Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/28/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Justice's Built-In Equity Lens
Mar 27, 2018 | Nonprofit Quarterly
By Derrick Rhayn
...This was among many rule changes sought by Dr. Nancy Beck, a former executive at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association, who was appointed as the Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution last year. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Trump Favored Texas over Puerto Rico
Mar 28, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Kelsey Tamborrino
...Andrew Fasoli of the American Chemistry Council was fastest in identifying former first lady Helen Herron Taft as the first to plant the saplings of the Japanese cherry trees in D.C., which now surround the Tidal Basin and Capitol grounds. -
Pruitt's Open Data Plan Could Limit Usable Research, Critics Say
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu and Sylvia Carignan
EPA head Scott Pruitt's plan to ban the agency from using private or confidential data in making policy decisions would eliminate most of the scientific literature the agency reviews, scientists told Bloomberg Environment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Holdovers Work to Save EPA Junk Science
Mar 27, 2018 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Angela Logomasini
Obama administration holdovers at the Environmental Protection Agency are doing their best undermine efforts to drain EPA’s bureaucratic swamp. And thus far, unfortunately, they’re succeeding. -
Washington to Be First State to Ban Firefighting Foam Chemical
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington will be the first state to ban certain toxic chemicals in firefighting foams linked to a range of health problems when Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signs the ban into law late March 27. -
EU Ombudsman Tells Commission to Share Cosmetics Nano Information
Mar 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU Ombudsman has found the European Commission guilty of maladministration over its handling of a public access request to information pertaining to the cosmetics nano inventory. -
State Department Official Picked for Energy Post — Sources
Mar 28, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The White House has tapped a seasoned State Department official to coordinate international energy efforts, according to multiple sources. -
Trump Seen Moving Quickly to Implement Pro-Energy Policies
Mar 27, 2018 | Platts
By Jim Magill
Federal regulations that directly impact the energy sectors have moved rapidly in a more industry-friendly direction under the Trump administration, according to a Department of the Interior official. -
Shell Oil Taps Former Maersk CEO as Its New President
Mar 27, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell will name Gretchen Watkins as the new president of its North American operations in Houston after she left her former position as chief executive of Maersk Oil. -
Deepwater Oil Starting to Hold Its Own with Shale, Chevron Says
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe
Chevron Corp. is studding the ocean floor with heavy-duty pumping gear as part of an effort to make deepwater oil discoveries competitive with shale. -
NAS Panel Urges EPA To Develop Detailed Methane Emissions Inventory
Mar 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel is urging EPA, in cooperation with other federal agencies and other researchers, to develop a regularly updated, “fine scale” inventory of methane emissions from a range of sources, which could eventually help refine federal, state and local regulatory policies to curb releases of the potent greenhouse gas. -
Freedom Industries Spill Prompts EPA Chemical Storage Rule
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
A 2014 Freedom Industries Inc. chemical spill that caused widespread drinking water contamination in West Virginia is driving new EPA regulations for other businesses that store hazardous chemicals in above-ground tanks. -
OMB Reviewing CWA Hazardous Substances Rule
Mar 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is reviewing EPA's draft Clean Water Act (CWA) rule to prevent and contain chemical spills from above-ground tanks at industrial facilities, a measure the agency agreed to craft following the massive spill that contaminated drinking water for Charleston, WV, in 2014. -
EPA's Vehicle GHG Push May Spur Dual Federal, California Programs
Mar 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's widely expected call to ease light duty vehicle standards for at least model years 2022-2025 is intensifying the question of whether the Trump administration and California could wind up with two separate vehicle GHG programs that would create regulatory confusion and increase costs for manufacturers and consumers. -
Greens Launch Campaign to Get Pruitt Fired
Mar 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of environmental groups is teaming up for a multi-pronged campaign to try to get Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt fired or to resign.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Justice's Built-In Equity Lens
Mar 27, 2018 | Nonprofit Quarterly
By Derrick Rhayn
For nonprofit organizations concerned about equity, environmental justice is a critical lens to consider. In fact, environmental justice stands squarely at the intersection of community and economic development, environmentalism, and systemic inequality by addressing the structural components of racism that negatively and disproportionately impact the health of communities of color.
The scope of environmental racism has come into the public awareness recently, with high profile cases like the water crisis in Flint and the Keystone XL Pipeline dramatically highlighting the consequences and implications of environmental racism on communities of color. As a result of increased public awareness and the reality of entrenched environmental racism as a driving force in society, a vibrant environmental justice movement has crystalized. Comprising public entities, nonprofits, businesses, and the philanthropic sector, it seeks to transform the systems that contribute to environmental inequality. One of the central themes of the environmental justice movement is that the integrity and well-being of communities should not be compromised in the face of and in the name of economic progress. While economic prosperity is certainly a priority, community health and well-being is equally important.
These themes came into focus last week in Birmingham, Alabama, where the city council voted to deny a license to a scrap metal recycling facility, Jordan Industrial Services, largely because of grassroots and community resistance. The business sought to open a metal recycling facility in northern Birmingham, a predominantly African American working-class area, and tried to sell the project as one that would create jobs. The community opposed this because of the well-documented impacts that recycling metal has on communities. One of the main byproducts of cutting and welding metal is hexavalent chromium (or Chrome IV), which is released into the air and causes a range of health issues. In fact, the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says that hexavalent chromium “is known to cause cancer. In addition, it targets the respiratory system, kidneys, liver, skin and eyes,” while the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences states that “studies have consistently shown increased lung cancer rates in workers who were exposed to high levels of chromium in workroom air.” This victory in Birmingham illustrates how the environmental justice movement has gained influence, and used traditional political pathways and engagement as a core strategy, and with good reason.
The need for engagement in the political process as it relates to environmental justice has never been higher. According to a 2016 report by the Center for Effective Government (CEG) entitled “Living in the Shadow of Danger: Poverty, Race, and Unequal Chemical Facility Hazards,” there are more than 12,500 facilities throughout the country that store chemicals dangerous enough to require a Risk Management Plan (RMP) to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Nearly 23 million people live within one mile of an RMP facility, and of these, nearly half are people of color. One in 10 schoolchildren in the United States attend one of the 12,000 schools located within one mile of a RMP facility, and almost two-thirds of children that live within one mile of a high-risk chemical facility are children of color.
While these statistics are startling, the impact of chemical pollution may in fact get worse. The EPA has come under scrutiny recently for rewriting a rule that makes it more difficult to track, and hence regulate, health consequences of chemicals. This was among many rule changes sought by Dr. Nancy Beck, a former executive at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association, who was appointed as the Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution last year. Given that the EPA oversees roughly 80,000 chemicals and regulates how those chemicals intersect with communities, changes such as this illustrate how private interests jeopardize public safety and provides an opportunity for ongoing public engagement.
While the CEG report concerns RMP facilities, trends of environmental racism cut across environmental issues. Last month, the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment released a study on disparities in the location of particulate matter, and found those in poverty had 1.35 times higher burden than did the overall population, and non-Whites had 1.28 times higher burden. Blacks, specifically, had 1.54 times higher burden than did the overall population. In another instance, as NPQrecently reported, the EPA recently dismissed a civil rights case in Uniontown, AL where residents filed a complaint under Title VI of the Civils Rights Act regarding Arrowhead landfill, where waste from 33 states, including over four million tons of coal ash, has led to health concerns in the overwhelmingly African American community.
Unfortunately, progress by the EPA regarding environmental justice has been inconsistent. While the agency has developed an Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool for visualizing the impacts of pollution, it has struggled to comprehensively address environmental justice, especially as it relates to civil rights. According to the US Commission on Civil Rights’ 2016 report, “Environmental Justice: Examining the Environmental Protection Agency’s Compliance and Enforcement of Title VI and Executive Order 12,898,” the EPA “has a history of being unable to meet its regulatory deadlines and experiences extreme delays in responding to Title VI complaints in the area of environmental justice.” In fact, as of the publishing of the report, the agency had never made a formal finding of discrimination. For context, Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations—was issued by President Clinton in 1994.
While these reports and developments illustrate significant challenges, the environmental justice movement is determined to shift these systemic realities, and nonprofits, as always, are playing a critical role. In September, New Jersey Senator Corey Booker introduced the Environmental Justice Act of 2017, a bold bill supported by several local, regional, and national nonprofits. The bill seeks to strengthen the federal response and participation in environmental justice by codifying and expanding Executive Order 12,898, as well as requiring agencies to implement and update annually a strategy to address negative environmental and health impacts on communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities. This represents forward thinking and is an example of how government should work in partnership with communities. For nonprofits, the path to equity must include environmental justice, and engaging in the public arena to advocate for changes is a necessary part of that collective journey.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2018/03/27/environmental-justice-area-nonprofit-activity-constant-equity-lens/
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Trump Favored Texas over Puerto Rico
Mar 28, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Kelsey Tamborrino
HOW TRUMP FAVORED TEXAS OVER PUERTO RICO: A double standard has emerged in President Donald Trump’s handling of disaster relief efforts in Texas versus in Puerto Rico, POLITICO’s Danny Vinik found in a new investigation out today. A review of public documents, never-before-published FEMA records and interviews with more than 50 people involved with disaster response show an imbalance that tracks with one core person's attention: the president.
Behind the scenes, people with direct knowledge of Trump's comments said the president was focused less on the details of the relief effort than on public appearances, repeatedly using conference calls and meetings to direct FEMA Administrator Brock Long to spend more time on television touting his agency’s progress. And as the administration moves to rebuild Texas and Puerto Rico, the contrast in the Trump administration’s responses are taking on new dimensions, Danny writes.
During the first nine days after Hurricane Harvey, FEMA provided 5.1 million meals, 4.5 million liters of water and over 20,000 tarps to Houston; but in the same period, it delivered just 1.6 million meals, 2.8 million liters of water and roughly 5,000 tarps to Puerto Rico.
The federal government has already begun funding projects to help make permanent repairs to Texas infrastructure. But in Puerto Rico, that funding has yet to begin, as details of an experimental funding system are negotiated with Trump’s Office of Management and Budget — an experimental formula that multiple congressional staffers and people with knowledge said White House officials told Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló to agree to if he wanted money for his island. Read it here.
GOOD TUESDAY MORNING! I'm your host Kelsey Tamborrino. Andrew Fasoli of the American Chemistry Council was fastest in identifying former first lady Helen Herron Taft as the first to plant the saplings of the Japanese cherry trees in D.C., which now surround the Tidal Basin and Capitol grounds. For today: Who is the only former Cabinet member to be selected as “designated survivor” twice during past State of the Union addresses? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
POLITICO Space is our new, free weekly briefing on the policies and personalities shaping the second space age in Washington and beyond. Sign up today to start receiving the newsletter right at launch on April 6. Presented by Boeing.
OFFSHORE ORCHESTRATION: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott at the Tallahassee airport back in January — after which Zinke declared the state “off the table” for expanded offshore drilling — wasn’t as spontaneous as it first seemed, POLITICO Florida’s Matt Dixon reports. Scott’s office cast the announcement as a hastily arranged example of the governor’s ability to influence Trump administration policy, all while dismissing any suggestion that the move had anything to do with his expected entrance into this year’s Senate race. But Matt got ahold of 1,200 documents — including emails, text messages and phone records — that show Interior officials and Scott aides had been coordinating days ahead of the meeting. More from Matt here.
ONE LAST TIME: EPA will hold its final “listening session” today in Gillette, Wyo., on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan. A preliminary list of speakers shows a range of voices will attend the session — including various speakers from Cloud Peak Energy, a firm headquartered in Gillette that mines coal in the Powder River Basin, and the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute. Sens. John Barrasso and Mike Enzi — who have previously applauded the proposed repeal — are also scheduled to speak. Barrasso plans to emphasize how the rule would hurt energy workers in his state, an aide tells ME, and will highlight bipartisan efforts in Congress to promote carbon capture technologies.
On the other side, advocates from the American Lung Association, Moms Clean Air Force and National Wildlife Federation will speak. Moms Clean Air Force will highlight EPA's "legal and moral obligation" to action on greenhouse gas emissions, according to the group's talking points. Administrator Scott Pruitt won't be there today, but he is set to make a separate trip to Wyoming this week to visit the state's coal-mining operations.
WHERE’S PERRY? Energy Secretary Rick Perry is in California today, where he’ll tour the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and hold an all-hands meeting with the facility’s employees at 3 p.m. The trip follows Perry’s visit to the Lawrence Livermore National Lab on Monday.
REFINERS: MORE THAN EPA’S PES WAIVER IS NEEDED TO SURVIVE THE RFS: Two Philadelphia-area refiners said a consent decree between EPA and Philadelphia Energy Services was an acknowledgment by the government that the Renewable Fuel Standard is broken and needs significant reform. PBF told DOJ, which took comments on the agreement until Monday, that “one-time forgiveness of RIN obligations fails to remedy the root cause for the bankruptcy and provides the wrong incentives to the [Renewable Identification Number] market.” Monroe said the agreement “is a reflection, an acknowledgment, of the economic harm caused by the RFS program.” Both of them were joined by refining giant Valero in arguing that the program needs to be changed more radically than just the one-time waiver offered by EPA. Ethanol producers said in their own earlier comments that they oppose the consent decree and reject the idea that PES’ bankruptcy could be blamed on the RFS.
Read Monroe’s comments here, PBF’s here and Valero's here.
JUDGE LEAVES SOLAR TARIFFS IN PLACE: A judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade on Monday rejected requests for a stay of U.S. solar tariffs pending an appeal. Silfab Solar, Heliene, Canadian Solar (USA) and Canadian Solar Solutions had been hoping the court would block the 30 percent tariff the Trump administration imposed on imported solar panel and solar cells last month. The court had rejected their motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction earlier in March.
TRADE DEADLINE: Can appliances be regulated like automobiles? That’s the question the Energy Department posed last year in an effort to apply Trump’s regulatory reform goals to its efficiency standards program, and responses were due by Monday. DOE asked for input on several potential reforms, including enforcing efficiency rules similar to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which averages performance across an automakers’ entire vehicle fleet. DOE’s request for information also pointed to state-level renewable portfolio standards or California’s cap-and-trade program as examples of the ideas it was considering.
But those “market based” approaches probably won’t work, numerous commenters told DOE. The main barrier is “anti-backsliding” provisions in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which prevents DOE from weakening existing requirements. Current law “precludes the use of averaging, credit-trading, or providing feebates as an alternative to minimum energy-efficiency requirements,” the Alliance to Save Energy, a pro-efficiency group, wrote in its comments. A coalition of industry trade associations agreed that such mechanisms would be unlikely to work; in their comments, the groups, including the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, urged DOE “to focus its limited resources on reforming the existing program” through changes to a separate process improvement rule. Read additional comments from AHRI, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Lennox International, E2, Whirlpool, the Edison Electric Institute, Dow, Southern Company and the California Energy Commission.
DEFENDING EPA'S SCIENCE: Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Janet McCabe, the former acting assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times Monday defending EPA's use of scientific studies to support its regulations. Conservatives have long accused the agency of relying on "secret science," and Pruitt says he plans to start relying only on publicly available data. But McCarthy and McCabe say that would deprive EPA of valuable research based on individuals' private health records or proprietary information that businesses want to protect. “Opponents of the agency and of mainstream climate science call these studies ‘secret science,’” the pair writes. “But that’s simply not true.”
BSEE: WE COULD USE YOUR HELP: Interior is calling on its career staff to come up with ways to speed up the offshore drilling permitting process, Pro’s Ben Lefebvre reports. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement will assemble teams of employees across departments to periodically review the process and look for ways to improve its efficiency across the agency, BSEE said Monday.
MAIL CALL! CALLING OUT WEAK LEASE SALES: House Natural Resources ranking member Raúl Grijalva sent a letter to Zinke Monday, requesting additional information on his agency’s budget priorities. Grijalva also asked Zinke to keep royalty rates for offshore drilling development stable, in light of weak demand for lease sales.
— Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz wrote to the CEOs of BlackRock and JP Morgan Chase questioning the firms' investment in companies active in the Amazon rainforest.
NEW JERSEY TO BLOCK DRILLING: New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy is expected sign a bill that would prohibit state regulators from approving permits for pipelines or related infrastructure to facilitate expanded offshore drilling in federal waters. Pro New Jersey’s Danielle Muoio has more.
MOVER, SHAKER: Friends of the Earth announced Monday that Liz Butler will become vice president of organizing and strategic alliances. Butler will lead a staff of five organizers and 13 organizing fellows in grassroots environmental campaigns.
— Michael Pratt is joining the American Enterprise Institute’s press office as director of media relations and marketing. Pratt previously served in several other roles at AEI in the digital and media relations departments.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/03/27/how-trump-favored-texas-over-puerto-rico-151171
-
Pruitt's Open Data Plan Could Limit Usable Research, Critics Say
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu and Sylvia Carignan
EPA head Scott Pruitt's plan to ban the agency from using private or confidential data in making policy decisions would eliminate most of the scientific literature the agency reviews, scientists told Bloomberg Environment.
Pruitt told the Daily Caller March 19 about his intentions for allowing only “open data” in drafting regulations and said the Environmental Protection Agency could only consider studies that make their data available for public scrutiny. Further, EPA-funded studies would have to make all of their data public.
Researchers are concerned that the policy could have far-reaching effects for how the agency regulates drinking water, air quality, and chemicals including pesticides and herbicides. Supporters of the idea, however, say the public has a right to view the information used to craft rules that affect them.
The EPA estimated in 2017 that a similar requirement for open data would limit usable studies by 95 percent.
“That will essentially lead to excluding massive bodies of evidence,” Jonathan Samet, a former chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, told Bloomberg Environment.
Pruitt's policy is similar to language in a 2017 bill (H.R.1430) introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) barring the EPA from basing certain actions on anything but studies that are publicly available and substantially reproducible.
The actions include risk, exposure, or hazard assessments, air quality science documents, standards, chemical limits, waste regulations, cost-benefit reviews, and guidance.
Right to See Data
Smith believes the public has a right to see data that EPA uses to justify its regulations, Thea McDonald, a spokesperson for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, told Bloomberg Environment in an emailed statement March 26. Smith is the committee's chairman.
“The public, including scientists, should have the opportunity to evaluate the agency's data and independently determine whether the data supports the EPA's conclusions,” Smith said in the statement.
It's unclear how much of Smith's bill will be part of Pruitt's policy. The EPA didn't respond to Bloomberg Environment's emailed requests for comment.
The EPA told the Congressional Budget Office in 2017 that the provisions in Smith's bill would “strongly discourage” industry and academic researchers from working with the agency, because the EPA couldn't guarantee to protect intellectual property, trade secrets like chemical formulas, or personally identifiable information in health studies.
“It's all part of the removal of science and scientists from the decision-making process,” Samet said. “We're moving away from evidence-based regulations, which is what EPA does, which is what EPA should do, which is what EPA was set up to do.”
Confidential Information
There's an ongoing debate in the research world about the merits of confidentiality versus the need for reproducible results, Tony Cox, a member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board and chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Pruitt's plans align with scientific journals’ increasing desire to promote transparency with data and to make more models and analyses readily available, Cox told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Transparency “is an important part of the process of creating sound and trustworthy science,” he said.
The EPA's Office of Pesticides Programs recently relaunched an attempt to obtain data on a Columbia University public health study on the effects of the insecticide chlorpyrifos on children exposed in utero. The EPA, under the Obama administration, justified banning the chemical in part on the study, which linked levels of the pesticide in umbilical cord blood with neurodevelopmental delays in childhood.
Chlorpyrifos manufacturer Dow AgroSciences criticized the Columbia study on grounds that the EPA didn't have access to the raw data.
Institutional Review Boards
The ability to reproduce a study's results is important, but the relevant methods and techniques are what need to be shared, not patient personal data, or trade secrets and intellectual property, Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, told Bloomberg Environment.
Research institutions, such as universities and military facilities, have institutional review boards, which protect sensitive information by requiring researchers to sign ethics agreements before reviewing data.
The boards review researchers’ intent to view or use sensitive data, and ensure researchers have gone through training about the appropriate uses of human studies data and how to secure it.
Boards also want to ensure ethical guidelines are followed in how test animals or people are exposed to harms and that personally identifying information will not be released, Goldman said.
Foundational Fine Particulates
Rallying cries against “secret science” can be traced back two decades to when fine particulate matter was included in the list of EPA-regulated air pollutants in 1997, Samet said.
Fine particulate matter—microscopic particles 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller—is emitted by a range of sources, including motor vehicles, power plants, and factories.
The agency had based its particulate-matter standards on two landmark studies, the Harvard Six Cities study and the American Cancer Society study.
Both contained “pivotal evidence” showing that people living in cities with higher levels of air pollution were at higher risk of dying, said Samet, the dean of the Colorado School of Public Health.
“At the time, there was a lot of discussion generated by industry stakeholders where if this data was so important, the data should be public,” Samet said.
Peer Review
Those who decry “secret science” don't understand or don't acknowledge that the two studies were peer-reviewed and the raw data was reanalyzed by an independent research group, C. Arden Pope III, a co-author on the Harvard Six Cities study, told Bloomberg Environment.
That independent research group, the Health Effects Institute, gets funding from government agencies, including the EPA, and the automotive industry.
Health Effects Institute researchers found similar relationships between living in more polluted areas and a higher risk of death, Daniel Greenbaum, president of HEI, told Bloomberg Environment.
Findings from the two original studies became the bedrock for how the agency justifies its air regulations, from the Clean Power Plan to rules reducing mercury and toxic air emissions from power plants.
If you look at the cost-benefit analyses the EPA has done, most of them point to fine particulate matter exposure as the single largest contributor to the number of avoidable deaths, Greenbaum said. “And that is primarily calculated using the American Cancer Society and the Harvard Six Cities results.”
“For those that don't want to reduce their pollution, one of the strategies they use is to criticize the science itself,” Pope said. “I think that's pretty obvious to anyone that watches what's going on.”
Greenbaum also warned that limiting what kind of science can be used to set regulations would “cut both ways.”
While particulate-matter studies point toward lowering the threshold to protect public health, studies on nitrogen dioxide—emitted by cars and factories, eventually forming ozone—suggest no additional health benefits at lower nitrogen dioxide standards, Greenbaum said.
If Smith's bill had been passed, the “Honest Act would say those studies aren't available,” and regulated industries wouldn't receive relief, Greenbaum said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130626556&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130626556&jd=130626556
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Holdovers Work to Save EPA Junk Science
Mar 27, 2018 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Angela Logomasini
Obama administration holdovers at the Environmental Protection Agency are doing their best undermine efforts to drain EPA’s bureaucratic swamp. And thus far, unfortunately, they’re succeeding. A recent example is Congress’s failure to cut, or even reduce, funding of one of EPA’s controversial research program known as the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS.
According to Chemical Watch, the Trump administration proposed significant budget cuts for the EPA’s “chemical safety and sustainability research” budget, which includes IRIS spending within the agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Senate omnibus spending bill proposed elimination of IRIS completely. Yet the compromise bill that landed on President Trump’s desk last Friday continues to fund ORD at 2017 levels, and report language directs the administration to fund IRIS at its 2017 levels.
IRIS funding was restored after E&E News featured an interview with Obama administration holdover Kristina Thayer, who is in charge of IRIS and has been working to address past problems associated with low productivity, questionable scientific practices, and the lack of transparency. Thayer’s background includes working for environmental activist groups, such as World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Working Group (EWG). She works under former American Chemistry Council scientist Tina Bahadori, who started her career at EPA during the Obama years. Bahadori recently arranged for a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop to review progress on IRIS program improvements, with the apparent hope that the NAS will provide some praise for recent reforms and support continued funding of IRIS.
But even if IRIS has made some progress addressing past scientific transgressions, that should not be enough to save it. IRIS’s failures go beyond delays and sloppy research; they stem from IRIS’s excessively precautionary and unbalanced approach. Its assessments vastly overstate risks by design. And the IRIS process is easy to abuse because it lacks scientific standards that are grounded in law—there is little means to hold it accountable. To top that off, Thayer’s affiliation with the activist EWG alone should raise eyebrows about whether her reforms could shift the direction of the program toward more balanced science. EWG has a long history of exaggerating risks and pushing junk science to make a host of unfounded claims, all designed to support regulations that raise prices and deny consumer choice.
For nearly a decade, congressional oversight committees, the Government Accountability Office, and the National Research Council (NRC) have all urged the EPA to reform the IRIS process to address ongoing and serious scientific and procedural deficiencies. A 2011 NRC review of the IRIS assessment for formaldehyde noted “recurring methodologic problems” that were “similar to those which have been reported over the last decade by other NRC committees.” It also noted that the assessment included “[p]roblems with clarity and transparency of the methods” that “appear to be a repeating theme over the years.” The committee provided advice on ways to reform the system, but problems persist.
Formaldehyde may be the poster child of IRIS’s junk science approach, but it’s just one of many questionable assessments. For example, attorneys at Pepper Hamilton provide an excellent case study on IRIS’s junk science approach to assessing risks associated with the chemical trichloroethylene (TCE), which is a solvent used in industrial processes and in dry cleaning. They point out that the IRIS risk assessment for TCE was largely based on one 2003 study—referred to as the “Johnson study”—which was of highly questionable value. Half of the data from the Johnson study was pulled from another study conducted in 1993, a study that actually had the opposite conclusion: It found no statistically significant connection between TCE exposure in rats and heart issues. Pepper Hamilton’s case study explains:
On the face of EPA’s own 2014 review, there are six published studies reporting “the results of oral administration of TCE to rodents during fetal developmental,” but only the Johnson study reports a statistically significant increase in fetal malformations. The Dawson 1993 study (which includes the data later used in the Johnson study) found no statistically significant increase. The Fisher 2001 rat study (whose authors include the lead author of the Johnson study) failed to detect any effects, as do the two other rat studies and one mouse study. In addition, “none” of the five separate inhalation studies of TCE exposure to rats reported cardiac effects in fetuses (including the Carney study, a well-done study performed in 2006, but not reviewed in the 2006 National Academy of Sciences [NAS] report). No laboratory has replicated the Johnson study results.
Yet some may say, “Who cares if IRIS to too precautionary? After all, why take unnecessary risks?” Such a philosophy ignores risks created by regulationsthemselves and the risk associated with crippling innovation and consumer freedom. For those reasons, excessive precaution is bound to do more harm than good. For example, excessively precautionary policies can contribute to malnutrition and hunger around the world by preventing agricultural innovations.
IRIS assessments have tremendous influence on myriad EPA policy decisions. Indeed, these assessments impact decisions related to clean-up of hazardous waste sites, drinking water standards, and clean air rules.
IRIS’s critics, rightly maintain that the program is highly flawed, has a long history of producing junk science, and its functions more rightly belongs within the EPA’s Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) program. The recently reformed TSCA outlines some basic scientific standards for researchers to use for chemical risk assessments. IRIS, on the other hand, was created administratively, without any congressional mandate or scientific guidelines. While it’s not clear how well TSCA will actually perform in the long run, the law at least requires that this program apply much stronger and congressionally-mandated standards designed to promote scientific integrity as well as transparency.
Given the fact that TSCA passed with broad bipartisan support in Congress, it’s shouldn’t even be controversial to make this organizational change, but there are other political factors in play. Key supporters of IRIS don’t want power to shift from the program—which has Obama holdovers in place—to the more accountable TSCA program led by Trump-selected staff, particularly Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck.
Beck has been criticized for having worked for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), but ironically, one of IRIS’s key supporters, Tina Bahadori, also worked for ACC.
The real issue isn’t where these two individuals worked before they arrived at EPA; it is the direction chemical research should move in the future. Are we going to continue to allow regulators to use junk science in the name of “precaution,” or are we going to at least try to start holding them more accountable?
https://cei.org/blog/obama-holdovers-work-save-epa-junk-science
-
Washington to Be First State to Ban Firefighting Foam Chemical
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington will be the first state to ban certain toxic chemicals in firefighting foams linked to a range of health problems when Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signs the ban into law late March 27.
The ban on perfluorinated compounds—collectively called PFAS chemicals—will start July 1, 2020. PFAS chemicals are known to persist in the environment and are linked to a wide range of health problems including liver toxicity, hormone disruption, and tumors, according to a state Department of Health draft report.
Some firefighting companies have already switched to alternative foams, Chad Cross, assistant commander of the state's Fire Training Academy, told Bloomberg Environment in February. But the ban will make exemptions for foam used in certain aircraft rescue and firefighting at oil refineries, terminals, and chemical plants.
FluoroCouncil, a trade group representing fluoro-technology companies such as Arkema SA, Chemours Co., Johnson Controls, and Daikin Industries, Ltd., told Bloomberg Environment members were pleased to see the state recognize the “unique and irreplaceable role” PFAS-based foams play in fighting fires for those exempted uses.
“We are also pleased to see that policymakers included a ban on the use of PFAS-based foams during firefighter training, a recognized best practice that helps minimize environmental emissions,” Bryan Goodman, spokesman for FluoroCouncil, told Bloomberg Environment.
Manufacturers selling firefighting personal protective equipment that contains PFAS chemicals will also be required to notify purchasers of the chemicals’ presence starting July 1, 2018, according to the bill.
PFAS in Food Packaging
The ban being signed into law will come just four days after Inslee signed another bill banning the use of PFAS chemicals in food packaging starting Jan. 1, 2022. That remains contingent upon the Ecology Department identifying alternative packaging materials.
Like the firefighting-foam ban, the food packaging measure is a first in the nation, according to Toxics-Free Future, which “advocates for the use of safer products, chemicals, and practices.”
“Banning the use of these firefighting foams is a great first step,” Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, campaign director for Toxic-Free Future, told Bloomberg Environment. “Toxic perfluorinated chemicals do not belong in drinking water, food, or the environment.”
Goodman, however, said the industry has concerns about the food packaging ban.
The use of PFAS is already strictly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, he added, which concluded specific PFAS coatings currently used in food packaging are safe for their intended use.
“We are disappointed in the passage of the bill banning PFAS in food packaging,” Goodman said, saying it is “inconsistent with sound science and undermines the regulatory process established under Washington State law.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130626560&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130626560&jd=130626560
-
EU Ombudsman Tells Commission to Share Cosmetics Nano Information
Mar 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU Ombudsman has found the European Commission guilty of maladministration over its handling of a public access request to information pertaining to the cosmetics nano inventory.
Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly has recommended that the Commission grants NGO ClientEarth access to notifications made by cosmetics manufacturers, following a complaint made a month after the inventory was published in June last year.
Specifically, she says, the EU executive should provide them with the list of all Article 16 notifications uploaded to the cosmetic products notification portal (CPNP), redacting only those parts that are covered by an exception to access provided by law.
The Commision should also ask the NGO if it wants a sample of Article 13 notifications, she added. It has until 15 June to send its opinion on the matter.Catalogue delay
Under the cosmetics products Regulation, the Commission had been legally required to publish a catalogue, containing the details of nanomaterials present in cosmetic products by January 2014. But this was delayed by more than three years. The EU executive put it down to poor quality notifications and the need to liaise with member states and stakeholders to jointly improve the submitted data prior to publication.
In 2016 ClientEarth asked for access to the information sent by cosmetic companies to the Commission and to the draft catalogue.
In her recommendation – published this month – the Ombudsman says she was "not convinced" by the Commission’s argument, at the time of the 2016 request, that the catalogue was not completed and there were only draft internal versions. It was "neither citizen friendly, nor in line with the EU public access rules", she adds.
Some of the notifications "could in fact have been extracted from the Commission’s database", Ms O’Reilly says.
Although the final version of the catalogue was not published when ClientEarth originally requested access, the Ombudsman says, the Commission "failed to consult the complainant as to whether it would want access to any of the existing draft versions. This constituted maladministration."‘Useless’ catalogue
Despite the long delay to publication, ClientEarth says the catalogue still does not let people identify which cosmetics contain potentially harmful nanomaterials, or assess the threat they may pose to human health.
ClientEarth lawyer Alice Bernard says consumers need to be informed so that they can "decide for themselves" whether to use products containing them.
"Sadly, the nanomaterial catalogue finally published by the Commission is useless for consumers, since it does not identify which products contain the nanomaterials. This is not in line with the cosmetics Regulation," she says.Notifications
ClientEarth had asked for public access to information under Article 16(10)(a) of the cosmetics Regulation or, if such a catalogue did not yet exist, to notifications under Article 13(1) for cosmetics including nanomaterials, as well as the information notified under Article 16(3).
Article 16(10)(a) says that by 11 January 2014, the Commission had to make the inventory publicly available;
Article 13(1) requires details, such as the category of cosmetic product and name; and
under Article 16(3) cosmetics products containing nanomaterials shall be notified to the Commission, six months prior to being placed on the market, except where they have already been placed on the market before 11 January 2013. It also sets out a series of information requirements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65409/eu-ombudsman-tells-commission-to-share-cosmetics-nano-information
-
State Department Official Picked for Energy Post — Sources
Mar 28, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The White House has tapped a seasoned State Department official to coordinate international energy efforts, according to multiple sources.
Landon Derentz, a policy adviser in State's Bureau of Energy Resources, will join the National Economic Council on Monday on a temporary detail with the potential for extension, the sources said.
Derentz will report to Wells Griffith, a former Energy Department official whom President Trump picked as his top energy and climate adviser (Climatewire, March 24).
The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about Derentz.
A career civil servant known for his deep energy expertise in energy markets, Derentz was described by sources as evenhanded.
In recent years, his work has focused on the growing role in global security of liquefied natural gas.
He's also played a role in supporting State's energy policy issues, including Group of 20 energy policies, countering the Islamic State group's oil revenues, assessing the natural gas supplies and infrastructure needs of U.S. allies and strategic partners, and opening markets to energy trade and investment, according to his online bio.
"This is a critically important role, I believe the administration could not have found someone better than Landon for this position," said Amos Hochstein, the department's international energy adviser who worked with Derentz under former President Obama.
"His expertise," he added, "will support both the domestic energy needs of the United States and ensure energy security around the world."
For the past three years, Derentz has served as an energy policy adviser at the State Department in Washington. Before that, he was an energy market analyst with the department since September 2013.
Prior to joining State, he worked in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from the summer of 2012 to May 2014 as a presidential management fellow.
Before joining the federal government, Derentz worked as a summer associate at the law firm Fitzpatrick & Hunt, Tucker, Pagano, Aubert LLP in Los Angeles.
Derentz has a law degree from Pepperdine University School of Law, a master's in public policy from George Washington University and a bachelor's in international relations from the University of Southern California, according to his LinkedIn bio.
He also served in the Air Force's public affairs and protocol office from May 2004 to October 2008 in Washington, D.C., and at the Joint Base Balad in Iraq, according to his bio.
He was featured in an April 2012 Pepperdine Magazine article, in which he described how living near a Marine Corps air station in Irvine, Calif., influenced his decision to serve in the military.
"I admired their composure, the way they carried themselves, and their congenial, good-natured demeanor," said Derentz, who was then studying law. "I think I maybe had a God-given sense of service or an innate desire to give back."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/27/stories/1060077571
-
Trump Seen Moving Quickly to Implement Pro-Energy Policies
Mar 27, 2018 | Platts
By Jim Magill
Federal regulations that directly impact the energy sectors have moved rapidly in a more industry-friendly direction under the Trump administration, according to a Department of the Interior official.
Unlike previous administrations, where an incoming president usually spends his first term getting the bureaucracy to move in a certain direction, "with Trump, he got the bureaucracy moving in a different direction right away," Timothy Spisak, acting assistant director energy of Interior's Bureau of Land Management, said at the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association annual meeting in Houston.
"I wouldn't characterize it as too fast," Spisak said on the sidelines of the conference. "That's kind of a relative measure. He articulated a very clear goal in his election and he's following through with it."
He stressed that BLM is working hard to fulfill its mandate of providing for multiple uses of public lands, while protecting environmental and cultural values.
"I've been in D.C. for 14 years and I've never seen a resource management plan that's less restrictive as they've been updated. That hasn't changed," he said. "Nobody's talking about shortchanging environmental protections."
He pointed to the controversial hydraulic fracturing rule, which was finalized under the Obama administration but never implemented because of ongoing litigation brought by energy groups, which considered it unnecessarily restrictive and duplicative of state laws.
Under an executive order signed by Trump to amend or rescind rules that were burdensome to energy development, BLM re-examined the hydraulic fracturing rule. "We saw that 32 states where BLM operates have some form of hydraulic fracturing rule," Spisak said.
Imposing a federal fracking rule would have created a duplication of the existing state rules, he said.
FEDERAL FRACKING RULE SEEN AS DUPLICATIVE
"The states are a little bit closer to their operations, compared to the BLM having a more generic rule applied across the federal landscape," he said. "By pulling back the hydraulic fracturing rule, there's not that conflict."
The venting and flaring rule, another BLM rule that has attracted opposition from the energy industry, is currently ensnared in litigation before the federal courts. "You have competing district courts," Spisak said.
Although the rule is currently in effect, following a decision by the 9th Circuit Court in California, "You have a Wyoming court that's weighing whether to grant the injunction from the oil and gas industry to lift the 2016 rule. We're kind of stuck in the middle right now."
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/houston/trump-seen-moving-quickly-to-implement-pro-energy-26924666
-
Shell Oil Taps Former Maersk CEO as Its New President
Mar 27, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell will name Gretchen Watkins as the new president of its North American operations in Houston after she left her former position as chief executive of Maersk Oil.
Current Shell Oil President and U.S. County Chair Bruce Culpepper and Shell Executive Vice President of Unconventionals Greg Guidry are both stepping down later this year. Shell is consolidating those positions with Watkins eventually taking on both titles.
The shakeup comes as the Anglo-Dutch "Big Oil" behemoth Shell is eyeing a lower-carbon future with less focus on crude oil and more emphasis on natural gas and renewables. Still, Shell is focused on growth in West Texas' booming Permian Basin as well as both the U.S. and Mexican sides of the Gulf of Mexico.
Watkins left Denmark-based Maersk this year after her oil and gas division was acquired by the large French energy company Total. That sale closed in early March.Media: Brandpoint
At Shell, she will lead the company's North American operations as well as its shale drilling ventures, which includes growth in Argentina.
Watkins' appointment looks like the continuation of a new trend of female executives leading the North American businesses of Europe's Big Oil companies. Just last week, the United Kingdom's BP named Susan Dio as the chairwoman and president of BP America. Dio is a BP lifer who previously headed the BP Shipping division.
Watkins has worked out of Denmark in recent years but, before joining Maersk in 2014, she was a vice president with Marathon Oil in Houston.
Watkins will join Shell on May 1 and be eased into her new positions. She'll take on the executive vice president of uncoventionals title on July 1 and she won't assume the Shell Oil president title until Jan. 1, 2019.
Culpepper isn't stepping down until the end of this year. He took over as Shell Oil president two years ago from the now-retired Marvin Odum. Culpepper has worked at Shell for 37 years. Likewise, Guidry has been at Shell for 36 years. He steps down at the end of June.
While Shell remains active in U.S. shale, the company in recent years has sold off assets in Louisiana and Pennsylvania while abandoning its aspirations for Alaskan developments. Shell also sold its Canadian oil sands assets for more than $7 billion.
The Canadian sale was part of Shell's overall effort to divest itself of $30 billion of its assets over a three-year period. Shell is nearing the completion of the overall target.
Shell initiated the divestiture program after buying the British rival BG Group for $53 billion. The BG acquisition is the biggest part of Shell's emphasis to focus more on natural gas.
Just in the last few weeks, Shell also announced the sale of assets in Iraq, New Zealand and Thailand as it nearly wraps up the divestment program.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Shell-Oil-names-new-president-from-Maersk-Oil-12784244.php
-
Deepwater Oil Starting to Hold Its Own with Shale, Chevron Says
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Wethe
Chevron Corp. is studding the ocean floor with heavy-duty pumping gear as part of an effort to make deepwater oil discoveries competitive with shale.
The idea is to force crude from newly-drilled wells in the deepest parts of the Gulf of Mexico to flow through miles and miles of pipe to platforms built a decade or more ago, said Jay Johnson, Chevron's executive vice president for upstream. By lopping off the billions it would cost to construct each new platform, offshore exploration begins to make economic sense again.
“So new areas like Anchor, Waterloo, Tiger, Gibson, Whale, Valleymore, we've got a portfolio of new discoveries waiting for development as we continue to bring these costs down,” Johnson said during a March 26 presentation at the Scotia Howard Weil Energy Conference in New Orleans. “There are a lot of questions whether deepwater can compete. But things are changing in deepwater quite dramatically.”
Transocean Ltd. CEO Jeremy Thigpen told the same conference that all but a handful of the 29 current deepwater Gulf projects had break-even costs in the low $40-a-barrel range.
“We are in competition for our customers’ capital with shale,” Thigpen said. “We're doing it.”’
The dearth of investment in deepwater drilling during the downturn may lead to a squeeze where global crude supplies struggle to keep pace with demand growth, National Oilwell Varco Inc. CEO Clay Williams said during an interview on the conference sidelines.
“You're going to start to see more non-OPEC production declines kick in because they're not going to be masked by these big projects that have been brought online,” Williams said. “That will signal to the world, ‘Hey, we haven't been investing enough.'”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130626577&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130626577&jd=130626577
-
NAS Panel Urges EPA To Develop Detailed Methane Emissions Inventory
Mar 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel is urging EPA, in cooperation with other federal agencies and other researchers, to develop a regularly updated, “fine scale” inventory of methane emissions from a range of sources, which could eventually help refine federal, state and local regulatory policies to curb releases of the potent greenhouse gas.
The recommendation is part of a just-released report, sponsored by EPA and other federal agencies, that also calls for the federal government to establish and maintain a “nationwide research effort network to improve accuracy, reliability, and applicability of anthropogenic methane emissions estimates.”
The report comes as the Trump administration is working to scale back Obama-era rules governing methane -- a GHG that is about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide -- from a host of sectors, including oil and gas drilling operations, landfills and others.
The new NAS report does not appear likely to have any direct bearing on those efforts. Its immediate focus is scientific and technical, not regulatory, though NAS acknowledges that the inventory the report seeks has long-term regulatory implications, including providing the more granular data that could eventually inform methane regulations.
“This [NAS] report could . . . inform future efforts to develop emissions inventories and regulatory approaches including assessment of emissions mitigation approaches,” the report says. “The Committee hopes the report helps scientists, policymakers, and science communicators more accurately convey the state of current understanding and relevance of future studies,” it adds.
A key goal of the report is to lay out an agenda for resolving discrepancies between so called “top down” methane emissions estimates -- based on observations of atmospheric methane concentrations -- and “bottom up” approaches beginning at the level of individual methane emitters.
“When these two independent approaches yield the same answer, than you have much more confidence that you indeed are directly incorporating and assessing the [methane] situation as it exists,” James White, director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and chair of the NAS panel, said during a March 27 briefing on the report.
White called the goal of enabling such verification of estimates the “gold standard” and characterized the necessary work as a multi-year effort that could take perhaps 5 to 10 years or longer.
The NAS panel's report, “Improving Characterization of Anthropogenic Methane the Emission United States,” includes four recommendations for improving methane estimates, an effort that participants in the effort indicated depends on adequate federal resources but also could benefit from partnerships with the private sector.
It calls for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA to “continue and enhance” current atmospheric methane observations, and advance models and assimilation techniques “used by top-down approaches.” NAS says this is necessary to improve measurements that are currently sparse at best.
'Gridded Inventory'
It also urges EPA, in collaboration with the scientific research community, the Department Of Energy, NOAA, the Department Of Agriculture and NASA, to “establish and maintain a fine-scale, spatially and temporally explicit (e.g., gridded) inventory of U.S. anthropogenic emissions that is testable using atmospheric observations, and update it on a regular basis."
NAS says the new inventory should be a supplement to, not a replacement for, the agency's current greenhouse gas inventory, which White called a “good start."
The report also calls for EPA -- as well as DOE, NOAA and USDA -- to “promote a sustainable process” for incorporating the latest science into the United States Greenhouse Gas Inventory and regularly review U.S. methane inventory methodologies.
And its final and broadest recommendation is for the U.S. to establish and maintain a nationwide research effort to improve “accuracy, reliability, and applicability of anthropogenic methane emissions estimates at scales ranging from individual facilities to gridded regional/national estimates.”
White said during the briefing it is important to focus anew on how to improve measurements of methane, the second most prevalent GHG, due to its contribution to ozone formation, safety concerns, a steeper increase in its emissions than other GHGs, and large increases in natural gas development, which have raised concerns about the amount of methane escaping into the atmosphere.
In addition, new techniques have become available over the last decade for making it easier to measure methane, including sensors in vehicles or drones.
The report notes that wide uncertainties exist in methane emissions estimates from individual source categories, but identified several categories of widely known methane emitters as a priority for future research, including petroleum and natural gas systems, enteric fermentation -- which references emissions from cows and other animals -- manure management, and landfills.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/nas-panel-urges-epa-develop-detailed-methane-emissions-inventory
-
Freedom Industries Spill Prompts EPA Chemical Storage Rule
Mar 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
A 2014 Freedom Industries Inc. chemical spill that caused widespread drinking water contamination in West Virginia is driving new EPA regulations for other businesses that store hazardous chemicals in above-ground tanks.
The Environmental Protection Agency on March 26 submitted a draft proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget that outlines measures companies must take to avoid hazardous chemical spills for above-ground storage tanks. Review by that office is typically one of the last steps before a proposal is released to the public.
The EPA is under a court-ordered deadline to issue a proposal by June 16. The final rule is due Aug. 29, 2019.
The EPA proposed a rule back in 1978 to regulate above-ground storage of chemicals, but never completed it.
The rule's absence was noticed following the 2014 rupture of an above-ground storage tank belonging to Freedom Industries that spilled 10,000-gallons of a toxic chemical, 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol, into West Virginia's Elk River. That spill contaminated drinking water supplies for nearly 300,000 residents in at least eight counties.
The EPA agreed to initiate rulemaking to settle a lawsuit that a coalition, led by the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, filed in 2015. The coalition alleged the EPA violated the Clean Water Act by not setting spill prevention rules for above-ground storage for hazardous chemicals.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=130626557&vname=dennotallissues&fn=130626557&jd=130626557
-
OMB Reviewing CWA Hazardous Substances Rule
Mar 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is reviewing EPA's draft Clean Water Act (CWA) rule to prevent and contain chemical spills from above-ground tanks at industrial facilities, a measure the agency agreed to craft following the massive spill that contaminated drinking water for Charleston, WV, in 2014.
OMB received the rule for interagency review, which typically takes 90 days but can take less time, on March 26, according to OMB's website, which could put the agency on track to meet a June 16 judicial deadline to propose the measure.
The rulemaking stems from litigation filed by environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, that cited the massive spill of more than 5,000 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol from an above-ground storage tank into the Elk River as part of the reason the regulation is needed.
The groups argued that while EPA has issued spill prevention and containment regulations for oil spills from non-transportation-related onshore facilities, as required by CWA section 311(j)(1)(C), the agency has failed to meet the section's requirement for regulations governing hazardous substance spills.
EPA reached a legal settlement with environmentalists in 2016 that requires the agency to propose by June 16 and then take final action on the rule within 14 months of proposal.
The Fall 2017 Unified Agenda says the final action is tentatively planned for Aug. 29, 2019.
Last year, EPA developed a voluntary survey to assist the agency in developing the rule. But state and local emergency response officials urged EPA to drop plans for the information collection request (ICR), saying the agency should instead adapt its existing facility safety Risk Management Plan (RMP) program using existing data.
The National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials in Nov. 15 comments called the ICR “pointless,” adding that it suggested “that EPA is not focused on accident prevention, but rather accident response. That approach will not satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act nor the Consent Decree in our view."
The oil and gas sector also objected to the ICR, with the American Petroleum Institute in Nov. 20 comments saying EPA's spill prevention, control, and countermeasure rules “are sufficient to provide adequate protection against any unplanned release of hazardous substances."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/omb-reviewing-cwa-hazardous-substances-rule
-
EPA's Vehicle GHG Push May Spur Dual Federal, California Programs
Mar 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's widely expected call to ease light duty vehicle standards for at least model years 2022-2025 is intensifying the question of whether the Trump administration and California could wind up with two separate vehicle GHG programs that would create regulatory confusion and increase costs for manufacturers and consumers.
However, some observers are also asking whether such a split could be averted during the proposal stage on specific changes and what the implications might be for the auto sector if such a deal can't be reached.
And they also suggest that exploring the precise implications of an EPA-California split remains a premature exercise, citing a lack of clarity on how yet-to-be proposed federal GHG requirements will differ from the current program as well as how litigation on upcoming federal changes to the program will evolve.
EPA is expected to issue by April 1 a determination formally endorsing the goal of a weaker vehicle GHG program, a move widely viewed as an opening salvo of a formal regulatory process even if specific proposed changes come later as many expect.
EPA formally transmitted its draft determination to the White House Management & Budget (OMB) March 23, according to a notice on OMB's web site. While the agency had previously said it would issue a final notice by April 1, some say the timeline for issuing the notice may slip to the week of April 2.
For now, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has publicly said California should not be allowed to “dictate” standards for the rest of the country, while California officials have suggested they might be open to modest tweaks to the program prior to MY25 as part of a program that looks beyond MY25 requirements.
But Pruitt has suggested publicly that EPA is not focused on post MY25 standards.
While details of EPA's determination notice are unclear, observers say it may be the subsequent regulatory process that sheds light on whether EPA and California can avert a full scale split -- perhaps by settling on more modest changes -- or whether the effort to modify the standards destined for a lengthy court fight that could lead to fundamentally disparate EPA and state GHG emissions programs.
“We are in the fourth inning. It is not the bottom of the ninth,” says Robbie Diamond of Secure Americas Future Energy (SAFE), a group which favors a “balanced” approach to fuel economy that curbs oil dependence.
Diamond suggests it is too soon to predict significantly different federal and state emissions programs and their consequences.
But he adds that “discussions have to get more serious” as the rulemaking process proceeds, and he urges that specifics of any changes also make it easier to factor into that rulemaking an array of technologies that can improve fuel economy.
Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, similarly expects the EPA notice to be the formal “starting gun” on a fight over weakening the standards, and suggests it is the Trump administration and automakers that will be to blame if the national program splinters into federal and California initiatives.
“If the administration and auto companies are greedy [in pushing] specific changes to the program, it is certainly possible there would be two programs,” Becker added.
'One National Program'
To date, both defenders and critics of the original standards out to model year 2025 have cited the desire for maintaining “one national program” -- or at least highly compatible EPA GHG, California GHG and NHTSA fuel economy programs -- as a talking point, without a lot of specific public discussion on what a split between EPA and California would actually mean.
Mitch Bainwol, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, reiterated that point, telling the Wall Street Journal March 23, “We can’t comment on a determination we haven’t seen, but remain absolutely convinced that one national program is the preferred policy path.”
While the Obama administration worked toward equivalent standards across the three programs, the Trump administration's effort to roll back the Obama standards has raised the specter of an EPA-California split, though any actual splintering of the current programs would not occur for some time, and could depend on whether the Trump administration successfully defends weaker standards in court.
However, California officials are already suggesting they will back away from the single program the automakers favor. They have pledged to maintain the state's current standards -- which as many as 12 other states have also adopted.
And state officials have also reportedly begun notifying the nine states that follow its vehicle rules that they plan to revoke their “deemed to comply provision,” which allows auto manufacturers that comply with EPA’s standards to automatically fulfill California’s rules too, according to Bloomberg.
That means vehicle manufacturers would have to take additional steps to allow their vehicles to be sold in California and the nine other states that follow its standards.
Separate state and federal programs also presume California fending off any attacks on its current waiver authority for its program, with many observers asserting that California has authority to stick with its current requirements through model year 2025, which could allows its program for those years to outlast Trump administration.
But one source familiar with the matter says the scenario of multiple GHG programs raises issues including increased costs for consumers and industry that could result from a lack of a consistent national program, which would prevent economies of scale across a national market.
One industry source says that separate California and EPA GHG programs “doesn't work” either from an automaker or supplier perspective.
And the source suggests a full scale split could be avoided if EPA were to focus in its rulemaking on increasing flexibilities under the exiting program rather than a major change to the standard itself.
Another observer says a major split between EPA and California would pose the question of whether automakers would develop two different compliance strategies -- one for California and other states that have chosen to exercise Clean Air Act authority to track California rules, and another for states presumably following weaker EPA GHG standards.
The source citing a statistic that California and the so-called section 177 states make up over 40 percent of the U.S. population and over 30 percent of the car market.
Different Approaches
But observers say this begs the question of what those separate GHG compliance strategies would be, including whether automakers would tweak vehicle models according to whether they are for sale in different regions of the country, offer different technology packages in similar vehicle models across states, or even have different marketing incentives for vehicles in different states.
Safe Climate Campaign's Becker, for example, notes that automakers faced the threat of divergent federal and California programs for vehicle greenhouse gases during the 2000s -- when California began its legislative push to regulate GHGs.
And he noted that what wound up happening -- in the wake of developments including the high court's recognition of EPA's GHG authority in Massachusetts v. EPA -- was automakers wound up essentially following California's GHG program.
In principle, however, automakers would be “free” to pursue compliance with different GHG programs, Becker adds, with some options also including more aggressive marketing in some states of electric or other advanced vehicles.
Another observer says that what separate programs would mean in practice is not entirely clear, but notes that automakers are already willing to sell different technology packages for vehicles in different parts of the world. “They could have two different ones in the U.S.,” the observer says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-vehicle-ghg-push-may-spur-dual-federal-california-programs
-
Greens Launch Campaign to Get Pruitt Fired
Mar 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of environmental groups is teaming up for a multi-pronged campaign to try to get Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt fired or to resign.
The groups, including the Sierra Club, Green For All and Center For American Progress Action, are dubbing its campaign “Boot Pruitt.”
Its components, launching Wednesday, include commercials on cable shows targeted directly at President Trump, digital advertisements targeted on users in Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma, web-based petitions, grassroots advocacy and a dedicated website, BootPruitt.com.
Greens have enthusiastically opposed Pruitt and his policies since Trump announced in December 2016 his intent to nominate him.
But the “Boot Pruitt” campaign represents a new level of coordination and effort that the groups say is a real attempt to get him out of office.
“Even before he took office, we knew that Scott Pruitt was a dangerous appointee. And ever since he was confirmed, he’s proven to be worse than we feared,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.
“From silencing the voice of scientists to attempting to undermine regulations to protect our air and water to not enforcing regulations like minimizing sulphur dioxide pollution, supporting a pullout of Paris, Pruitt has put forward a reckless agenda that has put our air and our water and our health at risk.”
The Sierra Club’s contribution to the campaign includes commercials on Fox News’s "Fox & Friends" and MSNBC’s Morning Joe, said to be two of Trump’s favorite shows. The group is also sponsoring geographically targeted ads in Oklahoma.
“Scott Pruitt has come in and he has attacked health protections from things like the Clean Power Plan and clean water protection and even things like clean car standards. Most of those decision have a big impact on the young people that we work with daily in our campaign,” said Adrienne Cooper, who runs the Defend Our Future campaign for the Environmental Defense Fund.
Defend Our Future spending six figures on the anti-Pruitt campaign, supporting the “Boot Pruitt” website and running digital ads for it as well.
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox dismissed the campaign.
“This is old news as environmental groups have been recycling these baseless attacks since the day Scott Pruitt was nominated,” he said, pointing to the Sierra Club’s opposition to Pruitt as soon as he was mentioned as Trump’s nominee.
“Administrator Pruitt is proud to advance President Trump’s agenda on regulatory certainty and environmental stewardship.”
The main focus of the campaign is highlighting Pruitt’s agenda, which greens see as reckless and dangerous.
Since taking office last year, Pruitt has worked to roll back regulations on climate change, air pollution, water pollution, car efficiency, chemical plant safety and more. In the meantime, he’s reduced the EPA’s staffing to levels not seen since President Ronald Reagan.
Pruitt has consistently defended the efforts as protective of regulatory certainty, rule of law and the environment.
“With Reagan-era levels, we’re improving environmental outcomes with respect to Superfund sites and other key environmental objectives, but also the regulatory reform actions we’ve taken over the last year. We’ve had 22 of those and had a $1 billion savings to the economy,” he told conservative talk show host Lars Larson last week.
The greens’ campaign is also focused on the spending-related scandals Pruitt has been involved in.
He has been under fire recently for spending more than $100,000 in his first year on first-class travel. He’s also used taxpayer funds for trips like one to Morocco to promote natural gas exports and to his hometown of Tulsa, Okla., which he has said was for official business.
Meanwhile, he spent more than $40,000 to install a soundproof privacy booth in his office.
“His job is literally to protect the environment and he’s failing at that miserably. He’s spending all this money on luxury travel, on secret phone booths and a number of other things that are the antithesis of making sure he’s focusing on what his job needs to be, which is protecting the people of the United States,” said Vien Truong, head of Green for All, an environmental advocacy group focused on minority and low-income populations.
The green groups say their goal of kicking Pruitt out is reasonable and the campaign is serious. Following high-profile Trump administration departures like former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Priceand outgoing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, they think Trump is receptive to the idea of firing Pruitt.
“Our goal is to have him no longer be administrator of the EPA as quickly as possible,” said Brune. “We think that the public is on our side and we believe that if the president believes and wants to honor his commitment to clean air and clean water that he’ll push Pruitt out as quickly as possible.”By all appearances, Trump is pleased with Pruitt and his work. He called the EPA head a "great, great leader" at an event in Georgia last week. "He is a great champion of American workers and of freedom in the marketplace," the president said. "He's working tirelessly to unleash American energy at the EPA."
The other groups involved at the launch of the effort are the Hip Hop Caucus, Friends of the Earth, Green Latinos, the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/380551-greens-launch-campaign-to-get-pruitt-fired
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested