Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 2/27/2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Spray Foam Insulation: Tips for Electrical Professionals
Feb 26, 2018 | Electrical Business Magazine
By Paul Duffy

Despite decades of improvement in lighting and HVAC equipment efficiency, building energy intensity remains high due to the growing use of personal electronic devices and other electrical equipment in buildings.
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt’s Job Is to Protect the Environment. God Has Other Plans for Him.
Feb 26, 2018 | Grist
By Rebecca Leber

About a month after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Scott Pruitt arrived at the Environmental Protection Agency for his first full day of work.
(ACC Mentioned) Rigid Plastics and Film Recycling See Growth in 2016
Feb 27, 2018 | Recycling Today
By DeAnne Toto

Recycling of nonbottle rigid plastics and plastic wraps, bags and flexible film packaging (collectively known as film) grew by 10 percent in 2016, according to two reports from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington.
(ACC Mentioned) Profit from Theresa May's War on Plastic
Feb 26, 2018 | City A.M.
By Garry White

Theresa May recently declared a “war on plastic” and businesses such as Costa Coffee, Wagamama, Pizza Express and Leon have said they will phase out the use of plastic straws.
Groups Blast Dismissal of Suit Against Trump Executive Order
Feb 26, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly

Public interest and environmental groups today expressed disappointment in a federal judge's decision to dismiss litigation over President Trump's "two-for-one" regulatory executive order.
Major EPA Reorganization Will End Science Research Program
Feb 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green

A federal environmental program that distributes grants to test the effects of chemical exposure on adults and children is being shuttered amidst a major organization consolidation at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

LCSA News

Chemical Trade Secret Access, Protection Guidance Coming Soon
Feb 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

States, tribes, emergency responders and others soon will receive the EPA's advice on how to protect confidential chemical information they seek to access in carrying out their duties.
Industry Criticizes EPA's 'High' TSCA Fees, Citing Slow Chemical Reviews
Feb 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Industry officials are criticizing EPA's proposed rule for charging industry fees to support chemical reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), charging the fees appear to be too high and failed to clarify how the money will be spent...

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) State Drinking Water Panel: Removing 1,4-Dioxane Will Be Costly
Feb 26, 2018 | Newsday
By Emily C. Dooley

The state Drinking Water Quality Council, charged with recommending a safe standard for the chemical 1,4-dioxane, estimated Monday that removing the emerging contaminant could cost water suppliers in New York billions of dollars in capital spending and millions more...
Trade Bodies Say VOC Emissions from Consumer Products Decreasing
Feb 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell

In response to a US study on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in consumer products, two major personal care and cleaning products trade associations say their industries have been managing and reducing VOC emissions for decades.
California Needs 'Information on Alternatives' to Achieve PFAS-Free Carpets
Feb 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell

A US NGO has called for more information on alternatives to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), after California published evidence for restricting their use in carpets and rugs.
REACH Committee Approves EDC Authorisation Applications
Feb 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton

EU member states have voted in favour of applications for uses of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC).
Nicholas Kristof's Latest Screed On Chemicals- Scary Rather Than Informative
Feb 26, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Chuck Dinerstein

The New York Times, specifically pundit Nicholas Kristof, has once again demonstrated their flair for hyperbole at the price of scientific honesty. In his current column, What Poisons are In Your Body, Kristoff recounts his concern about chemicals in his environment and the recent testing of his urine for chemicals...
Lead in Hot Water – an Issue Worth Testing
Feb 26, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Tom Neltner

Last March, I was giving a talk on lead and drinking water at the National Lead and Healthy Housing Conference. A questioner from a state health department asked me why the standard lead testing methods only sample cold water when experience suggests that people...
Asbestos Is No Joke
Feb 26, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Linda Reinstein

The full-page ad on the back of this year’s Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is supposed to be funny.

Energy News

EPA Extends Deadline for Input on Controversial SNUR
Feb 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending its deadline for public input and disclosing additional documents to support a draft rule allowing a new use of a chemical, apparently in response to environmentalists, who charged that the limited time was unlawful, faulted agency vetting of industry claims...
Bayou Bridge Appeals Court Order Shutting down Pipeline Work
Feb 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar

Bayou Bridge Pipeline LLC seeks to appeal Feb. 23 court ruling halting construction of the crude oil pipeline in La., according to a court filing.
Northern Pass Will Survive With, Without Massachusetts: Eversource
Feb 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel

If Eversource's Northern Pass transmission project fails to meet a Massachusetts deadline, the company will bring it to another New England state hungry for clean energy, corporate officers said.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Trump 'Knocked It out of the Park' on Paris — Pruitt
Feb 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kevin Bogardus

U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said President Trump quitting the Paris climate deal is the accomplishment that he is most proud of since taking office.
EPA Takes Steps to Bolster EJ Efforts as New Study Highlights Concerns
Feb 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA has rejected calls from a wide variety of states and other groups to extend the deadline for comments on its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) outlining possible approaches to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) to limit utility greenhouse gas emissions.
Caucus Members Push 'Feasible' Warming Bill
Feb 27, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell

Members of the bipartisan House caucus dedicated to finding market-based solutions to address global warming have released their first piece of legislation associated with the group.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Spray Foam Insulation: Tips for Electrical Professionals

Feb 26, 2018 | Electrical Business Magazine

By Paul Duffy

Despite decades of improvement in lighting and HVAC equipment efficiency, building energy intensity remains high due to the growing use of personal electronic devices and other electrical equipment in buildings.

Over the last few years, spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation has been gaining popularity as a premium insulation product for the construction market. SPF is particularly useful because it is air impermeable; it bonds and creates a seal with adjacent materials, and insulates more effectively than other products.

In the past, you might not have encountered it too frequently, but SPF has been used in buildings for more than 30 years; in fact, the basic chemistry for making this foam has been known for more than 80 years!

Polyurethane foam is all around you: in your car, in appliances, in foam cushions and other household goods. Now it is becoming a common material used in buildings, and the electrical industry needs to understand how to work with and around it as part of the everyday process of doing business.

Most electricians are at least peripherally aware of the need to air seal exterior walls, ceilings and floors over unconditioned space. Air leakage is not only a major cause of comfort complaints but can also cause increased energy consumption, concealed condensation and related problems, such as mould, corrosion and wood rot. Architects and builders striving for increased airtightness and energy efficiency often specify features like air-sealing electrical boxes, polypan enclosures behind electrical boxes and airtight enclosures for potlights to avoid these problems.

SPF insulation can greatly simplify these sorts of issues. With spray foam, the insulation itself provides the air seal, allowing other trades more flexibility in some of the products they choose, and how they are subsequently installed.

Getting to know foam

Typically, rough-in electrical will be done before spray foam is applied, with the final connection of fixtures and other devices occurring afterward; however, it is often impossible to avoid running at least some circuits in insulated walls after the spray foam has been completed. Running circuits after spray foam application can be challenging, depending on the type of foam that has been applied and the extent of the supplemental electrical work.

When foam is applied in wall, ceiling and floor cavities, the type you will typically encounter is Low-Density SPF. This type of foam is often referred to as half-pound density or open cell (maybe even Icynene foam). It has the softness and consistency of angel food cake, and can be easily cut to allow wiring to be tucked in.

A pocket knife or even a credit card can be all that’s needed to get the job done. Minimize the damage to the foam and practically no repair work will be necessary. So long as you do not fully penetrate the foam (e.g. by drilling holes directly from the interior to the exterior surface of the foam), you will not compromise the air sealing it provides.

In other cases, particularly on the outside of the framing, you may encounter a tougher, denser, harder type of spray foam referred to as Medium-Density spray foam, also known as two-pound density or closed cell foam. It is much more firm, similar in strength to extruded polystyrene foam board you get at the lumber yard. The key difference is that its closed cell structure and adhesive properties are frequently chosen to provide a continuous vapour barrier as well as an air barrier. If you damage but do not repair this type of foam, an inspector may require repairs to it before construction can proceed.

In either case, minimize the damage and you minimize the need for repairs. Should you remove large sections of foam, they will have to be repaired/replaced. If you are working around foam, it’s a good idea to contact the foam installer for recommendations and a “kit or canned foam” product that is compatible with the material installed.

Remember, foam is produced by a reactive chemical process. When you apply even a small quantity of kit foam, be sure to wear protective gloves, glasses and clothing, and follow the manufacturer’s recommendations regarding ventilation and/or breathing protection to avoid having that chemical reaction occur on your skin... or in your lungs.

Spray foam does not only produce amazing thermal performance results, but can help the project avoid common issues related to air sealing and moisture control. Likewise, it can also produce unwanted surprises when you do not take steps to avoid them. Follow these tips to minimize problems with your electrical work.

At the rough-in stage

1. Ensure all wiring is pulled tight and tacked at least roughly every 24-in. to minimize displacement as the foam expands. SPF will also produce heat as it expands. NEMA-approved wiring is compatible, but it may be necessary to run speaker wiring, network cabling and other services after the foam is applied to avoid problems with unrated wiring.

2. Mask the front of all electrical boxes, panels and equipment to avoid foam migration into unwanted areas.

3. Use air sealing electrical boxes if available to minimize the amount of foam migrating into the boxes from the back and sides.

4. Use potlight enclosures that are compatible with spray foam and do not rely on air movement through the enclosure for cooling/thermal protection.

5. Even though SPF has only 1/4 the flame spread of wood products, it is still considered combustible. Follow all codes and manufacturer’s recommendations for separating heat-producing equipment and appliances from spray foam. Gypsum drywall and/or an air space may be recommended.

6. Follow normal de-rating procedures for wiring heavy loads in well-insulated assemblies. Low-Density SPF has a comparable R-value to other insulation types. Medium-Density SPF is comparable to board stock products.

7. Do not do any wiring while SPF is being sprayed. A safe practice is to avoid working in the area while spraying is taking place plus a period of up to 24 hours thereafter.

At the finishing stage

1. Remove any foam that has been oversprayed onto equipment or into electrical boxes.

2. Run any additional circuits/electrical along a path that minimizes the distance through foam. Go through interior walls and floors to get to exterior walls and ceilings.

3. Try to avoid penetrating supplemental wiring through foam. Supplemental air sealing may be required if holes are drilled through finished foam directly from the interior to the exterior.

4. Patch/repair spray foam with compatible products e.g. a Low-Density SPF should be repaired with a Low-Density kit foam.

Never hurts to learn more

As spray foam insulation’s use within residential and commercial construction continues to increase, it makes sense to avail yourself of the resources and education offered by industry to better understand the products and their functionality, and how they work in conjunction with other building materials.

Through education and collaboration with subject matter experts in the insulation space, electricians, designers and other contractors during the design or build phase can better grasp the various types of SPF available and how they are used in the building envelope.

Paul Duffy is vice-president, Engineering, with Icynene. He has more than 20 years of building science and engineering experience, and is an active contributor to code changes within Canada and the United States. He currently chairs both the Spray Foam Coalition and the SFC Research Committee for the American Chemistry Council-Center for the Polyurethanes Industry.
https://www.ebmag.com/articles/spray-foam-insulation-tips-for-electrical-professionals-20181

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt’s Job Is to Protect the Environment. God Has Other Plans for Him.

Feb 26, 2018 | Grist

By Rebecca Leber

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of theClimate Desk collaboration.
About a month after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Scott Pruitt arrived at the Environmental Protection Agency for his first full day of work. The new administrator had weathered a contentious confirmation battle, with bitter debate over his long-standing ties to the industries he was now responsible for regulating — not to mention the 14 lawsuits he had filed against the agency as Oklahoma’s attorney general. But as he stepped into the EPA’s stately Rachel Carson Green Room, Pruitt wore the satisfied grin of a man in charge.
He took the stage with Catherine McCabe, the acting head of the agency. In the front rows sat some members of the EPA’s “beachhead team,” a group of mostly men whom Trump had installed to begin the process of dismantling the department of the Obama years. Among them were some familiar faces, such as David Schnare, a former career EPA official and prominent climate-science skeptic. A conspicuous number of security staffers circulated among the crowd.
McCabe handed Pruitt two gifts. One was a beige baseball hat inscribed with the EPA’s logo — a nod to Pruitt’s career as a college second baseman and a minor league co-owner. The other was an EPA pin, which she advised he should “proudly wear … on your lapel as you represent the agency.” Pruitt considered the pin for a moment and then set it on the podium. He appeared uncomfortable sharing the spotlight; as he stood next to McCabe, I saw him fidgeting with his glasses, his eyes shifting between her and the audience while she read a version of his biography that omitted the lawsuits.
Half a head shorter than many members of Trump’s Cabinet, a bit stocky, and balding on top, Pruitt didn’t visibly command the space. But once McCabe stepped aside, he relaxed as cameras broadcast his address to 15,000 EPA staffers nationwide. “I am excited about being in a city that actually has a Major League Baseball team,” he said, using his new hat as a prop. The speech was light on the environment and the agency’s mission and heavy on where the Obama administration had gone wrong. He covered talking points that he would repeat ceaselessly during the next few months: “Regulations ought to make things regular”; it was time to be “pro-energy and -jobs”; “process matters”; he would “listen, learn, and lead.” When it was over, Trump’s men enthusiastically pumped his hand while career staffers silently filed out the back.
It was not quite the fire and brimstone of his boss, but Pruitt’s quieter style masks the extent to which his approach to governing is the practical implementation of the president’s wrecking-ball rhetoric. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to “get rid” of the EPA “in almost every form.” In just his first year in office, Pruitt has already made stunning strides in that direction. He’s dismantling the Obama administration’s landmark Clean Power Plan, which imposed greenhouse gas limits on fossil fuel-fired power plants. He has slashed enforcement efforts against polluters and tried to repeal rules meant to safeguard drinking water supplies. He has threatened to roll back fuel economy standards. He’s moved to weaken new rules for smog, coal ash, and mercury pollution, poorly enforced a new toxic-chemical law, and refused to ban the dangerous pesticide chlorpyrifos. He’s taken aim at dozens of lesser-known rules covering everything from safety requirements for replacing asbestos to emergency response plans in hazardous chemical facilities. In the process, Pruitt has driven away hundreds of experienced EPA staffers and scientists while putting old friends and industry reps in charge of key environmental decisions — a troubling trend that has led former EPA administrators from both parties to warn that he is doing irreversible damage to the agency.
For the president, Pruitt has become a trusted partner. “We’ve been through our battles, Scott,” Trump said a few weeks after sharing his Rose Garden podium with Pruitt as they announced plans to withdraw the United States from the landmark Paris climate agreement. “Not with each other, with the world.”
Thanks to his habit of tenting his fingers, Pruitt has prompted comparisons to C. Montgomery Burns, the villainous nuclear power plant owner in The Simpsons. And indeed, Pruitt has been almost cartoonishly contemptuous of the EPA’s work, pushing draconian cuts to the agency’s science, climate, regulatory, and enforcement offices. Meanwhile, in just his first year, he has reportedly expanded his around-the-clock security detail at a cost of at least $2 million annually. He spent $25,000 on a secure phone booth inside his office, at least $12,000 for flights around the country between March and May (each of which included a leg in Tulsa), $58,000 on chartered and military flights over the summer, and nearly $40,000 on a trip to Morocco to promote natural gas exports. His frequent first-class trips with his security detail have added more than $200,000 to that tally. He also issued a $120,000 no-bid contract to a Republican opposition research firm to target and track journalists, though the contract was canceled after I exposed it.
Like Trump, Pruitt has engaged in a continuous battle against the press. Within weeks of his arrival, the EPA’s public affairs office stopped responding to many reporters’ questions and sharing his complete schedule. Instead, the agency has mostly focused on spreading its message through the right-wing media, talking frequently to Fox News and conservative radio hosts while dismissing less favorable coverage as fake. The EPA’s social media accounts spent the first months of Pruitt’s tenure blasting out photos of him fist-bumping EPA staffers and meeting with politicians. In the Obama years, the EPA tweeted about the agency’s programs and environmental issues. During Pruitt’s first three weeks in office, 90 percent of the agency’s tweets were about him.
For those of us who cover the EPA, Pruitt’s profound impact on policy has been hard to miss. What’s tougher to see, behind the secrecy and paranoia, is how his new job has advanced his own future plans. There have been rumors he is interested in replacing Jeff Sessions as attorney general and whispers that he sees himself as a future president. His zeal — or overzealousness — might be seen as typical behavior for an inexperienced man thrust into the major leagues of a Cabinet position. But his political calculations and driving ambition can all be traced 1,210 miles west of Washington, D.C., to the place he’s called home for nearly three-fifths of his life.
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, 15 miles southeast of Tulsa, is a prosperous town, named for Native Americans forcibly relocated there in 1836, during the Trail of Tears expulsion organized by Trump’s hero President Andrew Jackson. Like much of Oklahoma, it’s dominated by the energy industry. A largely white town of 107,000 residents, with a median income 43 percent higher than the rest of the state, Broken Arrow is also home to many evangelical mega-churches.
One is the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow, whose campus is marked by a water tower, emblazoned with its name, that’s visible for miles. With a coffee shop, a bookstore, and an indoor basketball court, the church has expanded to meet the needs of 2,800 members and, as its website proclaims, “to reach everyone that we can with the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Broken Arrow, Tulsa, Oklahoma, North America, and the Ends of the Earth.”
I met Nick Garland, an animated 66-year-old senior pastor who had just returned from a trip to D.C. There, he and a few dozen others — Pruitt’s friends from around the country and other influential Oklahomans — attended a private reception in the EPA administrator’s offices. Garland was one of the few who had known Pruitt for decades, not from his political life, but as a family man and deacon, deeply committed to his evangelical faith. Garland has watched Pruitt since the early ’90s, when Pruitt was a law student and the pastor recruited him and his wife to First Baptist. Over the years, Pruitt’s commitment to the congregation has been unwavering. His two children grew up in this church. Shortly after law school, he joined fellow parishioners on a missionary trip to Romania. When he was the state’s attorney general, he taught a seminar on how to blend one’s faith into communication and current events.
During his early days in Oklahoma, Garland says, Pruitt knew “there was something more he’s supposed to do than be a student of law.” Garland, who has a collection of eagle-themed memorabilia scattered around his office, compares Pruitt to the bird. “Eagles are one of the rare creations of God that delight in the storm,” he says. The 114-year-old Broken Arrow church subscribes to a conservative branch of the Southern Baptist tradition. When dozens of evangelical leaders endorsed Pruitt’s nomination in late 2016, they wrote an open letter explaining their rejection of “any ideology that sees human beings as a blight upon the planet and would harm human flourishing by restricting or preventing the rightful use and enjoyment of creation.” This echoed a view of environmental stewardship that has become widely accepted in conservative evangelical communities: “He created human beings in His own image, bearing responsibility to advance human flourishing through many forms of human activity, from agriculture and enterprise to technology and innovation,” the religious leaders wrote. In other words, the planet’s resources are there for the purpose of human use.
This approach is the polar opposite from that of other religious leaders — including Pope Francis — who interpret stewardship as the responsibility humans have to protect God’s creation for as long as possible. “Is true environmentalism ‘do not touch’?” Pruitt remarked last year. “It’s like having a beautiful apple orchard that could feed the world, but the environmentalists put up a fence around the apple orchard and say, ‘Do not touch the apple orchard because it may spoil the apple orchard.’”
I asked Garland to shed some light on the remark. “Either we’re going to steward the Earth and use it for God’s glory and man’s good, or we serve the Earth,” Garland says. Failing to use the Earth for our benefit, he notes, would violate Genesis 2:15, which concerns the relationship between humans and the natural world: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Garland does not believe humans are the main cause of climate change, and neither does Pruitt. “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said in March 2017. But his biblical references are not restricted to climate change. Pruitt’s two guiding stars — evangelical faith and political zeal — sometimes seem interchangeable. In October, when he announced a controversial new “conflict of interest” policy barring researchers who receive EPA grants from serving on the agency’s science advisory boards, he quoted the Book of Joshua: “Choose this day whom you’re going to serve.”
If the roots of Pruitt’s religious approach to policy are deep, so is his yearning for power and influence. In a 2010 campaign ad, Pruitt explained that his will to succeed began at his birth as a three-pound premature baby. He grew up in Kentucky, spent his freshman year at a state university, and then graduated in 1990 from Georgetown College, a Christian school, with a degree in political science and communications. He played second base and dreamed of going pro. His friends told E&E News that his appearance inspired the nickname “the possum” — a creature that deceives its enemies by playing dead.
Pruitt married Marlyn Lloyd in Louisville, Kentucky, after graduation and they moved to Tulsa for law school. I visited Jim Thomas, Pruitt’s administrative law professor, at the small firm he shares with his son. Wearing an Oklahoma sweatshirt, he settled into an armchair at a large conference table. The 89-year-old recalled Pruitt as conservative, personable, and striving, someone who had already set his sights on elected office, with hopes to perhaps become governor someday. Pruitt was driven not by a fascination with the workings of government — Thomas remembers he had little interest in environmental law or policy in general — but by sheer political ambition. “I’ve had a lot of politicians go through the University of Tulsa,” says Thomas, who’s been active in Oklahoma’s Democratic Party and says he knows how “to spot somebody who seems suited for politics … And that’s the way I saw Scott Pruitt.”
Pruitt remained in Tulsa and ran a small private practice, Christian Legal Services, where he specialized in constitutional and employment law and worked with several local firms. One of his first major clients, whom he met through church, was J.D. Young, an executive at a well-known oil equipment company, Tulsa Rig Iron. Young had deep connections in the community. David Page, the senior attorney who worked alongside Pruitt for the client, recalls that “on more than one occasion, [Young] said that Scott’s real ambition in life, from his perspective, was to be a well-known politician.”
When Pruitt turned 30 in 1998, he ran for the state Senate against a longtime incumbent Republican. He won on the unexpected strength of the evangelical turnout. David Blatt, a political scientist then working as a budget analyst for the Oklahoma state Senate, remembers colleagues taking note of the surprise win. As a state senator and eventually the Republican whip, Pruitt was a conventional social conservative and a member of the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council. He was particularly focused on the religious right’s core causes, including prayer in public schools and stopping same-sex marriage and abortion.
Pruitt left the Legislature after eight years, following losses in Republican primaries for a U.S. House seat in 2001 and the lieutenant governor’s office in 2006. In 2003, while he was still in his state seat, Pruitt returned to his first love by becoming the co-owner and managing general partner of the RedHawks, a minor league baseball team based in Oklahoma City. Why might a legislator from Tulsa want to run a baseball team in Oklahoma City? Blatt, who now heads Oklahoma Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, says it made sense in the context of Pruitt’s ambition: “Owning the RedHawks would have definitely cemented relationships with the business elite of Oklahoma City and some of the oil industry folks.”
By 2010, when Pruitt announced his candidacy for attorney general, he had built a deep network, and with help from the new Citizens United ruling and the rise of the tea party, donors who had previously supported him — the likes of Devon Energy’s Larry Nichols and Koch Industries — stepped up. He campaigned on a platform of resisting the Obama administration, promising to file a lawsuit against Obamacare and pledging to push back against Washington at every opportunity, which often meant fighting environmental regulations. He won easily.
By this time, Pruitt’s old colleague David Page had been working with the attorney general’s office for five years on a major case against poultry companies accused of dumping manure that seeped into the Illinois River watershed. These same poultry companies contributed to Pruitt’s campaign. So when Page saw Pruitt at Tulsa’s Dilly Diner one Sunday after church, he thought he’d ask about his plans for the case. “I don’t believe in using lawsuits to change public policy,” Pruitt replied. Eventually, Pruitt agreed to a settlement that set aside some money for a study on the issue but required no concrete action.
Even more striking for Page was that while Pruitt insisted he had no interest in changing policy through the courts, he soon launched lawsuit after lawsuit to do just that. Pruitt enthusiastically joined more than a dozen suits filed by Republican-led states and energy companies against the federal government over environmental policy and health care. He also fulfilled a campaign promise to set up a Federalism Unit, committed to battling so-called interference from Washington. And he disbanded Oklahoma’s environmental protection unit.
This was in contrast to Pruitt’s Democratic predecessor, Drew Edmondson, who is now running for governor. “We were there to enforce consumer protection laws and antitrust laws and environmental laws,” he says. “That’s what the attorney general is supposed to do. I’m certainly not naive enough to believe that other philosophies don’t exist.”
Pruitt’s philosophy went over well within Oklahoma’s conservative policy circles. When oil prices sank globally and state revenue plunged, most agencies saw their budgets cut. Pruitt’s expanded by 40 percent, and he hired nearly 60 new employees focused on fighting legal battles against the Obama administration, according to the Associated Press.
On the national level, Pruitt became active in the Republican Attorneys General Association, which has received substantial money from the fossil fuel industry, and served as chairman of the dark-money nonprofit the Rule of Law Defense Fund. A Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times series detailed the web of connections Pruitt developed through these groups. In one instance, he copied and pasted a letter that the oil and gas corporation Devon Energy had drafted in opposition to an Obama administration attempt to rein in methane leaks from drilling operations. After making a few small changes and printing it on government letterhead, he signed his name to fight the regulation.
“I think he’s made the bet that the fossil fuel industry will take care of him one way or another,” says Rhode Island Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the committee that oversees the EPA. “They reward obedience, and nobody has been more obedient than Scott Pruitt.” Indeed, what environmentalists see as Pruitt’s boundless loyalty to corporate interests, or “stakeholders,” as he invariably calls them, is considered an asset by his supporters. One of them is former GOP Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, who was serving the second of his two terms while Pruitt was in the state Senate. “Scott Pruitt is a conservative icebreaker. He doesn’t tread water,” he says. “Pruitt always tried to find a hard solution. I found him to be focused but sensible.”
Throughout Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma’s attorney general, activists tried to pry open his email records, which his office refused to disclose. On Pruitt’s first day at the EPA, his former office finally released some of those emails under a court order. They included correspondence from Pruitt’s staff thanking Devon Energy executives for their help drafting an argument against Obama’s methane regulations, and others from executives thanking Pruitt’s office. “You are so amazingly helpful!!!” read an email from Pruitt’s chief of staff to Devon Energy. The messages also revealed that Pruitt had used a private email account for state business, despite having denied doing so during his EPA confirmation hearing.
This case is ongoing as public interest groups try to obtain thousands of other messages that appear to have been left out of the public disclosure. The Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is suing for the emails. For Brady Henderson of the ACLU, Pruitt’s lack of transparency as attorney general and his claim under oath that he didn’t use a private email account were early indications of what has become business as usual in the Trump administration. “It’s very possible to have enough confidence to say, ‘Yeah, I’m just going to lie, and who’s going to do anything about it?’”
In an administration full of deregulators, Pruitt stands out, bringing to the EPA the anti-Washington playbook he developed with industry in Oklahoma. In December 2017, the White House trumpeted presidential accomplishments from Trump’s first year — a list dominated by handouts to the energy industry. Pruitt’s fingerprints were everywhere, from “exiting the Paris climate agreement” to “ending the war on coal.” It’s an agenda that taps directly into the right-wing populism that was integral to Trump’s success — and a corporate donor base that will be vital to Pruitt’s future.
One of Trump’s first actions as president was the creation of a new (and illegal, according to a complaint filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups) order requiring agencies to jettison two existing regulations for every new one created. Once more, Pruitt was an overachiever. After 10 months, the EPA had put forward just one new rule — restricting the amount of mercury that dentists’ offices can release — while leading other agencies by freezing or reversing 16 regulations. By early 2018, Pruitt had placed nearly 50 existing regulations under review.
The EPA’s regulatory framework is vast and complex, meaning little can be built in a year. Often, the legal battles over rule-making span multiple administrations. During Obama’s eight years, the EPA pushed forward several long-delayed regulations — some mandated by courts — to strengthen the nation’s ozone standards, impose limits on pollution that crosses state lines, curtail mercury emissions from coal-fired plants, and protect drinking water.
Under Trump and Pruitt, much of the hard-won progress of the Obama administration has been attacked, including landmark climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan’s caps on carbon pollution from power plants and limits on methane emissions from oil and gas operations. So have dozens of rules that, with the Clean Power Plan, would have prevented tens of thousands of premature deaths and saved billions of dollars in public health benefits.
Meanwhile, enforcement has dropped precipitously, with fines on offenders down 60 percent in just the first seven months of 2017. “We have a full-on captive agency right now that is obedient not to the public, but to the fossil fuel polluters,” says Whitehouse.
The situation may be permanent. Staffers who have served at the agency for decades predict that the EPA of the future will be a regulatory body essentially controlled by industry — operating on a shoestring budget, unable to fill entry-level roles, and lacking institutional knowledge at higher stations. About 800 employees have already left, meeting Trump’s goal of cutting agency staffing to levels not seen since the 1980s. At the end of 2017, Pruitt put a check mark next to “Reagan-era staff levels” on a list of his accomplishments from the year.
Another accomplishment on Pruitt’s list was “science board transparency” — a reference to one of the more obscure ways in which well-established facts have come under relentless assault. The EPA has two major independent scientific advisory boards, the Science Advisory Board and the Board of Scientific Counselors, which serve as a backstop to ensure the agency’s policy reflects the best available science. Appointments can include experts from academia, government, or industry. Because the government also funds environmental research, it’s not uncommon for a scientist, appointed to the board for her public health expertise, to also receive EPA grants to conduct her own research.
On Halloween, to an audience that included few reporters but several industry reps — including Steve Milloy, the former policy and strategy director of Murray Energy and a prominent climate denier — Pruitt announced a new plan. No scientist who received agency grants could serve on the boards. Seven board members were forced to leave immediately; two more chose to decline the EPA grants. Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, called the move a “desire to limit expert perspectives and the role of scientific information.”
To replace the departing scientists, Pruitt appointed industry supporters, including Michael Honeycutt, a toxicologist from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who has built his career arguing that the impacts of air pollution are overstated. He is now the chair of the Science Advisory Board. Pruitt picked more than a dozen people to fill the empty seats of the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors and 15 others for the 47-member Science Advisory Board, many of them former executives and staffers from organizations that have a stake in limiting the EPA’s chemical and air quality work, such as the utility Southern Co., Phillips 66, Total, and the American Chemistry Council.
Many of Trump’s appointees arrived in Washington with agendas that conflict with their agencies’ historic missions. Trump’s energy secretary, Rick Perry, famously called for eliminating the Department of Energy when he ran for president in 2011. But here, too, Pruitt led the pack. “I’ve never known any administrator to go into office with such an apparent disregard for the agency mission definition or science,” says former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who ran the EPA under President George W. Bush. Politics has always been part of agency decision making, she acknowledges, but now it “is starting to override science and the mission of the agency.”
Pruitt has proved especially creative in pursuing this political agenda by drumming up public confusion around climate science. Instead of taking any formal action, he’s interested in hosting what’s basically a reality show contest on the legitimacy of science. Take the endangerment finding, the agency’s key scientific determination that carbon pollution’s impact on climate change harms human health. Prompted by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, it allows the agency to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act and served as the basis for Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Climate deniers detest the endangerment finding, and many hoped the Trump administration would do away with it entirely. Pruitt has thrown red meat to the skeptics, saying on television that humans aren’t the “primary contributor” to global warming.
But a direct attack by Pruitt on the endangerment finding would entail a great deal of work, lots of lawsuits, and an unclear payoff. As former EPA air and radiation officer Janet McCabe told me, “Review of the endangerment finding would need to consider all the available science and respond to the public comments that will certainly be provided to the agency on such an important issue.” Big energy companies and industry groups tend to prefer a less risky strategy and have lobbied instead for simply replacing Obama’s Clean Power Plan with weaker rules.
Pruitt has opted for an idea floated in conservative editorials that would undermine the finding in the minds of the public. He proposed holding high-profile “red team, blue team” debates over climate science. On one side would be scientists who represent the consensus that greenhouse emissions are dangerously warming the atmosphere, and on the other would be the tiny minority of skeptics and fossil fuel advocates. Perhaps with an eye to Trump’s voracious viewing habits, Pruitt said he wanted the debate, which has been put on hold, televised.
Still, that hasn’t been enough for some Trump allies. A month after the new administrator took office, Trump’s EPA appointee David Schnare resigned, later explaining that Pruitt never tried to understand the regulations he was dismantling, refused to meet with experts on staff, and only relied “on the extremely short briefs I provided at his morning staff meeting.” Myron Ebell, who led Trump’s EPA transition team, reportedly told fellow climate deniers that Pruitt’s lassitude in filling rank-and-file jobs amounted to a “totally dysfunctional personnel process.”
There are other, less visible influencers in Pruitt’s work as well. During Trump’s campaign, a photograph appeared in OKC Friday, a small Oklahoma newspaper, of local politicians and powerful oil and gas executives attending a September 2016 fundraiser. One photograph was of Pruitt, laughing with Devon Energy’s Nichols, who had previously supported Senator Marco Rubio. A co-chair of the event was oilman Harold Hamm, a self-made billionaire who pioneered hydraulic fracturing and chaired Pruitt’s reelection campaign for attorney general in 2014.
After the inauguration, Hamm revealed one of his expectations for the new administration. At an oil and gas panel in Houston, he made an observation that seemed to cause the other two oil executives onstage to shift uncomfortably in their seats. He announced that the Obama administration “wanted to eliminate our industry like they wanted to eliminate coal,” despite the fact that oil and gas enjoyed boom times under Obama. But it was clear what Hamm intended: By positioning itself as a victim of the Democratic administration, his industry would receive even more robust protection from Trump.
What transpired may have exceeded his expectations. In December, Pruitt flew with a seven-person entourage and security personnel to Morocco. He toured some solar and thermal energy projects, and there were photos of him deep in conversation with Moroccan leaders. But he also went, according to an EPA press release, to promote U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (from companies such as Hamm’s). When asked to respond to the criticism that the trip was outside the scope of the administrator’s duties, the EPA replied with a link to its press release.
Inside the agency, Pruitt has surrounded himself with security and walled himself off from the experts on staff. Before Betsy Southerland retired from her position in the EPA Office of Water in protest, she remembers observing him walk down the halls of the agency flanked by two men with earpieces. Employees tend to notice the guard who now surrounds the administrator because it’s a departure from customary EPA practices; past administrators relied on door-to-door protection only for events outside the agency. The 24/7 security detail is composed of staffers who would otherwise likely be investigating enforcement cases for the agency. The EPA’s reasoning for Pruitt’s guard is that this administrator has faced more threats than others. He has built a secure communications facility inside his office, justifying the expense as “necessary for me to be able to do my job,” though the EPA already has one in its buildings. Staffers have reported not being allowed to take notes in meetings or carry their cellphones, limiting the paper trail that can be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
This kind of secrecy is unprecedented and absurd, says Bush-era EPA chief Whitman: “We’re not talking about the FBI. We’re not talking about Homeland Security.” None of it adds up — that is, until you consider that the security provides another layer of opacity to the agency’s operations and makes it more difficult for whistleblowers to undermine Pruitt’s efforts. “I think he views his administration as a hostile takeover of the agency,” says Southerland.
As part of that hostile takeover, Pruitt spent most of his first year meeting with his stakeholders in industry. According to a Washington Post analysis of his public schedule, Pruitt held 218 meetings in 2017 with representatives of industries he regulates. He also gave dozens of interviews to Fox News and right-wing talk radio and delivered speeches in front of conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation. He met just a dozen times with environmental and public health groups.
During Hurricane Harvey, while a scattered, demoralized EPA was handling its emergency response, Pruitt’s press office was focused on challenging accounts of disarray. In one memorable press release, the EPA attacked an Associated Press report about the lack of agency presence at flooded Superfund sites as “yellow journalism.” The agency pointed to the fact that it had conducted an aerial review of the sites and referenced Breitbart News to further discredit the AP’s additional reporting.
Without much hope that the agency will answer questions, mainstream reporters have turned to its glacial open records process for answers. Senators have complained that the agency has done no better for them. Democrats, who have already asked for EPA inspector general audits of Pruitt’s travel, including his frequent trips to Oklahoma, recently requested that the independent office add the Morocco visit to their list and examine “whether the purpose of travel is consistent with the EPA’s mission.”
At the same time, Pruitt installed fellow Oklahoma conservatives in EPA positions that don’t require Senate confirmation. He has hired several old friends, as well as four staffers who have worked for the Senate’s most prominent climate denier, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe.
One of those hires was Albert Kelly, a former banker with no environmental experience, whose company issued three mortgages to the Pruitts, according to an investigation by the Intercept, for their $605,000 home in an upscale Tulsa neighborhood. Kelly’s company also financed Pruitt’s stake in the RedHawks. Last year the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation fined Kelly for his alleged involvement in a loan that hadn’t received FDIC approval. Two weeks later, Pruitt hired him to lead the EPA’s Superfund Task Force — which Pruitt has singled out as a priority for the agency and an early success story.
As almost everyone I spoke with noted Pruitt is a far more political creature — and quite talented in that respect — than his predecessors have been. When I was in Oklahoma, his old friends and associates openly speculated about which office he would set his sights on next: Maybe the seat held by the 83-year-old Inhofe? A governor’s race? The White House?
One way or another, “I don’t think EPA is his ultimate destination,” University of Tulsa law and environmental professor Gary Allison says. According to Politico, Pruitt is reportedly interested in Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ job, should Sessions resign from his post — a move that could put Pruitt squarely in the middle of the Russia investigation. (Jahan Wilcox, a spokesman for the EPA and a longtime Republican operative, told news outlets the rumors were “not true.”)
Will Pruitt remain as EPA chief for Trump’s entire four — or eight — years? That’s anybody’s guess. But what’s clear is that this position will not be the pinnacle of Pruitt’s career. Before each previous campaign, Pastor Garland recalls, Pruitt “would come and visit and say, ‘Pray for me. I’ve got something I feel like I’m supposed to run for.’” He describes a similar pattern after Trump won and Pruitt was summoned to Trump Tower in New York City. “We prayed for him through that process when he went up there for the interview,” he says. “He felt very humbled but very eager to serve in a national capacity.”
So, I asked Garland, what’s next?
“Stay tuned,” he replied with a big, loud laugh. “We may have this conversation again sometime.”
https://grist.org/article/scott-pruitts-job-is-to-protect-the-environment-god-has-other-plans-for-him/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Rigid Plastics and Film Recycling See Growth in 2016

Feb 27, 2018 | Recycling Today

By DeAnne Toto

Recycling of nonbottle rigid plastics and plastic wraps, bags and flexible film packaging (collectively known as film) grew by 10 percent in 2016, according to two reports from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington. More than 1.46 billion pounds of rigid plastics were collected for recycling, while 1.3 billion pounds of film were collected for recycling.
The “2016 National Post-Consumer Non-Bottle Rigid Plastic Recycling Report” and the “2016 National Post-Consumer Plastic Bag and Film Recycling Report” were released at the annual Plastics Recycling Conference, which took place in Nashville, Tennessee, Feb. 19-21.
The reports also show dramatic long-term growth in both plastics recycling categories, the ACC says. The volume of rigid plastics collected for recycling in 2016 is nearly 4.5 times greater than the volume collected in the 2007 inaugural report. Additionally, plastic film recycling has grown for 12 consecutive years and has more than doubled since 2005, when the first report was compiled.
“We are pleased to see the increase in plastic film and rigid plastics recycling in 2016 and the dramatic growth over the last decade,” says Steve Russell, vice president of ACC’s Plastics Division. “America’s plastic makers are committed to supporting plastics recycling growth through improved infrastructure and education and believe that these efforts will continue to support the industry in future years.”
Both reports attribute the increase in material collected for recycling partly to demand from export markets. As a result of China’s 2017 policy restricting imports of scrap materials, including plastics, the plastics recycling value chain is working to develop stronger domestic end markets to continue the increase in plastics recovered for recycling, the ACC says.
“From investments in recycling facilities and advanced technologies to public commitments to use more recycled plastics in products and packaging, we see real dedication from the recyclers and end users to grow end-market opportunities for plastics recycling here in the U.S.,” Russell says.
Recycled plastic film is used in composite lumber, new film and sheet, agricultural products, crates, buckets and pallets, the ACC says, while typical end markets for nonbottle rigids include automotive parts, crates, buckets, pipe, lawn and garden products, and thick-walled injection molded products.
Plastic film includes flexible product wraps, bags and commercial stretch film made primarily from polyethylene.
The rigid plastics category includes food containers; caps; lids; tubs; clamshells; cups and bulky items, such as buckets, carts and lawn furniture; and used commercial scrap, such as crates, battery casings and drums. As in prior years, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) comprised the two largest resins in this category, representing 40 percent and 36 percent, respectively, of total rigid plastics collected.
Both the film and rigids reports were based on an annual survey of reclaimers conducted by More Recycling, based in Sonoma, California.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/2016-recycling-rates-film-and-rigid-plastics/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Profit from Theresa May's War on Plastic

Feb 26, 2018 | City A.M.

By Garry White

Theresa May recently declared a “war on plastic” and businesses such as Costa Coffee, Wagamama, Pizza Express and Leon have said they will phase out the use of plastic straws. California is considering banning them completely. Frozen food retailer Iceland has also pledged to be free of plastic packaging in its own-brand products within five years and the government wants to encourage plastic-free aisles in supermarkets. Kenya has introduced the world’s toughest plastic bags ban, under which the production, sale or even use of plastic bags risk imprisonment of up to four years or a fine of $40,000 (£28,000).
Single-use plastics are an environmental scourge, with claims that our oceans are being turned into a “plastic soup”. Environmental activists Greenpeace estimates that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic – everything from plastic bottles and bags to microbeads – end up in our oceans every single year. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation reckons there will be more plastic in the sea than fish by 2050.
Luckily, there are alternatives being developed worldwide, with the use of bioplastics on the rise. Currently, bioplastics represent about 1% of the about 320 million tonnes of plastic produced each year, according to Berlin-based European Bioplastics, an association of producers. Its use is expected to continue to rise.
Bioplastics are made from natural products such as sugar cane, wood and corn. These are natural compounds that biodegrade naturally. US group NatureWorks makes lactic acid from food such as corn, cassava, sugar cane or beets and turns it into a polylactic acid product called Ingeo. Italian group Novamont has also developed a bioplastic called MATER-BI and Brazilian group Braskem has developed a process that that makes bioplastics from ethanol sugarcane. European Bioplastics represents the interests of around 70 member companies along the entire value chain of bioplastics, this includes major companies such as BASF, Cargill and DuPont. It is both consumer demand and regulation driving this industry – and investment theme.
In the UK, companies such as James Cropper are involved in the recycling of coffee cups. Only relatively few coffee cups are recycled because the paper cups are lined by a thin layer of plastic to waterproof them. This is hard to separate, so they cannot enter traditional recycling systems and are either burnt or buried in landfill. James Cropper has the technology to deal with this and has signed deals with only McDonald’s, Costa Coffee and Selfridges since it plant started operation in September last year. It expects to sign many more deals.
What is an opportunity for one set of businesses, however, is also a threat to another. The main feedstock chemicals used in the manufacture of plastics come from oil. The energy industry is currently planning for a reduction in oil demand due to the rise of electric vehicles – and the backlash against plastic is going to be another challenge with which the industry needs to grapple. According to current projections, the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects the petrochemical industry will represent the largest source of additional oil consumption between now and 2040. The Paris-based body believes petrochemicals alone will more than offset the oil demand loss in passenger vehicles from electric vehicles.
These industry projections have led some in the market to speculate that growth plans at oil companies may be derailed by the war on plastics. Many oil majors have been investing in this side of their business as part of their long-term strategic plans. According to the American Chemistry Council, oil majors have invested in the region of $180bn in the plastic market since 2010. Saudi Aramco has made big bets on plastic as part of its strategic plan to diversify its economy. In November, Aramco signed a preliminary deal with Saudi Basic Industries Corp (SABIC) to build a chemicals complex to convert 45pc of crude oil to chemicals directly.
Detractors therefore argue that there has been significant investment in increasing the output of plastic feedstocks all over the world at a time when people are finally waking up to the fact that we should be using less of it. If plastics are heading in the same direction as the internal combustion engine – to an inevitable demise in the hunt for a cleaner world – then it is a major threat to the oil industries. However, the truth is that the transition is likely to be very slow and take many decades for the simple reason of cost. Plastics made from oil products are cheaper and generally more reliable than the new emerging technologies. Companies have developed relatively low tech, high volume methods of producing petrochemicals, which keeps the price down.
There are also some concerns that large-scale production of bioplastics could take land away from food production at a time when the global population is rising. Indeed, this debate is reminiscent of the arguments around biofuels a decade or so ago when there were hopes that fuel produced from plants would help reduce the need for oil. Currently about a third of the US corn crop is used to make ethanol to be blended with fuel but this has hardly impacted the demand for oil. It is unlikely oil majors will need to worry about a major threat from bioplastics just yet.
However, there is a definite long-term investment theme emerging, with bioplastic use almost certain to increase over the longer term. If governments start to raise taxes on oil-based plastics, some of the current cost issues may diminish. For bioplastic producers, the war on un-degradable plastic could be very profitable.
Nothing on this website should be construed as personal advice based on your circumstances. No news or research item is a personal recommendation to deal.

http://www.cityam.com/281258/profit-theresa-mays-war-plastic

Return to headline | Return to top
Groups Blast Dismissal of Suit Against Trump Executive Order

Feb 26, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Reilly

Public interest and environmental groups today expressed disappointment in a federal judge's decision to dismiss litigation over President Trump's "two-for-one" regulatory executive order.
The January 2017 order required federal agencies to scrap two regulations for every new one created. Judge Randolph Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today ruled that organizations did not have legal standing to bring a suit challenging the order (Greenwire, Feb. 26).
"President Trump's executive order shows a dangerous disregard for regulations that protect our families and communities from pollution, and that ensure clean air, safe drinking water and uncontaminated food," said Michael Wall, co-director of litigation at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
With NRDC, Public Citizen and Communication Workers of America brought the suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the order was illegal because it attempted to override laws passed by Congress that may require rulemaking.
But Moss found the groups hadn't shown that their members would suffer harm from agency actions pursuant to the order or that the order would have a chilling effect on their ability to advocate for policies to protect the environment and workers' rights.
"Unfortunately, the court concluded that Public Citizen and colleague groups did not have standing to challenge the order at this time," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "But our members are being hurt right now by Trump's order, and the order is impeding our ability to advocate."
While Moss dismissed the case, he said he would consider giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to submit an amended complaint and ordered parties to appear before him Thursday to discuss next steps. The groups said they are reviewing the decision.
"We shouldn't have to wait for a member to get sick or injured or die because of this executive order before the courts will take action," CWA President Chris Shelton said. "We're disappointed in the court's decision, but we're not backing down from representing our members and defending workers' lives."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/02/26/stories/1060074799

Return to headline | Return to top
Major EPA Reorganization Will End Science Research Program

Feb 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green

A federal environmental program that distributes grants to test the effects of chemical exposure on adults and children is being shuttered amidst a major organization consolidation at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) will no longer exist following plans to combine three EPA offices, the agency confirmed to The Hill Monday.
The program provides millions of dollars in grants each year.
Perhaps best known for its handling of fellowships that study the effects of chemicals on children’s health, NCER will be dissolved and science staff serving there will be reassigned elsewhere within the department, EPA said.
The merger will involve EPA’s Office of Administrative and Research Support, Office of Program Accountability and Resource Management, and the grants and contracts managed by NCER to create a new Office of Resource Management.
Other EPA functions consolidated into the new office include the handling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, records management and budget formulation functions.
An EPA spokesperson said the extensive organizational changes are meant to create more efficiency within the agency.
“EPA’s Office of Research and Development is one of the world’s leading environmental and human health research organizations. In order to maintain the quality and focus of our research, senior leaders from the research and development office are proactively taking steps to create management efficiencies within the organization,” the spokesperson said. “These changes will help EPA’s Office of Research and Development be more responsive to agency priorities and funding realities.”
Both of the White House’s fiscal 2018 and 2019 budgets proposed zeroing out major programs under NCER, but the cuts were not taken up in the most recent congressional budget.
An EPA spokesperson said that under the planned overhaul, employees currently working at NCER will not be fired, but may have their positions altered.
“At the appropriate time, the science staff currently in NCER will be redeployed to the ORD labs/centers/offices matching their expertise to organizational needs. This reorganization could result in a change of positions or functions. Staff in the affected organizations will retain the grade and career ladder of their position of record,” the spokesperson said.
NCER is largely known for the funding it provides through its premiere program, Science To Achieve Results (STAR). Under the STAR program, grants are given to the Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers, which were established in 1988 to discover methods to reduce children's health risks from environmental factors.
“Those programs have been so successful in advancing our scientific understanding and our ability to address the ways that environmental chemicals can impact children’s health,” said Tracey Woodruff, a former senior scientist and policy advisor at the EPA under the Clinton and Bush administrations. "The children centers were really the first and only centers to undercover the relationship with prenatal exposure to flame retardants and IQ deficiencies in children.”
A report released by the National Academy of Sciences last year that was compiled at EPA’s request, championed the STAR program for its "numerous successes."

"STAR has had numerous successes, such as in research on human health implications of air pollution, on environmental effects on children’s health and well-being, on interactions between climate change and air quality, and on the human health implications of nanoparticles. Those are just a few examples; many more could be cited," the report read.
Woodruff called the decision to merge NCER with the other offices, which currently do not focus on handling grants, extremely concerning.
“They make it sound like this is a way to create efficiency, but it masks what's happening to this actually programmatic, scientific function of NCER and the STAR program. That makes you think, 'Is this really just an efficiency argument masking their real intention to get rid of the research grant program, which they have said they want to do in the past?' she said. “Answering FOIAs and administering scientific grants are not the same thing.”
EPA has recently acknowledged a slow-down in the rate of FOIA requests answered, citing a backlog in previous requests made under the Obama administration and an uptick in FOIA requests sent since President Trumptook office.
The EPA official did not acknowledge how the agency rearrangement may address those issues.
http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/375725-major-epa-reorganization-will-end-science-research-program

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Chemical Trade Secret Access, Protection Guidance Coming Soon

Feb 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

States, tribes, emergency responders and others soon will receive the EPA's advice on how to protect confidential chemical information they seek to access in carrying out their duties.
The Environmental Protection Agency Feb. 23 submittedguidance on that issue to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations and other federal policies before they are released to the public.
State officials hope the guidance will help them get chemical information they need more quickly than in the past.
For the first time, the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 said state, tribal, and local governments along with health professionals and emergency responders could access chemical information that the EPA can't publicly release because of its proprietary nature.
The agency can, however, only grant such access if the government agency or other TSCA-authorized entity can protect the confidential business information.
Under the original 1976 toxics law, the EPA couldn't share confidential business information about chemicals with states, physicians, tribes, and other local regulators and officials—unless the company that claimed the information was confidential allowed it to be shared.
Timely Access
When it has needed insight into a particular chemical, Connecticut typically hasn't been able to wait until the EPA secures a company's permission to share confidential information about that substance, Gary Ginsberg, a toxicologist for the Connecticut Dept of Public Health told Bloomberg Environment.
Instead, the state uses whatever information it can find in scientific publications and what's called “grey literature,” he said. Grey literature refers to unpublished research or information that has not been peer reviewed. Examples can include technical papers, conference proceedings, and government fact sheets.
“It would be great if we got the information in the time frames we need without going through undue burdens to get it,” Ginsberg said.

Getting access to needed chemical information is a top priority for states, Ken Zarker, a pollution prevention manager in Washington state's Department of Ecology, told Bloomberg Environment.
“It's critical for states to have information in a timely fashion, so they can respond to emergencies and other situations,” Zarker said, a member of an Environmental Council of States workgroup that's been in discussions with the EPA about the guidance.
That workgroup anticipates the guidance will describe the “nuts and bolts” about what authorized officials and organizations will have to demonstrate to receive protected protect confidential business information, Zarker said.
Washington and other states envision having such protections in place so they could, for example, quickly get information if an Elk River, W.Va.-like spill occurred again, he said. Zarker was referring to Freedom Industries leaking about 10,000 gallons of a coal processing chemical into the Elk River in 2014. The spill left more than 300,000 residents without drinking water for days.
In addition, Washington state would like the EPA to share assessments it already conducted for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), Zarker said.
PFAS chemicals are used to make a wide variety of consumer and industrial products—including carpets, textiles, food wrappers, roof coatings, and wire insulation—heat-, oil-, and stain-resistant. The chemicals, however, also are increasingly being detected in sources of drinking water and in other parts of the environment.
Washington state is developing a chemical action plan to reduce the use, release, and exposure to PFAS.
Protection Integral to Industry
Whatever guidance the EPA issues must ensure that confidential business information is protected, Robert Helminiak, vice president for legal and government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 26.
Amended TSCA upheld the importance of confidential business information, which is integral to the specialty chemical industry that SOCMA represents, he said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128822928&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128822928&jd=128822928

Return to headline | Return to top
Industry Criticizes EPA's 'High' TSCA Fees, Citing Slow Chemical Reviews

Feb 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Industry officials are criticizing EPA's proposed rule for charging industry fees to support chemical reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), charging the fees appear to be too high and failed to clarify how the money will be spent and how the agency will encourage faster reviews of new chemicals, which the sources say are lagging.
Two industry sources say they plan to ask EPA in comments to better detail how the fees will be used. “We need to make sure that money is being spent in the proper way,” one industry attorney says.
And a second industry source says the proposed rule does not include examples of when EPA would reimburse companies when reviews stall, measures that could provide an incentive for the agency to speed reviews of new chemicals.
“I would like to see them include examples of when companies would get reimbursed if the review period expires without an EPA decision,” Martha Marrapese, an attorney with Wiley Rein LLP who represents several major industry groups, says, adding that such refunds are detailed in the law but not adequately addressed in the rule.
“By EPA's own admission, fees will reduce the number of submissions that the agency will see, and they need to get the timing back on track, and they don't discuss that at all in the proposal.”
EPA Feb. 26 published in the Federal Register its proposed rule for assessing industry fees to help defray the cost of reviewing new and existing chemicals and other activities under TSCA.
EPA says it will begin collecting fees in fiscal year 2019 and will adjust the schedule for inflation every three years.
Industry officials and environmentalists agree that the rule, authorized by the revised TSCA law, is needed to speed reviews, and agency staff have said fees could help offset funding cuts they warn would hinder its implementation.
The pre-publication version released Feb. 7 details methodology for assessing industry fees intended to defray costs of conducting chemical reviews under the new law. EPA says its proposed methodology is intended to fully recover the amount specified by law, which is 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key programs under the chemical safety law, or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
EPA will also seek public input on alternative methodologies for calculating fees, and steps it has proposed to ease burdens on processors and small businesses. For example, the agency is limiting fees on processors, and broadening a prior TSCA regulatory definition of small businesses that are eligible for reduced payments under the rule.
EPA will take comment on the proposed fees rule for 60 days, through April 27.
While EPA says that staff considered industry calls for fees to be proportional to the costs EPA incurs in conducting a review, environmentalists have argued that the agency violates that proportionality principle by underestimating its costs and thereby undercutting the industry fees.
The Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Richard Denison has told Inside EPA that the rule appears to underestimate costs associated with data management, noting tasks such as collecting and reviewing industry claims of confidential business information (CBI), and that the rule underestimates the costs of conducting industry-requested reviews of existing chemicals. He also said that fees for chemical testing appear to be only a tiny fraction of EPA's costs.
Fee Reimbursements
But Marrapese and others say the proposed rule fails to detail how the fees will be spent, adding that in comments on the proposed rule industry will seek greater clarity on how fees will be used.
Marrapese added that the proposed rule also appears to suggest that the agency is planning to aggressively use authority under TSCA section 4 to require manufacturers to conduct testing of chemicals.
In January, industry groups submitted comments outlining approaches for expediting the new chemical reviews by maximizing companies' meetings with the agency prior to submissions of pre-manufacture notices (PMN) of new chemicals, expanding the types of data EPA considers in reviews, and encouraging use of existing environmental or worker safety measures to reduce chemical risks and preclude the need for new rules.
Marrapese also argues that the proposed rule misses an opportunity for addressing the slow pace of reviews by failing to adequately address TSCA's requirement to refund fees when deadlines are missed.
She notes that TSCA section 5 says that if the agency fails to reach a determination on a new chemical by the end of the review period, EPA “shall refund to the submitter all applicable fees charged to the submitter for review of the notice pursuant to section 2625(b) of this title, and the Administrator shall not be relieved of any requirement to make such determination."
The law grants exceptions when a company has not provided required data or otherwise delayed the process.
Marrapese said that EPA is already taking more than a year -- an average of 406 days -- to complete new chemical reviews scheduled to take 90 days, and that industry requests for reimbursement of fees have not been taken seriously.
By providing examples in the proposed rule of when EPA would refund fees after missing deadlines, she argues that the agency could create an incentive for speeding its new chemical review process.
“The proposed rule does not address this at all,” Marrapese says. “It's been 18 months. It's time to get the program back on track.”
She also says that in comments on the proposed rule, industry will likely seek greater clarity on how fees will be used, noting that the proposed rule suggests fees will be used to support TSCA implementation generally, rather than paying for specific reviews, and that industry believes greater resources are need for new chemical reviews.
Additionally, she argues that proposed fees rule suggests that EPA is planning an aggressive approach in requiring manufacturers to conduct chemicals testing. Noting a section in the rule's proposed fee methodology on the agency's authority to require testing under TSCA section 4, Marrapese says the agency assumes costs proportional to seven tests on each chemical.
“It seems like this is a preview to the testing we'll see in the future,” she said. “They're going to be ordering a lot of tests.”
Maureen Gorsen, a former director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, who is now advises industry clients for Alston & Bird, said that fees for chemical reviews will limit innovation by dissuading smaller companies from seeking chemical reviews, while not deterring larger companies that can afford the fees.
She backed provisions in the proposed rule that would limit fees on processors and broaden the TSCA regulatory definition of small businesses that qualify for reduced payments as helping to level the playing field against the anti-competitive effects inherent in assessing fees.
“For the big companies and big items that have giant sales, they're fine,” Gorsen said. “But for smaller companies or chemicals with more of a niche market it can be prohibitive.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-criticizes-epas-high-tsca-fees-citing-slow-chemical-reviews

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) State Drinking Water Panel: Removing 1,4-Dioxane Will Be Costly

Feb 26, 2018 | Newsday

By Emily C. Dooley

The state Drinking Water Quality Council, charged with recommending a safe standard for the chemical 1,4-dioxane, estimated Monday that removing the emerging contaminant could cost water suppliers in New York billions of dollars in capital spending and millions more each year to operate and maintain treatment systems.
The panel also discussed two other pollutants that are also not currently regulated federally.
The man-made 1,4-dioxane is found in trace amounts throughout Long Island’s drinking water and the highest detection in the nation was measured at a well in Hicksville. The others chemicals are less pervasive in Nassau and Suffolk counties.
Chronic exposure to .35 parts per billion of 1,4-dioxane represents a 1-in-a-million cancer risk, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the panel, which met in Manhattan, is using that threshold as a starting point for discussions, members said.
“It’s judged that 1-in-a-million is pretty protective,” Thomas K.G. Mohr, a consultant and former senior hydrogeologist in California who was not at the meeting. “That’s an effort to nearly eliminate the risk.”
If the council recommended a level of .35 parts per billion for 1,4-dioxane, treatment would be required on 1,685 wells in New York, costing an estimated $2.5 billion plus annual operations and maintenance fees of nearly $253 million, said Brad Hutton, a deputy commissioner in the state Department of Health’s Office of Public Health. At 3.5 parts per billion, costs are estimated at $897 million plus $62.6 million in annual costs.
The bulk of the costs would be incurred in Nassau and Suffolk, which far outpaced the rest of the state in the rate of dioxane detection.
At .35 parts per billion, an estimated 94 wells in the Suffolk County Water Authority boundaries would need treatment at costs of about $155 million for installation and $14 million in annual charges. Serving 1.2 million customers, the authority is among the largest groundwater suppliers in the nation and Monday also won the first approval in New York to use a new type of treatment to remove 1,4-dioxane, which is not treated with methods conventionally used here.
“It could double the cost of water on Long Island,” said Dennis Kelleher, spokesman for Long Island Water Conference, a coalition of more than 50 water suppliers and industry professionals. “If we’re talking about hundreds of these in Nassau and Suffolk, certainly we’re going to need some grant money to control costs.”
In a day-long discussion, members of the panel — appointed by the governor or state Legislature — balanced the health impacts, economic burden and ability of water suppliers to get treatment in place. Later in March they will hold a special meeting with the goal of recommending a specific level for Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker to consider.
“No decision has been made,” said Stan Carey, a council member who is Superintendent of Massapequa Water District. “.35 is used by many people. That starts the conversation is all it really does.”
Steve Risotto, senior director for the industry-backed American Chemistry Council in Washington, urged the panel to wait for an EPA risk analysis and another study in Canada to be completed before making a decision.
“Wait until they finish,” he said. “This will allow you to collect more data.”
The state last set a drinking water regulation in 2004 for the gasoline additive MBTE. The limit — 10 parts per billion — represents a 1-in-a-million cancer risk, state Health Department research scientist Lloyd Wilson said.
Used as a solvent stabilizer and present as a byproduct in personal care products, 1,4-dioxane is classified as a probable carcinogen because it behaves as a tumor promoter in laboratory animals, said Mohr, who wrote a book about investigating and remediating 1,4-dioxane sites.
Several states have set regulations, notice levels or action concentrations for 1,4-dioxane ranging from 0.3 parts per billion in Massachusetts to 77 parts per billion in Alaska, according to an EPA fact sheet.
The range reflects the level of uncertainly about the risks of exposure, experts say. Most data are based on animal tests, which don’t always correlate into human effects.
“There’s quite a large range,” Mohr said. “In between these numbers comes millions of dollars in utility costs ... More difficult to quantify is health costs. There’s just no real price you can put on the loss of life.” The two other chemicals under review by the panel — perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS — were also detected in New York and Long Island during a nationwide survey, though 1,4-dioxane was more prevalent locally.
Installing treatment on wells for the perfluorinated compounds range from $300 million to $3.2 billion in capital costs and from $17.8 million to $176 million in annual charges depending on the threshold set by the state.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/clean-water-dioxane-1.16970038?firstfree=yes

Return to headline | Return to top
Trade Bodies Say VOC Emissions from Consumer Products Decreasing

Feb 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Tammy Lovell

In response to a US study on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in consumer products, two major personal care and cleaning products trade associations say their industries have been managing and reducing VOC emissions for decades.
A recent study, published in the journal Science, found that stricter controls on air pollution have seen the emissions from transport decrease. In comparison, the study says, the proportion caused by household chemical products has decreased at a slower rate and now contributes half those emitted in 33 industrialised cities.
The report authors conclude that household chemical products are an emerging source of urban VOCs and therefore the efforts to reduce pollution should shift onto these.
‘Minimal impact’
The American Cleaning Institute (ACI) issued a statement, saying that the findings on VOCs in consumer products should be put into the context of changes manufacturers have made to manage emissions.
It says that in California – which is referenced in the study – regulators have placed limitations on such chemicals in most consumer products over the past three decades.
"Laundry and dishwashing products in particular have a minimal impact on VOC emissions overall through the selection of ingredients that biodegrade during wastewater treatment," the statement says.
ACI senior director of technical and regulatory affairs, Kathleen Stanton, told Chemical Watch that manufacturers have taken steps, from using ingredients with lower VOC content to reformulation of the product.
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) published a statement on its website, saying that since the California Clean Air Act of 1988, industry has "reformulated many of its cosmetics and personal care products, utilising low vapour pressure VOCs, fully complying with the state’s stringent clean air requirements."
As a result, it says, the amount of VOC emissions from these products has "steadily decreased for more than twenty years".
California study
The PCPC adds that the personal care industry has been working with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop the first emission requirements for consumer products.
CARB recently completed a three-year study into consumer products on the California marketplace. It collected full ingredient information, fragrance formulas, sales information and labelling data.
The PCPC statement says that, since this data is still being aggregated and assessed by CARB, "it would be premature to jump to conclusions about the actual contribution consumer products make to VOC emissions in California."
It adds that the personal care industry will "continue to work collaboratively with CARB to ensure that the data provided by our industry helps to create the most accurate picture of VOC emissions in California as well as serve as a baseline to guide future regulation."
Meanwhile in the UK, the British Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health are planning to carry out a major study on the impacts of indoor air pollution on children’s health.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64346/trade-bodies-say-voc-emissions-from-consumer-products-decreasing

Return to headline | Return to top
California Needs 'Information on Alternatives' to Achieve PFAS-Free Carpets

Feb 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Tammy Lovell

A US NGO has called for more information on alternatives to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), after California published evidence for restricting their use in carpets and rugs.
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is seeking comments on a formal priority product listing under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The listing would require manufacturers to register with the DTSC within 60 days and either eliminate PFASs or begin an alternatives analysis to determine if a safer substitute is available. PFASs have been used in carpets to make them stain and water resistant.
Jim Valette, research director at NGO, Healthy Building Network, told Chemical Watch: "The DTSC's proposal is a great resource and research summary. Its scope recognises that hazards associated with fluorinated stain repellents in carpet extends beyond the long-chain PFASs, but to this entire chemical class."
He added that most major companies had already phased out PFASs and "driven a change in the industry well ahead of regulators".
Carpet manufacturers Interface and Tandus Centiva both confirmed to Chemical Watch that they had eliminated their use in their North American manufacturing processes and products.
But Mr Valette added that more information was needed about non-PFAS alternatives on the market to prevent regrettable substitutions.
"Consumers are demanding full disclosure of the alternatives and seek full assessments of these replacements' environmental and human health hazards. The first carpet company that does this will have a great market advantage," he said.
Recycling risks
DTSC acknowledges that recycling carpet fibre could "perpetuate the presence of PFASs in products made from the recycled material", but Mr Valette called on California to do more to protect workers.
He said that DTSC's report had not adequately addressed the potential exposure of carpet waste handlers, workers in recycling facilities, and residents surrounding these operations, through PFASs in carpet entering the waste stream.
"Dust routinely fills the air of these operations. California needs to work with the carpet manufacturing and recycling industry (including through state procurement policies) to ensure new carpet is PFAS-free. And that any treatment or recycling of old carpet does not expose people to old PFAS," he said.
This may require "substantial investments" in testing equipment, worker protections and recycling technologies, he added.
California bill (AB 1158, Chu) was signed into law on 15 October 2017, which mandates recycling 24% of post-consumer carpet waste by 2020, a doubling of the state's current carpet recycling rate.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64276/california-needs-information-on-alternatives-to-achieve-pfas-free-carpets

Return to headline | Return to top
REACH Committee Approves EDC Authorisation Applications

Feb 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Luke Buxton

EU member states have voted in favour of applications for uses of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC).
At the REACH Committee meeting on 21-22 February, they granted four companies authorisation for conditional uses of the substance, which is listed as an SVHC under REACH Annex XIV.
The companies and uses, with a recommended review period of 22 November 2029, are:
·        H&R Ölwerke Schindler and H&R Chemisch-Pharmazeutische Spezialitäte: industrial use as a solvent and anti-solvent of the feedstock and intermediate product streams in combined de-waxing and de-oiling of refining of petroleum vacuum distillates for the production of base oils and hard paraffin waxes;
·        Grupa Lotos: extraction solvent in de-waxing of petroleum vacuum distillates and de-asphalted oil and de-oiling of slack wax to produce base oils and paraffinic waxes;
·        Dow Italia and Dow France: industrial use as a sulphonation swelling agent of polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymer beads in the production of strong acid cation exchange resins. In a separate application, Lanxess Deutschland has been granted authorisation for the same use but with a recommended review period of 22 November 2021; and
·        Lanxess Deutschland: industrial use as a swelling agent and reaction medium during the phthalimidomethylation reaction of polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymer beads in the manufacturing of anion exchange and chelating resins.

In addition, the REACH Committee members backed Bracco Imaging’s application to use diglyme as a processing aid in the purification of 5-amino-2,4,6-triiodoisophthalic acid dichloride by precipitation. The recommended review date is 22 August 2029.
Trichloroethylene
Member states also approved Blue Cube Germany's application for five uses of trichloroethylene. The recommended review period ends on 21 April 2023 for:
·        use in industrial parts cleaning by vapour degreasing in closed systems where specific requirements (system of use-parameters) exist;
·        industrial use as process chemical (enclosed systems) in Alcantara Material production; and
·        use as extraction solvent for bitumen in asphalt analysis.

And for uses in packaging and in formulation, the review period will end on 21 April 2028.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64333/reach-committee-approves-edc-authorisation-applications

Return to headline | Return to top
Nicholas Kristof's Latest Screed On Chemicals- Scary Rather Than Informative

Feb 26, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health

By Chuck Dinerstein

The New York Times, specifically pundit Nicholas Kristof, has once again demonstrated their flair for hyperbole at the price of scientific honesty. In his current column, What Poisons are In Your Body, Kristoff recounts his concern about chemicals in his environment and the recent testing of his urine for chemicals [1].
Kristof has drunk deeply from the organic, pesticide-free, endocrine disruptor-free Kool-Aid of chemical fear. In his own words,
“So I’ve tried for years now to limit my exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Following the advice of the President’s Cancer Panel, I eat organic to reduce exposure to endocrine disruptors in pesticides. I try to store leftover meals in glass containers, not plastic. I avoid handling A.T.M. and gas station receipts. I try to avoid flame-retardant furniture.”
To evaluate his current exposure he utilized the “Detox Me Action Kit” which tests your urine for chemical metabolites. In his first, but not last moment of playing fast and loose with the truth he describes the urine test, which costs $300, as a way for consumers to learn “what harmful substances are in their body.” The Silent Spring Institute [2], the maker of the urine test kit is a bit more circumspect in their claims. First, the “Detox Me Action Kit” is
“..part of a scientific study run by Silent Spring Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. We’re crowdfunding this study to get a better sense of our collective exposure to harmful environmental chemicals.”
More telling is the real disclaimer,
“These 10 chemicals [the ones tested for in the urine] have been detected at different levels in people throughout the U.S., but detecting these chemicals in your urine doesn’t mean you will get sick. It is not known if exposure levels in the general population are above or below levels that cause health effects.”
So I think we can all agree that the term "poison" is carefully chosen, both disingenuous and inflammatory, more suitable for clickbait than evidenced-based debate. Consider the four chemicals detected at high levels in his urine; 1,4-dichlorobenzene, bisphenol A, flame retardants, and antimicrobials. To be fair, he admits not knowing their effects – perhaps the only example of truth in the entire article.
The FDA reports that 1,4-dichlorobenzene (one of the chemicals used as mothballs) results from “breathing contaminated indoor air.” The agency goes on to report that there are no human studies demonstrating carcinogenicity and that there are no animal studies involving breathing this chemical demonstrating carcinogenicity. There are reports of individuals who eat mothballs or urinal cakes daily or weekly becoming ill. It would seem to me that someone who eats a urinal cake has more problems than an upset stomach.
Bisphenol A has long been a suspected (but never proven) to be a bad actor. But it's not, according to the FDA - something we just reported.
The greatest source of flame retardants, according to the American Chemical Society, is household dust. I spent a few moments researching triphenyl phosphate and its neurotoxicity. It can be found in this study – a study cited by Kristof’s go to source the Environmental Work Group. Leave aside the testing was on embryonic zebrafish, and that the researchers indicated that there was no way to determine the relationship between the doses they administered to the fish embryo to any comparable human exposure. Triphenyl phosphate by the researcher’s own results had no impact on the adult fish. So flaws in Kristof's column cannot be because the Triphenyl phosphate “made me do it.” We should also remember that flame retardants are chemicals that we, as a society have required manufacturers to add to products to protect us from fire risks.
Finally, antimicrobials in your urine could come from one of two sources, a medical prescription you sought and were given; or from various lotions; you have chosen to anoint yourself with to guard against bacterial invaders.
Of course, the enemy here is once again the manufacturers whose lobbying got them “the lightest regulations money can buy.” Kristof quotes Dr. Richard Jackson of UCLA, “So much of what we are exposed to is poorly tested and even less regulated.” He should know, he had nine years as the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health in Atlanta to make a difference.
"The core purpose of The New York Times is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news and information." [3] The column by Mr. Kristof fails his employer's purpose and fails his readers by evoking fear rather than sharing facts.
[1] This is far from the first time that Kristof has been talking out of the wrong orifice. Back in 2012, my colleague Josh Bloom wrote a rather acerbic article for Medical Progress Today entitled "Why I Don't Write About Pottery From the Ming Dynasty," which poked fun at Kristof's absurd fear of BPA.
[2] The also produce the smartphone app Mr. Kristof describes in the article.
[3] Standards and Ethics, New York Times
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/02/26/nicholas-kristofs-latest-screed-chemicals-scary-rather-informative-12630

Return to headline | Return to top
Lead in Hot Water – an Issue Worth Testing

Feb 26, 2018 | Environmental Working Group

By Tom Neltner

Last March, I was giving a talk on lead and drinking water at the National Lead and Healthy Housing Conference. A questioner from a state health department asked me why the standard lead testing methods only sample cold water when experience suggests that people use hot water when making infant formula, dissolving powered drinks, and cooking food. After mumbling for a few minutes that people are supposed to drink cold water, I realized that I really didn’t know the answer – but should.
When risk assessment ignores real life, we are bound to miss something important. For hot water, I think we may be.
Hot water is likely to leach more lead from solder and brass than cold water. EPA makes this clear in its model public education and consumer notices for public water systems which state:
Use cold water for cooking and preparing baby formula. Do not cook with or drink water from the hot water tap; lead dissolves more easily into hot water. Do not use water from the hot water tap to make baby formula.
In addition, if the water comes through a lead pipe, it may contain particles of lead if the pipe is disturbed. The most common example of this situation occurs with a lead service line (LSL) – which connects the drinking water main under the street to the building – is disturbed. The lead particulate from the service line likely settles and accumulates at the bottom of the hot water tank where high temperatures from the flame or electric heater coil may dissolve the lead into the water. The settled particulate could also be re-suspended when water flow is high.
This issue became evident in an ongoing EDF pilot project to comprehensively evaluate and reduce lead in drinking water at child care centers. As part of this pilot, we are measuring lead levels in water taken from all faucets. To explore this concern of lead in hot water, we also included hot water samples from the faucets used for drinking water and directly from the drain valve of the water heater (see photo). After letting the water stagnate overnight to provide us with a worst case sample, our partners in Chicago, Illinois; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Starkville and Tunica, Mississippi sampled the first ¼ liter of hot water at the faucets commonly used for drinking water. They also collected two consecutive ¼ liter samples from the drain of the hot water heater tank after flushing the line for five seconds. See the full protocol here.
Overall, we were encouraged to find relatively low levels of lead in most faucets tested in the child care centers. After testing hot water at 161 faucets in 11 child care centers, we have only found lead levels over EDF's action level of 3.8 ppb in 4 of the first draw samples (2% sampled). The vast majority of hot water samples (83%) had non-detectible lead concentrations.
However, the lead levels in samples taken from hot water heaters are alarmingly high, with 7 of 14 water heaters tested having at least one sample with lead levels above 50 ppb. See Figure 1 and Table 1 below. One water heater had levels as high as 2,680 ppb. The initial samples from the water heater often were discolored – some even like a sludge.
Despite still being in the middle of the project, we are choosing to share the results of what we are seeing, and we will keep you informed as we get further results.
Our partners performed sustained flushes through the drain on 10 water heater tanks. The flushing helped significantly in almost every case. Among water heaters where water levels first tested above 50 ppb, flushing dropped the lead levels on average from 456 ppb to 20 ppb.[1] When levels in the water heater initially tested below 50 ppb, the drop was less evident (from 17 ppb pre-flush to 13 ppb post-flush, on average). Our partners performed second flushes with mixed results in two cases in an attempt to further reduce the lead levels. See additional detail in Figure 1 above and Table 2 below.
Our project is ongoing. So far, our takeaways are:
·        Water heaters may be functioning as “lead traps” for upstream sources of lead.
·        Don’t use hot water for preparing baby formula, drinking, or cooking. EPA’s advice is still sound. A good alternative is an electric hot water kettle.
·        Flush your water heater through the drain line regularly per manufacturer’s instructions. This will reduce the accumulated sediment and should extend the life of your water heater and improve its overall energy efficiency.
Stay tuned as we learn more and please share with me any test results you find. We need to learn from each other.
[1] One child care center had an LSL, which we replaced with our partners in Cincinnati – Greater Cincinnati Water Works and People Working Cooperatively. Before replacement, the water heater had a baseline reading of 393 ppb (data not shown). One week following replacement, two consecutive samples from the water heater were 296 ppb and 774 ppb. Following a full flush of the water heater, levels dropped down to below 10 ppb.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/02/26/lead-hot-water-issue-worth-testing/

Return to headline | Return to top
Asbestos Is No Joke

Feb 26, 2018 | Environmental Working Group

By Linda Reinstein

The full-page ad on the back of this year’s Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is supposed to be funny.
In a parody of the magazine’s cover image – a model cavorting in the surf – the ad features a woman in a hazmat suit and respirator. She’s one of the “Goddesses of Asbestos Removal,” modeling “this year’s sexiest safety equipment.” It’s a Snickers ad, supposedly showing what could happen if the magazine’s editors were too hungry to come up with a good theme for the issue.
It’s so funny I forgot to laugh.
My husband died of mesothelioma, an incurable cancer caused only by exposure to asbestos. Each year, 15,000 Americans die from mesothelioma, asbestosis and asbestos-triggered lung cancer. There is no such thing as a safe level of exposure. Every fiber represents an increased risk of needless death and heartache.
For decades, asbestos was mined and widely used in construction, fireproofing and textile products. Since its dangers have become widely known, many products with asbestos have been removed from the consumer market. But asbestos can still be found in many homes and businesses. Since 2013, $4 million worth of asbestos has been imported from Brazil for use in the chlor-alkali industry.
The U.S. is the only industrialized Western nation that hasn’t banned asbestos. Under the nation’s new chemicals law, asbestos is one of the first 10 chemicals the Environmental Protection Agency must evaluate. The EPA is expected to announce in the coming days whether it will further restrict or ban the use of asbestos.
Until there is a complete ban, workers, families, and even young children playing with makeup or toys, will be exposed to asbestos – putting them at significant risk for incurable cancers. I founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization as a platform for people and families who are striving for an asbestos-free future. The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act, named for my late husband, would expedite a ban within 18 months.
The unfunny Sports Illustrated ad is part of Snickers’ “You’re not you when you’re hungry" campaign. Well, I’m hungry for a ban on asbestos. And a candy bar won’t satisfy me, or thousands of other asbestos victims and their families.
Linda Reinstein is founder and president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/02/asbestos-no-joke#.WpVADm1ubIU

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

EPA Extends Deadline for Input on Controversial SNUR

Feb 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending its deadline for public input and disclosing additional documents to support a draft rule allowing a new use of a chemical, apparently in response to environmentalists, who charged that the limited time was unlawful, faulted agency vetting of industry claims of confidential business information (CBI) and requested an extension.
In a notice published in the Federal Register Feb. 26, EPA extends by 17 days, from Feb. 23 to March 12, the comment period on a Feb. 8 proposal to amend a significant new use rule (SNUR) to allow use of Oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis[5- methyl- as anti-corrosive agent in oil-field operations and hydraulic fluids.
EPA says that it will post two new documents to the rulemaking's online docket -- a significant new use notice that is redacted of data industry has claimed as CBI, and a revised redacted version of the Structure Activity Team report.
“In order to give all interested persons the opportunity to comment fully, EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on February 23, 2018, to March 12, 2018,” the notice says.
The extension appears to respond to a Feb. 12 letter from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to EPA toxics chief Jeff Morris arguing that an original 15-day public comment period was inadequate, and that the agency failed to publish adequate documentation supporting the amended SNUR.
In the letter, EDF asked that EPA disclose all relevant information on the SNUR not appropriately exempted under section 14 and then allow at least 30 days for public comment on the complete record. The group argued that rejecting the call for a longer comment period would violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and noted that EPA has granted industry requests for comment extensions on other rules issued under the revised TSCA.
EDF's criticisms in this case come as the group and others are also challenging as unlawful a draft EPA framework for reviewing new chemicals and their uses under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a document they say is unlawful because it limits the use of section 5(e) enforcement orders that advocates say are needed as an interim step the agency had previously used for regulating and approving the substances.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-extends-deadline-input-controversial-snur

Return to headline | Return to top
Bayou Bridge Appeals Court Order Shutting down Pipeline Work

Feb 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Meenal Vamburkar

Bayou Bridge Pipeline LLC seeks to appeal Feb. 23 court ruling halting construction of the crude oil pipeline in La., according to a court filing.
The company also is requesting a stay on the injunction, pending the appeal.
A stay is in the public interest and the company is “likely to succeed on the merits of an appeal,” according to a separate filing.
On Feb. 23, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick granted a preliminary injunction sought by environmental groups to halt the project. The injunction orders the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bayou Bridge Pipeline LLC to cease any further action on the project “in order to prevent further irreparable harm” until the legal dispute is resolved.
The judge said she will issue a written explanation for her ruling at a later date.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spokesman Matt Roe declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Bayou Bridge is a joint venture between Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66. ETP is the operator with a 60 percent ownership share.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128822934&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128822934&jd=128822934

Return to headline | Return to top
Northern Pass Will Survive With, Without Massachusetts: Eversource

Feb 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adrianne Appel

If Eversource's Northern Pass transmission project fails to meet a Massachusetts deadline, the company will bring it to another New England state hungry for clean energy, corporate officers said.
Massachusetts selected Eversource's $1.6 billion Northern Pass project in January to deliver 1,020 megawatts of power from public utility Hydro-Quebec for 20 years, starting in 2020.
But the 192 miles of transmission lines would run through New Hampshire, and that state's energy siting board voted Feb. 1 to deny the Northern Pass project permission to run any lines through the state.
Eversource has said it's confident that it can successfully appeal the decision by the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) and is trying to convince the New Hampshire siting board to reconsider.
Massachusetts said it will give Eversource until March 27 to get the permit or else it will move on with a similar competing hydro project by Avangrid Inc., which operates in 27 states.
Campaign for Rehearing
“Our focus is on convincing the SEC to reconsider its Feb. 1 decision and resume deliberations,” Eversource spokesman Martin Murray told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 20.
The New Hampshire committee “ended its discussion on Northern Pass in just 2 1/2 days and without deliberating on all of the criteria they were required to consider,” the company said on its Northern Pass website.
Eversource is asking supporters to write to the Site Evaluation Committee, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R), and New Hampshire Senate President Chuck Morse (R), demanding the committee reconsider its decision, according to its website.
Eversource cannot officially make an appeal to the Site Evaluation Committee for a rehearing until the committee issues its written decision, and there's no deadline for when that must happen, Pamela Monroe, administrator for the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 20.
“We're working on it,” Monroe said.
Other States
Should Northern Pass miss Massachusetts’ March deadline, it will bring the proposal to another northern state that has a carbon reduction goals, Jim Judge, Eversource CEO, said Feb. 23 in a conference call with investors.
“There's a tremendous appetite for clean energy solutions in the region,” Judge said.
“There are about 20 major permits that are necessary for a project like Northern Pass, and we literally are down to the final two or three,” Judge said. For this and other reasons, Northern Pass is a “very attractive” project, he said.
‘Project Is Dead’
But Northern Pass is “dead in the water,” said Jack Savage, spokesman for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, which waged a campaign against the project.
The New Hampshire committee's decision was unanimous, and even if it agrees to a rehearing in time for Eversource to meet the Massachusetts deadline, the committee is unlikely to reverse its vote, Savage said.
“They voted to deny because the problems with the application were such that there was no way the applicant could meet the burden of proof required,” he said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128822960&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128822960&jd=128822960

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Trump 'Knocked It out of the Park' on Paris — Pruitt

Feb 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

By Kevin Bogardus

U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said President Trump quitting the Paris climate deal is the accomplishment that he is most proud of since taking office.
"His decision on Paris, knocked it out of the park. He knocked it out of the park," Pruitt said Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "It took so much fortitude, so much courage to do what the president did."
The EPA chief said the deal was unfair to the United States, arguing that China and India didn't have to take steps to reduce their carbon output until years later. Pruitt was a leading proponent of withdrawing from the global pact; President Trump announced his intention in June to leave the accord in 2020.
"The Paris accord was never about CO2 reduction. It was a bumper sticker," Pruitt said. "It was all about putting our economy at a disadvantage, despite the fact that we're leading the world in CO2 reduction anyway."
Pruitt, in a question-and-answer session on stage with American Conservative Union Vice Chairman Charlie Gerow, praised the president repeatedly for his leadership during the first year of his administration. Along with cheering Trump's announcement that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord, Pruitt drew comparisons between now and President Reagan's time in office.
Calling himself "a child of the Reagan revolution," Pruitt remembered what his father faced in trying to grow his business in the 1970s.
"And then President Reagan came in, and the light started shining, right? I will tell you we're living in a similar time. President Trump is leading in a time that is so consequential for our future," Pruitt said. "We're on the trajectory to see great things for this country. Truly, he is about making America great again."
Trump himself spoke to the political conference earlier in the day and took his own shots at the climate agreement, calling it a "totally disastrous, job-killing, wealth-knocking-out" deal (Greenwire, Feb. 23).
Pruitt is a familiar face at CPAC, having spoken at the conference in the past as Oklahoma's attorney general. He also appeared at the event within days of being confirmed as EPA administrator last year (Climatewire, Feb. 27, 2017).
Pruitt also touted EPA's efforts to roll back much of its previous work under the Obama administration, including major regulations like the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
Pruitt characterized the agency as too confrontational before his arrival.
"It was an agency that was weaponized. It was weaponized against certain sectors of the economy," Pruitt said. "So what we spent the time doing this past year ... is deweaponizing."
The administrator hit on his familiar themes from past speeches, talking about how he wants to emphasize "regulatory certainty" and "rule of law" at EPA. He said overbearing environmental rules can prevent businesses from expanding.
"Really, what you do is you don't invest. You don't deploy capital. That causes a paralysis with respect to the economy growing," Pruitt said.
Pruitt also took the chance to espouse his own view of environmentalism. He talked up "stewardship," through which the human race uses the world's natural resources, seemingly fossil fuels, rather than fencing them off.
"Let's use them for the betterment of mankind. Let's feed the world and power the world, but let's do so with stewardship mentalities — responsible stewardship for future generations. That's where I believe the American people are," Pruitt said.
The EPA chief has had to deal with a round of negative press lately, focusing on his first-class travel arrangements and his criticism in 2016 of then-candidate Trump.
Asked how he deals with the scrutiny, Pruitt said it's important to keep a smile on your face.
"So I focus and I tell our team, 'Let's just get our job done,'" Pruitt said. "'Let's do the work before us. Let's have a good, cheerful attitude as we do it, and let's work together,' and you know what's going to happen? I think good outcomes."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060074735

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Takes Steps to Bolster EJ Efforts as New Study Highlights Concerns

Feb 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

A top EPA political appointee is detailing a series of steps the agency will take to bolster environmental justice (EJ), including rebranding a new senior-level council and listing a host of actions that officials will take, just as agency scientists have found that racial minorities need special attention to overcome disproportionate adverse effects of air pollution.
But it is not clear whether the new agency priorities -- outlined in a Feb. 23 memo from Samantha Dravis, associate administrator of EPA's Office of Policy (OP) -- will overcome skepticism from environmentalists and others who are already concerned that Administrator Scott Pruitt is downplaying EPA's EJ efforts, such as his decision to move the environmental justice office (OEJ) from its prior home in the enforcement office to the policy office.
Several of the priority items Dravis is adopting, such as plans to develop policies for incorporating EJ concerns into decisions and identifying communities in each region for special attention, appear to echo Obama administration efforts.
“I think this administration is hostile to EJ,” says Kyla Bennett, a former EPA Region 1 official who is now New England director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which represents federal whistleblowers.
She points to the significant drop in EPA enforcement cases in the Trump administration compared to previous administrations, adding that “many of these facilities are in EJ areas.”
Dravis' memo lays out 12 agency “priorities” for EJ and community revitalization.
First among them, she says the office will “[a]chieve measurable environmental outcomes for underserved and overburdened communities” in several areas, including lead exposure, access to safe drinking water, reduction of “harmful” air pollutants and limiting exposure to contamination from hazardous wastes.
Dravis also says the office will also advance “a “more systematic approach to ensuring stronger consideration of vulnerable groups and communities in decisions through EPA's rulemaking, permitting, compliance and enforcement, and emergency response recovery programs. This work will include development of guidelines and measures for training, implementation and use of EJ tools, resources and guidance.”
Dravis also directs each EPA regional office “to identify those communities that would benefit from a coordinated approach to address EJ challenges. We will do this by strategically leveraging EPA's resources to enhance the capacity of communities to address their challenges through local innovation and to create conditions that support well-being, health and economic revitalization."
To do so, Dravis commits EPA to give communities “access to training . . . and technical assistance necessary to meaningfully engage in EPA's decision-making process;” to “expand support for communities” through various agency grants and programs, such as EJ grants, Urban Waters, and Brownfields and Area Wide Planning; “elevate the role of EJ in place-based work and in fostering collaborations with multiple stakeholders” and “commit to better alignment of our own programs … to ensure that locally-led, community-driven solutions are supported and valued.”
Senior Council
Dravis also announces that next month, the policy office is convening a meeting of senior leadership through an Environmental Justice and Community Revitalization Council, which was formerly known as the EJ Council, which will “provide leadership through OEJ and the Office of Community Revitalization for EPA's community-based work and where these strategic directions will be further discussed and implemented in alignment with EPA's new strategic plan.”
Dravis asks EPA's EJ advisory committee, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), to “engage with communities across the United States in each region to bring their concerns to the attention of the Administrator by the time of the NEJAC's first full in-person meeting in calendar year 2018. That meeting is yet to be scheduled, according to NEJAC's web page, though the council is scheduled to hold a March 8 conference call.
Dravis' memo follows the Feb. 22 publication of a study that found that black communities face a disproportionate burden from fine particle (PM2.5) emissions beyond that of poor and other minority communities. “Disparities for Blacks are more pronounced than are disparities on the basis of poverty status. Strictly socioeconomic considerations may be insufficient to reduce PM burdens equitably across populations,” the study, “Disparities in Distribution of Particulate Matter Emission Sources by Race and Poverty Status,” concludes.
Published on the website of the American Journal of Public Health, the study was conducted by a group of EPA fellows and EPA scientists.
It found that the average PM2.5 burden in black communities is 1.54 times that of the population overall. And it noted that this racial disparity is larger than the poverty-based PM2.5 disparity, which is 1.35 times the overall population average.
Dravis' memo does not mention the study, though it does include the goal of improving “EPA science to better understand the needs of underserved and overburdened communities, focusing on environmental problems where they are most acute for low-income, minority and tribal/indigenous populations, with an emphasis on public participation to identify solutions.”
Dravis again seeks to reassure skeptics of the Trump administration's controversial decision last fall to shift OEJ from EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to OP.
They had feared that the transfer of EJ functions into OP would make it less likely that the protections for poor and minority communities would be enforced, and could politicize EJ activities.
Dravis calls the move “a reaffirmation of Administrator Pruitt's commitment to the mission and goals of the Agency's EJ program -- to engage with and meet the needs of our nation's most vulnerable communities as they relate to disproportionate environmental impacts, health disparities and economic distress. Elevating OEJ into OP will strengthen and complement our EJ work with the activities of many other offices, enabling EPA to better support communities...”
Dravis' memo may also explain the optimistic remarks last month of Charles Lee, a senior policy adviser at OEJ, who touted strong prospects for the agency's EJ program under the Trump administration, at a conference at Wayne State University, MI.
There, Lee praised "tremendous progress being made," but also said there is "a lot of work that can be
done."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-takes-steps-bolster-ej-efforts-new-study-highlights-concerns

Return to headline | Return to top
Caucus Members Push 'Feasible' Warming Bill

Feb 27, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Arianna Skibell

Members of the bipartisan House caucus dedicated to finding market-based solutions to address global warming have released their first piece of legislation associated with the group.
While critics remain deeply skeptical, advocates say the bill has a strong chance to curry favor with House leadership and could pave the way for more comprehensive measures.
Reps. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and John Faso (R-N.Y.) of the Climate Solutions Caucus, which adds Democrats and Republicans in pairs, last week introduced the "Challenges and Prizes for Climate Act," H.R. 5031, which aims to spur innovation through a prize competition related to climate and energy.
"Increased efficiency and continued technological innovation in clean energy will help the U.S. economy grow in the coming decades," Faso said in a statement. "We should do all we can to incentivize progress and assist the private sector economy in innovating and inspiring technological changes which will reduce the impact of climate change."
The bill quickly gained additional sponsorship from Reps. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and caucus co-chairman Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.).
The measure would direct the secretary of Energy to create a program called "Climate Solutions Challenges," which would organize prize competitions on areas including carbon capture, energy efficiency, energy storage, climate resilience and data analytics.
"Clean energy prize competitions have the potential to yield major technological advances and transform industries and markets," Lipinski said in a statement.
"A prize that I championed a few years ago has led to a quantum leap in hydrogen fuel cell car refueling technology, and there's another competition that's currently in progress that has already identified 23 technologies that can convert carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities into useful products."Viability?
Joel Creswell, a legislative assistant of Lipinski who specializes in science and technology policy, said that to write the bill, his team consulted a wide variety of people, including experts from organizations that have had success running prizes and challenges, both in the government and the private sector.
"We're confident the bill is taking into account a lot of the best practices out there," he told E&E News. "We've taken advantage of the relevant expertise to maximize the effectiveness of these programs."
Creswell said his team wrote the bill with an "eye" to the current political climate. "As much as we may wish to see more comprehensive climate change legislation, this is something that we think is feasible right now," he said.
"It's in line with this administration's priorities, which is to say the administration favors the use of challenges and prizes, public private partnerships, and getting technology off the lab bench and into the marketplace."
Emily Wirzba, a legislative representative with the Quaker lobby group Friends Committee on National Legislation, said that with the massive problem climate change poses, all types of solutions will be needed. But, she said, there is a lot of energy around research and development right now.
"I don't think anyone would tell you R&D is the only piece needed to address climate change, but it's a really important piece," she said. "This bill is strong because it actually has an opportunity to be signed into law right now."
Creswell said his team has been in conversation with both the majority and the minority about the bill and is encouraged by the support it has already garnered.
"We're optimistic that this is something that will move forward at least at the committee level," he said. "Our big push now is to build a strong base of support within the Climate Solutions Caucus, so we've been really pleased with the early indications of support."
Wirzba said two weeks ago caucus members met to discuss energy efficiency, and Lipinski and Faso pitched their bill, giving members a chance to digest it.
Creswell said if they can garner a significant number of caucus members' support for the measure and it passes committee, it has a strong chance to gain favor with House leadership.
Steve Valk, the communications director for Citizens' Climate Lobby, said the language could also pave the way for more comprehensive legislation from the caucus.
"The bill that was introduced last week is a small step, but it provides a vehicle for Republicans and Democrats to work together," Valk said in an email. "As they work together on the small stuff, it creates the space and relationships needed to work on the big stuff."Onion hoax?
Still, the caucus has its critics. R.L. Miller, co-founder of Climate Hawks Vote and a frequent roaster of the group, sharply lampooned the legislation.
"This bill is an elaborate hoax by the Onion, right?" she wrote in an email. "Donald Trump wants to zero out the [Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy] budget of $306M and the Congressional response is to replace it with a $10M prize? And have political appointees determine who gets the prize?"
Miller questioned whether it was prudent to funnel money into a field of study that already has a substantial body of work.
"The bill would award prizes to data analytics in the field of climate modeling because climate science really needs more study and research before deciding whether to act?!?" she said sarcastically.
"We have well established, mature technologies that provide climate solutions. Unfortunately, Carlos 'Drill the Arctic, Just Not Florida' Curbelo and his fellow Republican party members are actively trying to block implementation of those solutions and instead put money into researching carbon capture and storage."
She added: "This bill might be a climate solution if it were considered a small part of a suite of policies to go full speed on deployment of wind and solar."

https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/02/27/stories/1060074829

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested