his order vacating the rule until March 9, 2018 to give the plaintiffs and EPA an opportunity to agree on a path forward.
The court decision provides one more setback to this Administration’s efforts to roll back regulations designed to protect public health. The Lumber Liquidators debacle in 2015 made clear the country needs an enforceable rule, especially for imported composite wood products. EPA and the plaintiffs need to quickly reach an agreement that makes the best of the confusion created by the agency’s delay.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/02/20/formaldehyde-delay-rule/
-
Court Vacates Formaldehyde Rule Extension Date, Seeks Options
Feb 20, 2018 | Woodworking Network
By Karen M. Koenig
WASHINGTON - A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White vacates the Formaldehyde Rule extension dates and puts in limbo manufacturers of composite panels and products, including cabinetry, furniture and retail fixtures. A temporary stay on the vacate order has been granted and parties have until 4 p.m. on March 9 to confer on an alternative compliance date, and submit either a joint proposed submission or simultaneous briefs.
In his Feb. 16 ruling on the case of the Sierra Club and A Community Voice-Louisiana v. Scott Pruitt in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Judge White vacated the rule that had extended the TSCA Title VI compliance date to Dec. 12, 2018, agreeing with the plaintiff that the "Delay Rule is beyond the scope of the EPA’s authority and is not in accordance with the Formaldehyde Act."
Filed Oct. 31, 2017, the lawsuit claimed EPA acted "arbitrarily, capriciously" and without authority when it granted panel producers a one-year extension for compliance to TSCA Title VI, also known as the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products. The original compliance date was Dec. 12, 2017.
In his opinion, the judge agreed with the plaintiffs that Congress intended for the emissions limits to go into effect 180 days after issuance of the TSCA Title VI regulations. The judge also rejected the EPA’s waiver argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not commenting on the proposed extension to the compliance deadline, noting "the Court finds the record replete with comments from other stakeholders who objected to the further extension of the compliance deadlines."
The Composite Panel Association is among the industry groups which filed an amicus brief. The CPA said it has conveyed its concerns regarding to the timing of the compliance date to the Justice Department, and will continue to track the process closely.
https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/court-vacates-formaldehyde-rule-extension-date-seeks-options
-
3M May Settle $5 Billion Scotchgard Suit as Trial Abruptly Halts
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Kary
3M Co. may be poised to settle a lawsuit with Minnesota that sought $5 billion over pollution from former Scotchgard ingredients after a trial was abruptly halted.
The jury trial, which had been scheduled to run at least four weeks, came to a halt early Feb. 20 with an announcement pending. The case is the culmination of a 2010 lawsuit in which Minnesota State Attorney General Lori Swanson alleged natural resource damages from a former Scotchgard ingredient. The suit took a turn in November, when Minnesota said it had found cancer and premature births outside Minneapolis and would seek punitive damages. 3M and a state study released on the eve of trial have said there is no health problem.
The halt to jury selection could signify a settlement, and one on favorable terms to 3M, said Susquehanna International Group litigation analyst Tom Claps in a research note. In an earlier report about the trial, Claps has estimated $200 million to $800 million in damages from the issue for 3M.
Spokesmen for 3M and Minnesota didn't return calls for comment.
Controversy is growing over the main chemicals involved, PFOS and PFOA, as well as the entire class of perfluorinated compounds—or PFCs—which are still used in stainproof and waterproof treatments and food packaging. The trial tests a state's ability to force a major employer to pay for pollution as the U.S. relaxes environmental rules. It also shows how liability can mushroom long after companies stop making chemicals like PFCs that don't degrade, but accumulate in the food chain.
3M has also been sued by people, towns and water districts across the U.S., with claims the chemicals got into drinking water from sites like air force bases where they were used in firefighting foams, and in one case, a tannery where they were used to treat leather.
3M, best known for Post-It notes, dumped chemicals at sites near Minneapolis for more than 40 years -- allowing them to get into wildlife and drinking water, Swanson claims. The company knew the chemicals were harmful, but concealed the effects from regulators and distorted science on them, according to the lawsuit. It's the biggest amount sought yet in growing lawsuits over the chemicals known as PFCs.
3M denies the claims, saying the chemicals aren't a health risk at current exposures. It hasn't found adverse effects among its employees, who are exposed at higher levels than the general population, 3M says. The company announced a phase-out of PFOA and PFOS—chemicals commonly used in nonstick applications such as Teflon—in 2000, around the same time as reports emerged that they were being found in most humans, including babies, and remote animals like polar bears.
It's unusual to see a natural-resources suit raise human health issues, said Karen Bradshaw, an associate professor at Arizona State University who tracks such litigation.
“States are becoming more aggressive on natural-resources claims,” Bradshaw said in a phone interview, adding that past results show they're often lenient when they actually settle such claims.
New Findings
As 3M's case progressed—at one point taking a four-year detour when the company sought to disqualify Minnesota's counsel Covington & Burling because it had once represented 3M on the chemicals’ use in microwave popcorn bags—science has advanced. In 2012, the results of a massive study of 80,000 people who sought to sue DuPont over PFOA were released, establishing links to cancers, ulcerative colitis and other health issues.
New reports on the health of Minnesota-area residents will be a centerpiece of the trial, and have pitted Swanson against the state's own health department.
Minnesota says its expert report shows higher rates of cancers, leukemia, premature births and lower fertility in the suburbs east of St. Paul prior to 2006, when there were particularly high amounts of the chemicals in municipal water.
But a week before the trial, Minnesota's Department of Health came out with a report that said it didn't find unusual rates of cancers or adverse birth outcomes. Swanson shot back claiming the report was rushed and risked embarrassing the department.
‘Power Abuse’
William A. Brewer III, a 3M lawyer, said in a past statement that the lawsuit is an “abuse of power” by Swanson. “The case is based on the mistaken belief that the mere presence of these chemicals presents harm to human health and the environment,” he said.
DuPont, which spun off the PFC business line as Chemours Co. and merged into DowDuPont Inc., has faced lawsuits and regulatory actions related to the chemicals, as well as a current Teflon agent. In February last year, the companies agreed to pay $670.7 million to settle about 3,550 personal-injury lawsuits.
While most major makers phased out PFOA and PFOS, many reformulated products with other PFCs. They say the new chemicals aren't harmful, even as scientists and regulators express growing concern.
The case is Minnesota v. 3M, 27-cv-10-28862, County of Hennepin, District Court.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128485930&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128485930&jd=128485930
-
3M to Pay $850 Million to Settle Suit Over Chemical Disposal
Feb 21, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
MINNEAPOLIS — 3M Co. has agreed to pay the state of Minnesota $850 million to settle a major case alleging the manufacturer damaged natural resources and contaminated groundwater by disposing of chemicals over decades, Minnesota's attorney general announced Tuesday.
The state was seeking $5 billion from Maplewood, Minnesota-based 3M in a case that focused on the company's disposal of chemicals once used to make Scotchgard fabric protector and other products. The lawsuit, filed in 2010, alleged 3M damaged Minnesota's natural resources, including more than 100 miles of the Mississippi River. The state also said the chemicals contaminated drinking water, harmed wildlife and posed a threat to human health.
The company denies it did anything wrong, insisting it was acting legally at the time. The settlement did not require an admission of liability, Attorney General Lori Swanson said.
"We're pleased with the settlement. We think the settlement will help solve a problem in Minnesota. It's been a problem that has been a long time in the making for many decades," Swanson said. "These chemicals, as I mentioned, were put into the ground. And we are very hopeful the settlement can help fix that."
The settlement was announced Tuesday after jury selection was halted as the trial was set to begin. Swanson said she believes it is the largest environmental case in state history.Continue reading the main story
Swanson said 3M will pay the state in one lump sum within the next 15 days. It will go into a fund dedicated to projects that will clean up and safeguard drinking water in the eastern suburbs of St. Paul. Details on how the money will be used are still being worked out, but it could go to help homeowners with contaminated wells, or help municipalities with sustainable drinking water and treatment plans.
Funding would also go toward habitat restoration and recreation such as fishing piers, trails or wetlands.
The lawsuit was centered on 3M's disposal of perfluorochemicals, or PFCs, and their compounds. The company began producing PFCs in the 1950s and legally disposed of them in landfills for decades. Along with Scotchgard, the chemicals were used in fire retardants, paints, nonstick cookware and other products.
The company stopped making PFCs in 2002 after negotiating with the Environmental Protection Agency, which said the chemicals could pose long-term risks to human health and the environment. But in 2004, trace amounts of the chemicals were found in groundwater at 3M dumping sites east of St. Paul.
The state and 3M reached a deal three years later requiring the company to spend millions to clean up landfills and provide clean drinking water to affected communities.
But Minnesota sued in 2010, alleging 3M researched PFCs and knew the chemicals were getting into the environment and posing a threat to human health.
In a statement Tuesday, 3M senior vice president of research and development John Banovetz said the company is proud of its record of environmental stewardship and does not believe there is a PFC-related health issue.
Since the Minnesota lawsuit was filed in 2010, concerns over PFCs have grown. The Star Tribune reported that in 2016, the EPA drastically reduced the recommended maximum levels of PFC concentrations for drinking water. As a result, about 15 million people learned their drinking water wasn't considered safe for long-term consumption.
The Star Tribune reported that the EPA's advisory sent communities nationwide scrambling to install technology to treat water. Some of those communities have sued, and some are investigating to determine who or what produced the PFCs in their water, and what, if any, long-term effects they might face due to continued exposure.
At least two dozen lawsuits related to PFCs have been filed against 3M around the country, including one filed last week in Massachusetts over water contamination blamed on firefighting foam.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/20/us/ap-us-3m-chemicals-lawsuit-.html
-
Minnesota Settles Landmark PFAS Damages Case Against 3M
Feb 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson (D) announced Feb 20 that the state is settling its landmark damages case with 3M for $850 million, after initially seeking $5 billion for damages to the environment and health of residents who were exposed to the substances near the company's plant.
Swanson announced the settlement with 3M, the manufacturer of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), on the day trial was slated to begin in the case.
According to a recording of a news briefing posted on MPR News Live, Swanson said the settlement funds will first be focused on addressing municipal and private drinking water wells in the East Metro area, saying that will be "the laser beam focus.”
Second, funds will be steered to water sustainability and third to other aspects of the East Metro area such as for wetland development.
According to a background document about the lawsuit on the state attorney general's website, the office alleged that 3M "engaged in a long and aggressive cover-up of its extensive pollution" of water from PFAS, which the company used to make the stain repellant Scotchgard, and also sold to DuPont, which used it in making Teflon kitchenware and manufacturing equipment. For instance, the document points to state regulators' inspections dating back to 1963, where the company identified to regulators lined pits but did not show them unlined pits.
Minnesota is one of a handful of states that have been putting regulatory and litigation pressures on manufacturers to address releases of PFAS, a persistent class of chemicals that EPA does not formally regulate.
While EPA in 2016 released drinking water health advisories for two of the better known PFAS -- known as PFOA and PFOS -- of 70 parts per trillion, the advisories are not enforceable and are intended to guide local authorities.
As a result, states are increasingly taking action to try to fill the absence of leadershi from EPA on the substances, according to an environmentalist.
An independent scientific panel has linked PFOA -- one of the more commonly found PFAS -- to kidney and testicular cancers, colitis and thyroid disease.
The trial was to start not long after the Minnesota Department of Health released an additional analysis of health data in Washington and Dakota County communities affected by 3M's PFAS disposal and the subsequent contamination of groundwater and drinking water.
The analysis looked at cancer rates and adverse birth outcomes and found no unusual rates over the three time periods examined: 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2015, the department says in a Feb. 7 release. "What we found supports the state's existing safeguards," Minnesota Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm said.
At the same time, the department noted that its analysis was limited to birth outcomes and cancer, and did not examine other types of health effects reported in scientific literature from PFAS, such as liver and kidney impacts, thyroid disease or immune system changes.
3M earlier this month sought to delay the trial in order to more closely examine the health department's findings, saying in a motion filed earlier this month that the findings "undermine (if not destroy)" the state's claims, according to a Feb.8 article by MPR News.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/minnesota-settles-landmark-pfas-damages-case-against-3m
-
Canada Proposes Adding Selenium To Toxics List
Feb 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Canada's government has proposed adding selenium to schedule 1 of the country's Environmental Protection Act (Cepa) – its list of toxic substances.
Selenium's final screening assessment and a proposed risk management plan were published separately in January. The plan focuses primarily on mining.
The assessment encompassed all 29 selenium-containing substances on the country's Domestic Substances List. It concluded that the substance and its compounds are harmful to the environment and some human populations "that have higher selenium intake".
The government will accept comment on the listing for 60 days.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64175/canada-proposes-adding-selenium-to-toxics-list
-
Finnish Agency Warns of Emerging Chemical Threats
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
The Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency (Tukes) has warned of new risks related to the emerging circular economy, which entails keeping materials in the value chain as long as possible and extracting the maximum benefit from each one.
These risks have been identified in processing previously recycled materials and mixed waste, especially if the specific composition of waste isn't known, according to information provided to Bloomberg Environment by Tukes Feb. 20.
Unidentified “foreign matter” could potentially ignite during waste transport, storage, and disposal, Tukes said.
In a Feb. 13 statement, the agency said that a risk analysis could lead to new legislation to minimize safety issues posed by new types of waste, new waste disposal techniques, and other industrial processes linked to the bio-economy and circular economies.
The current legal framework, Tukes said, “predates circular thinking,” meaning existing rules may not adequately address new safety risks.
Unanticipated Risks?
New risks could also be posed by chemical treatments involving bio-organisms and toxic gases such as hydrogen sulfide, which is used to treat sewage and wastewater.
An ongoing Tukes project aimed at anticipating and eliminating such risks will result in new legislation being drafted by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the agency said.
The proposed new legislation had not yet been drafted, so the agency can't anticipate any new safety requirements that may be imposed on companies, Tukes Director of Development Leva Kirsi told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 20.
Pia Vilenius, senior adviser in the Circular and Bioeconomy at the Finnish Chemical Industry Federation told Bloomberg Environment February 20 that her organization was cooperating with the Tukes project, which was expected to be completed before the end of 2018.
Circular Risk Reviews
“In general we welcome a risk analysis of processes related to the circular economy,” Vesa Karha, managing director of the Finnish Plastics Industry Federation told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 20.
“However, we are not willing to analyze the possible outcomes of this project. We have not observed deteriorating safety standards within the plastics industry. But this does not mean that the rapidly growing new area of circular economy should not be thoroughly screened and studies carried out. The more data we have before we make investments, the better our chances of success.”
In 2017, Tukes said it carried out approximately 350 audits at chemical facilities and other facilities such as gas storage plants. Two percent of the audited facilities were found to have inadequate safety procedures in place, the agency said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128485947&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128485947&jd=128485947
-
U.S. to Lead in Natural Gas Production, Exports by 2040, Says BP
Feb 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Supported by broad-based demand, increases in low-cost supply and expanding export trade, natural gas is expected to grow strongly worldwide to 2040, although the once turtle-like growth of renewables will be transformed into a hare by then, BP plc is forecasting.
BP and its economics researchers annually provide a global energy outlook that explores the forces shaping the transition 20-plus years out and the key uncertainties surrounding the transition. The BP Energy Outlook, 2018 edition, shows how rising prosperity is driving an increase in global energy demand and how that demand may be met over the coming decades through a diverse range of supplies including oil, natural gas, coal and renewables.
Group chief economist Spencer Dale and CEO Bob Dudley unveiled the latest forecast on Tuesday during a webinar from London.
“We project that the U.S. becomes energy self-sufficient in the early 2020s and maintains its position as the world’s largest producer of liquid fuels and natural gas,” Dale said.
Natural gas is expected to become the leading U.S. fuel by 2040, accounting for 40% of domestic energy consumption, from 32% today.
Renewables in the United States are seen capturing a 17% share of energy demand by 2040, and they also are seen with increased market share. Coal is expected to account for only 5% of U.S. market share, while oil’s share falls to only 30% in 2040.
U.S. gas production to 2040 is seen increasing to 118 Bcf/d, up by 46 Bcf/d. The United States also should remain the largest producer of liquid fuels. Oil production also is expected to increase.
Renewables Gaining
Renewables quickly are gaining in the United States and should see the “largest growth increment of any fuel,” up by 5% a year to 2040. Renewables should surpass coal as the second-largest U.S. source of power generation by fuel input around 2030.
“Domestic energy production increases by 39%; growth in natural gas (65%), oil (55%) and renewables (220%),” which more than offset declines in coal (down 48%) and nuclear power (down 28%) through the forecast period.
In BP’s “evolving transition” (ET) scenario for natural gas, Dale said growth is supported by several factors:More industrialization and power demand in developing nations;Continued coal-to-gas switching, especially in China; andIncreasing availability of low-cost supplies in North America and the Middle East.
The United States, along with Qatar and Iran, are expected to contribute more than half of the incremental gas production by 2040. And by that time, the United States in the ET scenario is seen accounting for almost 25% of global gas production, ahead of the Middle East and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the alliance of countries that used to form the Soviet Union. The Middle East and the CIS each are expected to account for around 20% of global gas output in 2040, according to the ET scenario.
For global liquefied natural gas (LNG), supplies should more than double over the outlook period, with around 40% of the expansion seen occuring in the next five years.
“The sustained growth in global LNG supplies greatly increases the availability of gas around the world, with LNG volumes overtaking inter-regional pipeline shipments in the early 2020s,” Dale said. In the ET scenario, gas growth “is supported by increasing levels of industrialization and power demand, particularly in emerging Asia and Africa.”
BP anticipates global LNG supply to continue to expand rapidly, leading to a more competitive globally integrated market.
“In the ET scenario, LNG more than doubles over the outlook,” Dale said. “Much of that growth is concentrated over the next few years as a number of existing projects are completed, followed by slower increases over the remainder of the outlook.
U.S., Qatar Dominate LNG Exports
LNG exports are to be “dominated by the U.S. and Qatar, which account for almost half of global LNG exports by 2040. But material increases are also projected in Australia as existing projects are completed, Russia, and East and West Africa.”
Increased accessibility and competitiveness of gas associated with LNG should help to develop new markets and expand others, “led by China together with some smaller Asian countries, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Europe remains a key market, both as a potential ‘market of last demand’ for surplus LNG cargoes and as a key hub of gas-on-gas competition between LNG and pipeline gas.”
Dale also noted that the mobility of LNG cargoes and their ability to be diverted in response to price signals will lead the gas market “to become increasingly integrated, with movements in global gas prices becoming more synchronized.”
There is a question of whether Asia will provide a significant bucket for U.S. LNG volumes.
“A comparison of total Asian LNG imports with LNG exports from regions which are closer to Asia than the U.S. and so have lower shipping costs, suggests that, in principle, there may be relatively little need for Asia to import LNG cargoes from the U.S.,” Dale said.
However, in practice, LNG sellers and buyers see value in portfolio diversification, “and so significant quantities of U.S. LNG are likely to be exported to Asia.”
Most of the gas demand growth over the outlook period is to be led by gains in industry and the power sector. In the ET scenario, growth in industrial use of gas (55 Bcf/d) is supported by continued industrialization in developing economies, together with gas gaining share as some countries in both industrialized and developing nations switch from coal.
“The increase in gas used by the power sector (59 Bcf/d) is driven by the overall growth in global power demand,” said BP’s forecast. However, the “competing trends” in renewables and coal demand could mean the share of gas within the power sector remains “relatively flat” over the outlook period.
“The fastest rate of growth of gas demand is in the transport sector as gas is increasingly used in trucking and maritime,” according to the ET forecast. “Although the increase in transport demand is small in absolute amount (11 Bcf/d), the share of gas within transport increases to almost 5% by 2040.”
Under BP’s alternative energy scenario, gas growth could slow if “policies prompting coal-to-gas switching weaken.”
As Dale explained, one way of analyzing the projected growth in gas is to separate it into two components: growth because of fuel switching and growth caused by “other effects,” mainly economic growth.
“In the ET scenario, around half of the growth in gas is due to switching,” Dale said. “Some of this switching is driven by the increasing availability of low-cost gas” in the United States and Middle East, and some is because of policy measures prompting a shift to lower carbon fuels.
“One risk to the prospects for natural gas is that these environmental policy measures are less stringent than envisaged in the ET scenario,” Dale said. “Weaker or stronger environmental policies could dampen gas demand.”
A weaker policy could reduce the shift from coal to gas, while stronger policies could encourage more renewables and energy efficiencies.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113438-us-to-lead-in-natural-gas-production-exports-by-2040-says-bp
-
Pennsylvania Extends Public Comment Period on Shell's Cracker Pipeline
Feb 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has extended the comment period on the Chapter 105 water obstruction and encroachment permit applications for Shell Pipeline Co. LP’s Falcon Ethane Pipeline System, which would supply the multi-billion dollar cracker under construction in the western part of the state.
The project, including the cracker, are encountering growing resistance. Environmental groups, such as the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council and the Pittsburgh-based Breathe Project planned to argue for an extension. DEP spokesperson Lauren Fraley said the agency decided to extend the period in response to numerous comments from, among others, individuals and environmental groups.
The comment period, originally scheduled to close on Tuesday, has been extended until April 17. It would coincide with and end on the same date as the public comment period for the project’s Chapter 102 earth disturbance permit applications, which opened on Saturday.
“After receiving a significant number of requests for a comment period extension, we believe it to be in the best interest of community participation to provide additional time for the public to provide thoughtful and constructive input on the proposed project,” said DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell.
Shell applied for the permits in October. A technical review is being conducted by DEP to ensure that the applications meet all statutory and regulatory requirements. The agency also has elected to hold a public hearing in each of the counties on the pipeline route in the state, which include Allegheny, Beaver and Washington. The date, time and location of those hearings is to be determined.
The company has said it plans to begin construction on the project sometime this year or next. Shell spokesman Ray Fisher didn’t say if the extension would affect that timeline, but only that the “process will highlight Shell Pipeline’s strong commitment to protecting the environment and communities where we operate, which is our top priority.”
About half of the nearly 100-mile pipeline would be located in Pennsylvania. It would originate at MarkWest Energy Partners LP’s Houston Processing and Fractionation Facility in Washington County and move through Allegheny and into Beaver County, where Royal Dutch Shell plc affiliate Shell Chemical Appalachia is constructing the ethane cracker.
The system would also have source points at MarkWest’s Cadiz processing complex and at Utica East Ohio Midstream’s Harrison Hub, which are both located in Ohio. The pipeline is designed with a capacity of more than 100,000 b/d. The cracker is scheduled to enter service sometime in the early 2020s. More information about the comment periods can be found on the DEP’s website.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113439-pennsylvania-extends-public-comment-period-on-shells-cracker-pipeline
-
Total, Borealis, NOVA Joint Venture Cracker in Texas Already Under Construction
Feb 20, 2018 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
NEW YORK (ICIS)--The 1m tonne/year ethane cracker as part of the joint venture (JV) between Total, Borealis and NOVA Chemicals in Port Arthur, Texas, US, is already under construction, the companies confirmed on Tuesday.
“We have started the cracker’s construction... Total started by itself the construction of the side cracker, which will be part of the JV - as [will be] our existing PE (polyethylene) plant and the potential new PE plant - once we will have received the regulatory approvals,” a Total spokesperson told ICIS on 20 February.
The $1.7bn cracker is expected to start up in 2020, while a decision on the new 625,000 tonne/year Borstar polyethylene (PE) project in Bayport, Texas, is pending “an acceptable EPC contract”, said the companies in a 19 February statement.
Total’s existing 400,000 tonne/year high density PE (HDPE) plant in Bayport will be included in the joint venture.
Total, Borealis and NOVA Chemicals announced on 19 February that they officially signed an agreement to form a petrochemical joint venture in the US Gulf Coast, with Total owning a 50% stake.
The joint venture will commence subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of regulatory approvals, the companies said.
Borealis and NOVA will own the remaining 50% stake through Novealis Holdings.
Plans to form a joint venture were announced in March 2017, but it was not indicated that construction of the cracker would start.
Construction of the cracker started in March, the Total spokesperson said on 20 February.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/02/20/10195272/total-borealis-nova-joint-venture-cracker-in-texas-already-under-construction/
-
4 Ways Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Puts Americans At Risk
Feb 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By David Festa
Under the pretense of rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, President Trump’s recent plan guts health and environmental protections that guided major construction projects for 40-plus years.
What’s more, his proposal overlooks much-needed investments that make communities more resilient against extreme weather.
With Americans still exposed to hazardous air pollution and toxins in their drinking water – and with our communities increasingly threatened by wildfire, drought and hurricane disasters – Trump’s infrastructure proposal actually puts the American public at greater risk.
Here are four reasons why:
1. It’s a rubberstamp for development that can harm our nation
Trump’s multi-billion-dollar infrastructure plan seeks to sidestep bedrock environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and more than a dozen other laws to speed up permitting – all at the expense of public health and the environment.
If implemented, it would scale back common-sense environmental reviews for countless infrastructure projects in coming years.
These reviews ask developers to publicly assess potential impacts on human health and the environment and then use good old American ingenuity to reduce those impacts. That way, our infrastructure gets a much-needed upgrade and our air, drinking water, fire and flood protections improve along with recreational opportunities.
By rubberstamping permits for projects – including oil pipelines and toxic waste dumps – while simultaneously gutting environmental and labor laws, Trump is severely limiting the public’s right to hold the government accountable.
2. It overlooks critical green infrastructure investments
Green infrastructure such as clean energy and nature-based protections – including wetlands, barrier islands and dunes – are key to building climate-resilient communities.
Today, such investments are made to protect the Louisiana coast, City of Houston and other vulnerable areas against flooding and erosion. Amazingly, there’s not a single mention of such projects in Trump’s infrastructure plan, after a year of record storms and flooding disasters.
Nor does the president’s plan explicitly propose more investment in clean energy, one of our fastest-growing job sectors.
3. It hands out subsidies for questionable projects
In addition to ignoring the direct impacts of new infrastructure projects, Trump’s proposal would hand out subsidies for developers to build roads and bridges without considering how they may be affected by hurricanes, fires or rising seas.
America is repeatedly spending tax dollars to rebuild communities damaged or destroyed by natural disasters. In 2017, storms cost our nation a record $306 billion.
And yet, the president is rewarding developers for projects that could jeopardize lives and raise the cost of such disasters.
4. It’s part of a larger scheme to roll back protections
Since their first days in office, Trump, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Scott Pruitt, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator, have systematically sought to return America to an earlier, dirtier era when environmental concerns were brushed aside in favor of industrial development.
Trump’s infrastructure plan is no exception. Just before it was released, the administration threw out the rulebook for minimizing impacts of oil and gas drilling on public land, paving the way for development in previously protected areas.
These calculated actions will bring at-risk wildlife closer to the brink of extinction and threaten healthy ecosystems on which we all depend.
Americans want smart infrastructure investments that promote a healthier, cleaner and safer future. Trump’s infrastructure plan does just the opposite and it’s simply no way to build a stronger and more resilient America.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/02/20/4-ways-trumps-infrastructure-plan-puts-americans-risk
-
Feb 20, 2018 | The Baltimore Sun
By Ian Duncan
Environmental groups plan to rally in front of Baltimore City Hall on Wednesday as the City Council takes up a bill that would ban the construction of crude oil terminals as part of an ongoing effort to limit the number of oil trains passing through the city.
The groups say the trains are dangerous — they have derailed and exploded elsewhere — and that about 165,000 people in Baltimore would face evacuation if an accident did occur. But since only federal authorities can regulate rail transport, the city has looked for other ways to address them.
The bill would change the zoning code to ban the construction of new crude oil terminals and stop two existing terminals in the city from expanding in any way.
Information about the train shipments is carefully guarded by the rail companies, so it’s hard to be certain how much oil passes through Baltimore. CSX says it has never sent dedicated oil trains through the city, but state records show at least some oil has traveled on tracks through Baltimore in the past.
With the price of oil low, the activists think there are few shipments now. But Jennifer Kunze, an activist with Clean Water Action, said things could easily change.
“With the Trump administration in power we could see increased domestic drilling,” she said. “Now is the time for Baltimore to act before those threats are real and present.”
Activists say they expect to have dozens of people show up for the rally. They plan to display a model of an oil train, a jar of crude oil and a map showing the parts of the city where people might be affected by an accident.
Kunze said imposing limits on the terminals was the most the Baltimore could do and could have a real impact. Other local jurisdictions around the country have considered ways to limit the trains, but environmental groups say Baltimore would be the first East Coast city to adopt a zoning measure targeting the industry.
“Every new terminal that could get built would increase the number of trains coming through the city and the likelihood of an explosion,” Kunze said.
The lack of any immediate economic impact also makes it a good time to act, said Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, one of the bill’s lead sponsors. She said trying to prevent a catastrophic accident was an important public safety issue.
“People deserve to have whatever help we can provide legislatively and this is what we have to offer,” she said.
The measure has broad support on the council — 11 of its 15 members are signed on as co-sponsors. But the city’s law department has raised questions about whether the change to the zoning code would be constitutional.
In a letter to the committee handling the bill, the city’s lawyers said that without a clear definition of what crude oil is, the law would be impermissibly vague. And by singling out one kind of oil for special restrictions, the lawyers said, it could also fall afoul of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
The companies that currently operate the two terminals in Baltimore could not be reached for comment.
Targa Resources, a third oil company, sought to establish crude oil operations at a facility it operates in Baltimore, but eventually dropped the plans in 2016 amid changing market conditions, opposition from activists and questions from regulators. The company could not be reached.
Clarke said a definition of crude oil has been drafted and could be added into the legislation. Clarke also said that she has an legal analysis from an environmental group that argues that the measure passes constitutional muster.
Councilman Ed Reisinger, another lead sponsor of the measure, said he’s also heard from a business group that is concerned that passing the measure could harm the image of the port. Reisinger said he didn’t share that concern.
“That’s a perception, I don’t see that as a reality,” he said. “I’m not anti-business. I just think this is a safety issue.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-md-ci-crude-oil-bill-20180220-story.html
-
Trump Faces Pushback on Plan to Speed Environmental Permits
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Alan Kovski
The Trump administration wants more authority from Congress to speed up environmental reviews that can delay infrastructure projects, but is it really using all the authority it already has?
Congress streamlined permitting in a 2012 transportation bill. Further streamlining was enacted in 2015, including a two-year limit for filing lawsuits, and then there were Trump's own streamlining efforts in a 2017 executive order directing agencies to be more transparent in their reviews.
President Donald Trump's Feb. 12 infrastructure plan goes further in attempting to cut through permitting delays for projects, calling for revising environmental laws that environmental groups and many Democrats view as untouchable.Business groups back Trump's latest plan, saying environmental litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—which requires environmental assessments of projects as well as consultation across the federal government—has slowed development.
However, Trump's plan faces a high hurdle in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to cut off a filibuster threat but Republicans have a bare 51-seat majority. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said she would like to hear why the changes made three years ago weren't enough.
“I'm all for making it easier and cutting through the red tape,” she told Bloomberg Environment. “But we did a lot of that in 2015.”
The 2012 and 2015 transportation laws included limits on filing lawsuits and provisions to streamline federal environmental permitting for major energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing projects. The 2015 law in particular was meant to strengthen interagency cooperation on environmental reviews.
The Trump administration argues that the tools it has now to speed up environmental review and permitting aren't enough. The administration says states still need more authority to hasten reviews for projects they deem priorities, and it objects to the ability of environmental and other groups to delay projects by suing.
Trump's solution is to amend environmental statutes to make projects go faster, including NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act. Those laws contain their own—at times conflicting—permitting requirements. Trump's plan would consolidate permitting by giving a single agency the lead role.
Revisions Sought
An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Bloomberg Environment the 2015 law fell short because it focused largely on NEPA reviews but essentially left intact other permitting processes and authority held by various agencies.
This includes the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which have authority beyond what's provided under NEPA.
“We only got 10 percent of the way there” in previous legislative fixes, the official said, adding that neither the George W. Bush nor the Obama administration was willing to push for wholesale changes to the permitting process through changes to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
One example cited in Trump's plan is Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, which requires EPA to review and publish comments on most environmental impact statements. The plan would eliminate that review.
Trump's proposal calls for a “one agency, one decision” review structure, essentially directing whatever agency has primary jurisdiction over a project to develop one environmental review for use by all agencies.
Under Trump's plan, the lead agency would have 21 months to issue a record of decision or a finding of no significant impact. Federal agencies then would have only three more months to decide on their permits, limiting the overall timeline to two years.
The plan also would allow states and other nonfederal entities to pay more of the upfront costs, the official said.
Statute of Limitations Curtailed
The 2015 changes in the FAST (Fixing America's Surface Transportation) Act, which reauthorized multi-year highway funding, also shortened the statute of limitations from six years to two for environmental groups to sue over big-impact projects, defined as costing more than $200 million. For transportation projects, the window is 150 days.
The law also directed courts to consider the effects of rulings on jobs, created an interagency council to coordinate permitting, set permitting timetables, and in some instances authorized federal agencies to rely on environmental reviews issued by state agencies.
Trump took further steps to expedite infrastructure projects through an August executive order.
The FAST Act and the order will address chronically slow permitting processes, according to Ted Boling, the White House Council on Environmental Quality's associate director for NEPA.
For the 500 or so infrastructure projects involving federal agencies since 2010, the median time to get a decision is about 3.7 years, he said.
Boling said the White House Office of Management and Budget will closely monitor agencies on permitting progress.
“There will be consequences for a lack of performance, either through reallocation of resources or what have you,” he said.
Albert Ferlo, a partner at law firm Perkins Coie LLP in Washington and a former Justice Department attorney, spoke of the pitfalls Feb. 9 at an American Law Institute event.
“When you tell people to speed up, get this done by a certain date, guess what, they cut corners,” Ferlo said.
“It allows low-hanging fruit for anyone wanting to challenge that project in court,” Ferlo said. “So streamlining without some changes to the litigation process, I think, won't result in the desired impact.”
Faster permitting would require changes to environmental laws, because executive orders can't supersede authorizing statutes such as the Clean Air Act.
“Whatever authority is out there, it's not enough,” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 14.
“The NEPA process was never intended to be abused and hijacked the way it has been,” Barrasso said. One agency should be authorized to give a final greenlight to projects rather than waiting for approval from as many as seven or eight separate agencies, he said.
Democrats Unconvinced
Some Senate Democrats say Trump hasn't taken full advantage of the streamlining authority he already has under the FAST Act.
The top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), who helped broker the 2015 streamlining, said the administration hasn't made the case for further permitting changes.
“I think we've done a fair amount already,” he told reporters Feb. 12, adding the administration may need to be reminded of the flexibility it already has.
Carper said he expected Democrats would raise that point at a March 1 committee hearing on the infrastructure plan. Other committee Democrats also are skeptical.
“I think the president's intentions are not to streamline a process but to compromise needed environmental and public health” protections, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told reporters Feb. 13.
Democrats and environmental groups also question why the Trump administration is pressing for more changes when it has yet to fill some top positions that are to play key roles in speeding up permitting.
Chairman Eyes NEPA Changes
In the House, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said he hopes to pursue further revamping of NEPA this year, even as he cautions that Senate approval is an uphill battle.
“The goal is to streamline the permitting process so it's not used simply as a tool to stop [projects] and so it's not used as a tool for getting people who love to litigate the opportunity to litigate,” Bishop told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 15.
Too often NEPA is used “as a tool for stopping progress and as a tool of making money by litigating,” he said. Bishop said he plans hearings on what streamlining is needed.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128485919&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128485919&jd=128485919
-
Louisiana Regional Haze Plan Target of Advocates’ Lawsuit
Feb 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Environmental groups want a federal appeals court to review the EPA's approval of Louisiana's plan to comply with the regional haze rule.
The Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association filed the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The groups want the court to review the agency's signoff on the regional haze state implementation plan, saying Louisiana's plan failed to meet the pollution control and reasonable progress requirements of the rule, Cherelle Blazer, environmental science and policy expert for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA approved in December 2017 the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's source-by-source pollution controls to limit sulfur dioxide and the state's participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule's trading program to limit nitrogen oxide.
The regional haze program aims to reduce haze and increase visibility at national parks and monuments.
No Evidence
There's no evidence that Louisiana submitted a plan or evaluated or determined how much emissions reductions are needed to make reasonable progress, environmental groups said in comments submitted to the EPA before the rule was finalized.
The rule unlawfully exempts sources from installing pollution controls, the groups said.
“With this implementation plan, the state is not requiring any existing coal plants to clean up at all,” Blazer said. “They not requiring them to install any of them to install pollution controls.”
The groups also criticized the state's reliance on the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, because emissions reductions under that rule are limited to only five months of the year, the “ozone season” from May through September. Because those controls are not required to be operated year-round, it doesn't protect the areas under the regional haze rule.
The final rule also gives a unit of Entergy's Nelson Energy Center, a natural gas-fired power plant in Lee County, Ill., a three-year extension to come into compliance.
The plant should be able to reach compliance now, and the EPA and the state should have used their own analysis instead of relying on Entergy's data to make a decision on the plant, the groups said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128485934&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128485934&jd=128485934
-
Utilities, States, Environmentalists Clash Over Obama EPA CSAPR 'Update'
Feb 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Utilities, states and environmentalists are clashing in legal fights over the Obama EPA's “update” to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program, with disputes over the update rule's merits including its implementation costs, how to address international emissions, and “over-control” of upwind states.
The arguments are detailed in a series of briefs filed Feb. 16 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in State of Wisconsin, et al. v. EPA, et al., in which Wisconsin and utility industry groups are seeking to overturn the 2016 update rule. They argue the rule is unreasonably tough and limits emissions from upwind states more than is required, amounting to unlawful over-control.
Environmentalists and Delaware, and also separately the states of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, are defending the rule from these attacks, but also criticizing the rule for being too weak as it does not supply a complete remedy to meet the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS.)
The Trump EPA, meanwhile, is so far defending the Obama-era rule from all the competing attacks in the case, even as EPA's interstate air pollution policy remains in flux. EPA air policy chief William Wehrum has expressed a preference that states supply the necessary Clean Air Act “good neighbor” air quality plans themselves, as mandated by the air law, without EPA providing a “backstop” trading program when they fail to do so.
CSAPR, first introduced in 2011, established an emissions trading program for power plants to control ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate-forming sulfur dioxide, in order to combat interstate air pollution. The rule aimed to help states meet the 1997 NAAQS, expressed as 84 parts per billion (ppb), to satisfy their “good neighbor” obligation to reduce interstate air pollution. The Obama EPA updated the rule in 2016, tightening state NOx limits to help states meet the tougher 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb.
Utilities including Murray Energy and the Utility Air Regulatory Group in their Feb. 16 brief defend the rule, saying “there is no merit” to an argument from environmentalists and Delaware that EPA should have required emission reductions beyond those it determined were feasible and cost-effective to implement by the beginning of the 2017 ozone season.
Power industry groups defend the agency's determinations of which emissions reduction measures are cost-effective, and also the timing of implementation, against environmentalists' assertions that EPA should have set tougher limits, based on higher implementation costs, and put them into effect more quickly.
Industry litigants further reject environmentalists' assertion that EPA made the updated CSAPR unlawfully weak by allowing use of “banked” emissions allowances from the first phase of the trading program, when NOx caps were weaker. There “is no legal infirmity to EPA’s determination to permit a limited number of lawfully banked” NOx allowances, industry groups say.
States' Arguments
However, states led by New York defending EPA in the case reject industry's assertion that while EPA correctly determined that more-stringent controls were not justified based on cost, the agency nevertheless underestimated compliance costs and made emissions caps too stringent.
“State Petitioners argue that EPA violated the law because the Rule’s cost-effective allocation of emission reductions does not pass a further state-specific cost-benefit test. But the Supreme Court and this Court have expressly upheld the methodology EPA used to set the Rule’s emission reductions here without finding that any additional state-specific cost-benefit analysis was required,” the states say in their Feb. 16 brief.
The CSAPR methodology has largely survived judicial review, following the Supreme Court's 2014 6-2 ruling in EPA, et al. v. EME Homer City Generation, et al., that consolidated challenges to the original rule.
But the justices did leave open the possibility that EPA can over-control upwind states if it requires emissions cuts greater than necessary achieve or maintain NAAQS attainment in all downwind areas linked to those upwind states. The D.C. Circuit, based on this formula, previously vacated a series of state emissions caps, and EPA responded to the court's ruling by instituting new caps in the CSAPR update.
The states led by New York in their brief in the update rule suit defend key aspects of EPA's methodology in the update rule. “Industry Petitioners contend that EPA’s emission calculations did not consider emission reductions that downwind States should reasonably make. But EPA’s calculations expressly took such reductions into account,” they say. They refute industry's argument that EPA over-controlled upwind states in order to assure NAAQS maintenance downwind, rather than to actively bring downwind areas into attainment.
They write, “nothing in the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA’s actions here. Even if current emission levels in some States may result in attainment at downwind receptors now, EPA reasonably determined that shifting meteorological and economic conditions could lead to nonattainment in the near future."
States' Obligations
Environmentalists in their new brief focus on industry's argument that EPA should have more fully considered international emissions and set weaker controls or excluded states from the CSAPR program entirely.
“Contrary to Industry Petitioners’ argument, a Clean Air Act provision addressing nonattainment caused by air pollution originating from outside the United States’ borders . . . does not diminish upwind states’ obligations under the Good Neighbor Provision, or call the Rule into question,” says their Feb. 16 brief.
Further, “EPA properly followed the safeguards against 'over-control' as set out by the Supreme Court and this Court,” environmentalists say, adding, “Industry Petitioners fail to show that such emissions reductions lead to over-control in any affected state.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/utilities-states-environmentalists-clash-over-obama-epa-csapr-update
-
Senators Seek EPA Rule Limiting HFC Production As Officials Split On Kigali
Feb 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A bipartisan group of six senators is floating legislation that would require EPA to write a rule to phase down production of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, amid reports that the Trump administration is split on whether to embrace an international deal to restrict the chemicals.
If enacted, the legislation, S. 2448, would provide EPA with authority to achieve the treaty's goals even as administration officials work to determine whether to support the deal -- the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol -- and seek Senate ratification.
That decision may be difficult. A former White House adviser says EPA's “opposition” to advancing the Kigali Amendment, which sets a global phasedown schedule for HFCs, stems from questions that it might need new legislation to implement the pact, according to E&E News.
But one top industry attorney, Jeff Holmstead of the firm Bracewell, recently argued that an existing Clean Air Act provision would automatically give EPA authority for an HFC phasedown rule if the Senate were to ratify Kigali. That would obviate the need for Congress to take further action, he said.
The new HFC legislation would achieve the same result through a different route -- by requiring EPA to write an HFC phasedown rule that aligns with Kigali's requirements. The bill would give the agency such authority even if the Senate never ratifies the global agreement.
One source familiar with the debate says the legislation is not necessarily needed to address the issue, but it nevertheless sends an important “signal” that the issue enjoys bipartisan support, including from several “core” Republicans.
The measure was introduced Feb. 16 by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), along with five co-sponsors: Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
The chemical and refrigeration industries have broadly embraced Kigali, as have environmental groups. The source familiar with the debate adds that chemical firm Chemours -- which supports the deal and produces safer alternatives to HFCs -- has a significant presence in West Virginia and thus could be influential with that state's senators, Shelley Moore Capito (R) and Joe Manchin (D), who have often been keenly involved in energy and environmental issues.
Joe Trauger, a government relations official with the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), tells InsideEPA/climate that the bill would “provide a little more clarity [regarding EPA's authority] in this interim period” before Kigali is ratified, and allow industry to move forward with implementation using a “market-friendly approach.”
The legislation envisions “an allowance allocation and trading program” to help industry to achieve significant production limits on HFCs over time. The rule would be written “in the same manner” as prior air act rules to limit chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances, the bill says.
Supporters of Kigali note that the Montreal Protocol, originally crafted to address chemicals that harm the ozone layer, has long been concerned with climate change issues, given that it explicitly tells participating countries to address the environmental consequences of alternatives to CFCs and related substances that harm the ozone layer.
In addition, CFCs and related chemicals are much more powerful GHGs than even HFCs, and the George W. Bush administration pointed to its implementation of the treaty to argue that it was not opposed to all steps to address climate change.
'All In Agreement'
In a press release touting the bill, Kennedy noted that it is “not often” that lawmakers from both parties, industry and environmentalists agree on an issue, “but we are all in agreement on this one.”
Of note, the bill is backed by two chemical production firms -- Honeywell and Mexichem Fluor -- that were at odds over separate Obama EPA regulations to limit HFCs in specific end uses.
Key parts of those rules, developed under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, were vacated by a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mexichem was the named plaintiff opposing those rules, while Honeywell and Chemours had intervened on EPA's behalf to support the rules.
Companies and environmentalists that support the SNAP rules are planning to ask the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit's ruling, though such appeals are not due for several more weeks.
The new legislation comes amid remarks from former White House international energy and climate adviser Dave Banks that the Trump administration is split on Kigali.
Banks, who recently left the White House due to an inability to obtain a permanent security clearance, told E&E News that administration supporters of the deal need a detailed economic case to show President Donald Trump that ratifying Kigali would help domestic manufacturing.
“You have to have the numbers, and for us to have carried it forward, that was the only way that we were going to be able to overcome EPA's opposition,” Banks said, reiterating a call for such analysis he made during a Feb. 5 event hosted by the Hudson Institute.
He said that EPA has “concerns about the regulatory overreach; they've got concerns about implementation, is there existing regulatory authority, do you need legislation? And on that front, the ball is in their court with the existing regulatory piece.”
EPA did not respond to a request for comment about its view of Kigali and related implementation issues.
AHRI's Trauger says his group has had “positive” and “constructive” conversations with the Trump administration, and it has “not heard that any one particular agency is opposing [Kigali] or not.” Rather, he says, the administration is conducting a process to determine its formal stance on the pact.
Regarding Banks' call for economic studies, Trauger says AHRI and the industry group Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy are developing analysis that would show the projected effects of ratifying Kigali, as well as potential negative effects from not ratifying the deal.
One negative consequence of not joining the deal, he notes, is that the treaty eventually would bar non-participating countries from trading HFC-related products with countries that have joined the deal.
“It definitely creates a potential issue that you need to address,” he says. “We're hopeful that Kigali will be ratified.”
The groups hope to produce their economic analysis over the next month.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senators-seek-epa-rule-limiting-hfc-production-officials-split-kigali
-
Bipartisan Bill Would Authorize U.S. EPA To Ratchet Down HFCs
Feb 20, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Supporters say measure would protect domestic chemical manufacturing jobs and environment
Manufacturers of hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), a new generation of refrigerants that have very low potential to cause global warming, are getting a boost from U.S. Congress.
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are backing a bill (S. 2448) that would authorize EPA to ratchet down the production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of refrigerants that are potent greenhouse gases. HFOs are beginning to replace HFCs in vehicle air conditioners, store refrigerators, and vending machines.
EPA restricted the use of HFCs and refrigerant blends containing HFCs in a 2015 rule. But Mexichem Fluor and Arkema, which make HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane), challenged the regulation. HFC-134a has long been used as a refrigerant in car air conditioners.
A federal court sided with the two companies last year. It faulted EPA for basing the regulation on part of the Clean Air Act authorizing the agency to require replacement of compounds that deplete stratospheric ozone with safer substitutes. HFCs, which don’t hurt the Earth’s protective ozone layer, were developed as substitutes for hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which do.
The judicial ruling put the U.S. effort to phase out HFCs, as required under an international treaty, in limbo.
Senators from two states with large chemical industry presence introduced the bill on Feb. 15 to give EPA authority to regulate HFCs. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) says the legislation is designed to protect investment by Mexichem Fluor and its competitor Honeywell, which makes HFOs, in manufacturing facilities in Louisiana. And Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, says S. 2448 supports production of next-generation HFC substitutes and helps the U.S. meet its treaty obligations.
Honeywell and Mexichem Fluor say they back S. 2448, as does the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council.
Co-sponsors of the measure include Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i9/Bipartisan-bill-authorize-US-EPA.html
-
Connecticut Threatens Suit Over EPA's Proposed Ozone Petition Denial
Feb 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) is threatening to sue EPA over its proposed decision to deny the state's petition for direct federal regulation of a Pennsylvania power plant that top state officials say is compromising Connecticut's ability to meet federal ozone standards.
“Once again, the Trump administration is putting the lives of Connecticut residents at risk. We know that in Connecticut the air we breathe is severely impacted by upwind polluters, such as Brunner Island. It is therefore incumbent upon the EPA to protect the health and wellbeing of all of our residents, regardless of where they live. We will continue to pursue all legal avenues to protect the health of the people of Connecticut,” Malloy said in a Feb. 16 statement.
His threat comes in response to EPA's proposed decision, signed by Administrator Scott Pruitt Feb. 15 but not yet published in the Federal Register, to deny Connecticut's petition for direct federal regulation of the Brunner Island coal-fired power plant.
While EPA is proposing to deny Connecticut's petition, Sierra Club has reached a separate settlement with Talen Energy, the owners of Brunner Island plant, that would halt coal burning at the plant during the high-ozone summer months starting in 2023, and stop burning coal altogether by 2028, according to the Hartford Courant.
Sierra Club says the parties will execute the settlement after a mandatory 90-day waiting period after filing its notice of intent to sue, which the group served Talen Energy with Feb. 14.
However, Connecticut officials told the paper that they are taking action against EPA because they want to curb the plant's coal use before 2023. “We would like the EPA to take enforceable action,” Chris Collibee, spokesman for the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told the Courant.
State's Petition
Connecticut's petition, filed under Clean Air Act section 126, claims that the plant contributes significantly to the state's problems attaining national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, in violation of the air law's “good neighbor” provision.
But EPA concludes in its notice that, “Connecticut has not met its burden to demonstrate that the source emits or would emit in violation of the good neighbor provision such that it will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Connecticut.”
The agency argues that even though the plant might contribute to air pollution in Connecticut in excess of EPA's threshold for significance, which is one percent of the NAAQS, other factors such as availability of cost-effective controls weigh against EPA granting the petition.
Connecticut will be able to sue over EPA's petition denial in federal appeals court once the agency issues a final decision.
The agency issued its decision under court order, and will hold a public hearing Feb. 23 in Washington, D.C., on the issue, required under the same order. The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered EPA to respond with a final decision within 60 days, after Connecticut sued the agency for missing its 60-day statutory deadline to reply to the petition by many months.
Legal observers say the case is an example of the flaws in Pruitt's policy on so-called “sue-and-settle” lawsuits, under which EPA may not settle lawsuits brought by environmentalists or others, seeking to force EPA to perform mandatory duties, without soliciting the input of regulated entities.
The agency appears to have abandoned the policy amidst a series of court losses, asking a federal court earlier this month to allow more time to settle claims from environmentalists that it missed a statutory deadline to issue a report on the effects of the renewable fuel standard.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/connecticut-threatens-suit-over-epas-proposed-ozone-petition-denial
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested