Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/11/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Appears to Have Votes to Win Senate Confirmation
Apr 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
Despite opposition from Democrats and environmentalists, Andrew Wheeler, President Trump's nominee to be EPA's deputy administrator, appears to have the votes to win confirmation by the full Senate, after some Democrats said they will vote to support his nomination... -
GOP Senators Push Back on Calls to Investigate Pruitt
Apr 10, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
Republican Senators are pushing back on calls to investigate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, despite growing pressure for him to resign. -
Union Joins Campaign to 'Boot Pruitt'
Apr 10, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA's largest union has allied itself with a coalition of environmental organizations seeking to have Administrator Scott Pruitt resign or be fired. -
EPA Adopts New Non-Animal Skin Test for Toxics, Pesticides
Apr 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's pesticides and toxics offices are jointly planning to begin accepting the results of non-animal toxicity tests for skin sensitization concerns when approving new substances, the first time the agency has agreed to use such a method in both offices. -
Chemical Data From Animal-Free Tests Get EPA Thumbs Up (1)
Apr 11, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical and pesticide manufacturers that want to reduce their use of animals in product tests can use nonanimal skin tests instead, the EPA said in an interim policy announced April 10. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Cleaning Products Law Will Force Reformulation, Industry Says
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Despite significant industry support for California's 2017 cleaning products disclosure law, the way it interacts with the state’s Proposition 65 will force wholesale reformulation of cleaning products, industry experts predict. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Legacy?
Apr 11, 2018 | Daily Journal
By Dorothy Dimitre
“We share a frail humanity shadowed by our technological achievements.” — Anthony Lewis. -
'Mobile' Substances in Water Could Be SVHCs, Germany Says
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Christine Lepisto
Substances falling into a proposed new classification could be designated as substances of very high concern, according to Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Electricity Customers Want Competition
Apr 10, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Devin Hartman , John Hughes, Owen Kean, and Caitlin Marquis
President Trump recently announced that the Energy Department is reconsidering funneling emergency aid to unprofitable power plants in response to a request from a bankrupt company. -
Exxon, Qatar in Talks on U.S. Shale Deal
Apr 11, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Sarah McFarlane and Bradley Olson
Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM 2.94% is in talks with Qatar over a partnership that could see the Middle Eastern nation owning U.S. gas, people familiar with the matter said. -
What Will It Take to Keep Up With Shale Gas Boom? $170 Billion
Apr 11, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Naureen S. Malik
Bottlenecks on the U.S. natural gas super highway are starting to stack up, raising concerns about whether infrastructure can be built fast enough to meet surging supplies. -
(ACC Mentioned) Faster Infrastructure Permitting Signaled by DOE, EPA, Interior and Other Agencies
Apr 11, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Eight months after President Trump called for the federal government to expedite its review and permitting of major infrastructure projects, 12 agencies agreed Monday to follow permitting timetables designed to complete the reviews within two years. -
Nitrogen Dioxide Air Standards Good for Another Five Years: EPA
Apr 11, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
National standards for nitrogen dioxide air pollution adequately protect public health and don't need to be revised, the EPA said April 10. -
EPA Rejects Industry's Push to Ease NO2 NAAQS Limit, Implementation
Apr 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued its final rule retaining the existing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 100 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour, rejecting a request from several industry groups to consider softening the standard and also declining... -
EPA NSR Overhaul Will Target 'Aggregation,' 'Maintenance' Permit Policies
Apr 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's push to overhaul and ease Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting mandates includes plans in the coming months to issue a mixture of guidance and regulation on key issues including “aggregating” emissions for permitting purposes... -
Green Groups Urge Senate to Reject Pompeo Nomination
Apr 10, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
More than 200 environmental advocacy groups are asking the Senate to reject President Trump's nomination of Mike Pompeo for secretary of State due to his climate views. -
Climate Solutions Caucus Looks Beyond Just Policy Goals
Apr 11, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Arianna Skibell
Climate change has been notably absent from the burgeoning conversation around infrastructure in recent months.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Appears to Have Votes to Win Senate Confirmation
Apr 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
Despite opposition from Democrats and environmentalists, Andrew Wheeler, President Trump's nominee to be EPA's deputy administrator, appears to have the votes to win confirmation by the full Senate, after some Democrats said they will vote to support his nomination when it comes to the floor for a procedural vote as soon as this week.
His likely confirmation will ensure the administration has a Senate-confirmed deputy in place at the agency to step inshould Administrator Scott Pruitt leave office due to ethics scandals that are plaguing him.
Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), two Democrats who voted to confirm Pruitt and who both face tough re-election races in November, have said that they will vote for Wheeler.
“I believe he'll be open to working on issues important to North Dakota in a pragmatic and fair way, and I'll hold him accountable to make sure he implements the missions of the EPA in a way that works for my state,” Heitkamp told the Huffington Post April 6.
Manchin confirmed his support April 9, via spokesman Jonathan Kott who told E&E News, “He will be supporting him.”
Also Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) -- who voted against Pruitt -- announced April 10 that she would back Wheeler “unless there is some new adverse information.”
Those three votes likely mean Wheeler will win confirmation even with the absence of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), in a 51-49 Senate. Vice President Mike Pence could break a tie if necessary.
Nonetheless, environmentalists are continuing to call for additional scrutiny on Wheeler, given the ethical controversies surrounding Pruitt, who appears to have President Donald Trump's support for now.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) cautions in an April 9 notice that if Pruitt were forced from office, that would mean Wheeler, if confirmed, would run the agency and could have a lengthy tenure as acting administrator, given the difficulty of confirming a new EPA chief.
“It is critically important that the public understand Wheeler's career as a lobbyist for some of the worst actors in the energy industry. Andrew Wheeler running EPA would go far beyond having an administrator overly influenced by lobbyists -- the head of EPA would be an energy industry lobbyist,” the group warns.
EDF notes Wheeler has lobbied for Murray Energy, which has paid millions in fines and penalties for polluting waterways with coal slurry and discharge, has allegedly coerced its employees to donate to Republicans, and was accused by federal regulators in 2015 of attempting to silence whistleblowers including those making confidential safety complaints about conditions in coal mines.
The Huffington Post also writes that Democrats did little to stop Wheeler, while noting his momentum also shows the limitations of Democrats' opposition to the administration. “There is the appearance that Democrats have only given lip service to opposing Wheeler,” Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch said. “Where is the outrage? Isn’t Democratic reticence something of a scandal itself?”
But industry groups are urging senators to support Wheeler. “His leadership and expertise, combined with the vital work already being done by Administrator Pruitt and the dedicated staff at EPA, will help the agency continue its implementation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act and help ensure sound science is at the heart of its regulatory decision making,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) March 23 filed cloture on Wheeler's nomination, and a vote is expected later this week, according to the Senate Cloak Room.
A source there notes the cloture votes have to take place in order, and that Wheeler's will come up as soon as the Senate votes on Patrick Pizzella, the nominee for deputy Labor secretary.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wheeler-appears-have-votes-win-senate-confirmation
-
GOP Senators Push Back on Calls to Investigate Pruitt
Apr 10, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
Republican Senators are pushing back on calls to investigate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, despite growing pressure for him to resign.
Key Republicans overseeing the EPA and its budget are resisting calls from Democrats and environmentalists to open new investigations or hold hearings on a number of recent scandals connected to Pruitt.
Instead, Republicans are deferring to the White House, which is investigating various allegations against Pruitt, including his use of a $50-a-night condo from the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist and overspending taxpayer money on a round-the-clock security team and first-class travel.
The EPA’s Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are additionally working on their own investigations into various ethical questions surrounding Pruitt.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — the Senate committee which would likely take the lead in an investigation of Pruitt if one were to be opened — said he is letting the White House take the lead.
“Certain questions have been raised about internal operations of the agency and the administrator’s actions,” he said in a statement Monday. “The White House has indicated it has taken on a formal review of these questions. I will wait for the outcome of that process."
The White House announced last week that it’s investigating the various controversies involving Pruitt.
However, President Trump appeared to absolve his Cabinet secretary Saturday, tweeting: “While Security spending was somewhat more than his predecessor, Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at EPA. Record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars. Rent was about market rate, travel expenses OK. Scott is doing a great job!”
Nevertheless, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who sits on the Environment and Public Works committee, said he is comfortable letting the White House’s investigation play out.
“Under EPW, we have oversight on the agency, and once we find out what the White House comes up with in terms of their investigation, then we can decide whether or not it’s something that gets into the operations of the EPA,” Rounds said. “At this point, we’ll wait until the White House finishes their review.”
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said Pruitt is “doing a great job” at the EPA, and he’ll take a “wait and see” approach for the White House’s probe.
“There’s plenty of rules, regulations, processes for these kinds of issues, whether you’re an elected official or an appointed official. Let that play out,” Daines said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Appropriations Committee subpanel that oversees the EPA’s budget, recognized that the controversies could be hurting the EPA.
“If there are questions that are coming up that are detracting you from the responsibilities that you have, those can be issues, yeah. Those can be real concerns,” she said.
Murkowski said she’d let the White House take the lead on looking into Pruitt, but she didn’t rule out questioning Pruitt on the matters when he comes before her subcommittee. She has not yet scheduled a hearing with him on the EPA’s fiscal 2019 budget request, but she expects to.
“I think that we will have an opportunity through the committee hearings to have these issues be raised,” she said. “If I were the administrator, I’d certainly be prepared to answer anything that may come his way.”
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed Monday that the investigation is still ongoing.
Democrats have been less willing to let the White House take the reigns. Coming back from a two-week recess, members of Congress on the left have been emphatic that Pruitt should be held accountable for some of these questionable decisions. A group of four Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Tuesday called for Pruitt to resign.
“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has become the poster child for the Trump Administration’s shameful culture of corruption. Pruitt has repeatedly used his position to enrich himself rather than protect the lives of the American people he was appointed to serve,” they wrote in a statement. “His actions have jeopardized EPA’s ability to protect human health and the environment, and the only way to regain the American people’s trust in EPA is for Pruitt to resign immediately.
Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works panel, criticized what he saw as a lack of action on the GOP’s part over the Pruitt scandals.
“I think there’s a reluctance on the part of a majority that’s in the same party as the White House to put the White House and the administration under the microscope,” he said.
“If the shoe were on the other foot, if it were the Obama administration and Gina McCarthy were the EPA administrator, the Republican majority would have dragged her in before us, not every day of every week, but probably every week, to address and delve into her misdeeds.”
On Tuesday, Carper and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote Barrasso a letter in part requesting he schedule a hearing on Pruitt’s round-the-clock security detail — which recent reports estimate have cost nearly $3 million.
Barrasso declined, saying in a statement that it could threaten Pruitt’s safety.
"This is exactly why members should not publicly disclose information that relates to the safety of a cabinet member. It is also why this committee will not hold a hearing on this issue,” Barrasso said in a statement Tuesday.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/382550-gop-senators-push-back-on-calls-to-investigate-pruitt
-
Union Joins Campaign to 'Boot Pruitt'
Apr 10, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA's largest union has allied itself with a coalition of environmental organizations seeking to have Administrator Scott Pruitt resign or be fired.
In a statement this afternoon, American Federation of Government Employees Council 238 said its "Save the U.S. EPA" campaign had joined the "Boot Pruitt" effort. AFGE Council 238 President John O'Grady said the EPA chief has damaged the agency and it will take years to repair.
"Not only is morale at the lowest it's ever been, but by reducing the importance of science at the EPA, denying the basic tenets of climate change and advocating for drastic cuts to the EPA's annual budget, Mr. Pruitt is putting everyone at risk, including our children and grandchildren," O'Grady said.
"Some of the damage he has done will take years, if not decades, to undo. Enough is enough; it's time to #BootPruitt," he said.
The council is made up of all of AFGE's local EPA unions, representing about 9,000 federal employees overall who work at the agency.
The green groups launched the effort two weeks ago, running television ads on some of President Trump's morning shows and putting digital projections on EPA headquarters (Greenwire, March 28).
O'Grady has been targeted for his opposition to Pruitt in the past.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, America Rising, a Republican research firm, sought emails by EPA union officials, including O'Grady, who have been critical of the Trump administration (Greenwire, Feb. 3).
Meanwhile, Democrats continue to apply pressure on EPA to have Pruitt leave office. Today, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency, began passing around a letter among colleagues asking them to join his "sense of Congress" resolution calling on Pruitt to resign.
Pruitt "has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayers and spent it on special perks for himself, while trying to slash the budget for health and safety programs his agency oversees," Udall said in the letter, which was obtained by E&E News.
"He's really just been a disaster for the EPA, and so we're asking people to take a look at his record," Udall told reporters this afternoon.
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) is expected to introduce a similar resolution in the House, according to Udall's letter.
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/10/stories/1060078663
-
EPA Adopts New Non-Animal Skin Test for Toxics, Pesticides
Apr 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's pesticides and toxics offices are jointly planning to begin accepting the results of non-animal toxicity tests for skin sensitization concerns when approving new substances, the first time the agency has agreed to use such a method in both offices.
EPA will accept public comments on the newly released “Draft Interim Science Policy: Use of Alternative Approaches for Skin Sensitization as a Replacement for Laboratory Animal Testing” through June 9.
But EPA officials made clear that the draft policy will take effect immediately.
EPA's top toxics appointee, Nancy Beck, announced at an April 10 public meeting on alternate chemical testing methods that “given the substantial evidence and robust review that went into developing this approach, when we release the draft, we will make it effective immediately . . . both in our pesticides and our TSCA programs we will be accepting alternative information instead of the” local lymph node assay (LLNA).
Beck called the new policy “one step toward our broader commitment to replace the use of animals."
Unlike previous policy statements that have been released in recent years, the new policy will apply to EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics -- the EPA office responsible for implementing the many changes that Congress made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in its 2016 reform of that statue -- as well as EPA's pesticides office (OPP).
OPP has been engaged in an ongoing effort to reduce the amount of animal testing that it requires companies to submit when they seek to register new pesticide products or re-register existing products since its former director, Jack Housenger announced that approach as a policy in 2016.
In addition, Congress, in the TSCA overhaul bill it approved in 2016, included extensive direction in section 4 requiring EPA to reduce animal testing -- themes that Administrator Scott Pruitt raises in EPA's April 10 press release.
“This draft policy is another step toward achieving EPA's goal of reducing the use of animals and increasing the use of cutting-edge science in chemical testing,” Pruitt said.
EPA has used the LLNA to test chemicals to determine if they trigger skin sensitization, an immune response. An initial exposure causes an immune response in the body that results in health effects after a second exposure.
The policy explains that in the U.S., “skin sensitization testing is generally required for both pesticide active ingredients and pesticide formulations although waivers and exceptions are possible. OPPT does not have any specific data requirements per se but does receive skin sensitization information, mostly for some chemicals in the new chemicals program. In addition, if a new chemical is suspected of being a skin sensitizer, studies or information may be requested.”
EPA's interim policy states that “OPP and OPPT will accept submissions for single chemicals (e.g., pesticide active ingredients or pesticide inert ingredients) that can be tested using the methods” identified in the policy.
The new policy follows on from a 2016 workshop in Italy attended by EPA and regulators from 13 other countries, which specifically focused on skin sensitization data needs and non-animal approaches.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-adopts-new-non-animal-skin-test-toxics-pesticides
-
Chemical Data From Animal-Free Tests Get EPA Thumbs Up (1)
Apr 11, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical and pesticide manufacturers that want to reduce their use of animals in product tests can use nonanimal skin tests instead, the EPA said in an interim policy announced April 10.
Although open to public comment through June 9, the policy will be effective immediately and apply to toxicity test data that manufacturers submit to comply with either the Toxic Substances Control Act or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Nancy Beck, the Environmental Protection Agency's deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said.
The skin tests that don't use animals have already been through extensive interagency and international review and critiques and therefore the EPA has concluded their information can immediately be used, Beck said. She spoke at an EPA meeting focused on a broader test strategy the agency is developing to spur the use of tests that reduce, replace, or refine the use of animals.
P&G Involved in Test Development
Procter & Gamble was involved in the development of three of the nonanimal skin tests referenced in the EPA's new policy, the company confirmed to Bloomberg Environment April 10.
The company has spent about $400 million over about 40 years developing more than 50 non-animal testing methods.
“We do not test our products or ingredients on animals anywhere in the world unless required by law,” P&G's website says. “We are working hard to make it obsolete.”
P&G's investment illustrates the millions of dollars chemical manufacturers have spent on equipment and software that can provide them a spectrum of potential health effects and other information about chemicals they are considering making or test chemical mixtures for their combined effects. These non-animal methods can help companies decide which molecules are worth investing more time and energy on, and they can help meet corporate goals.
Years in Development
The skin allergy testing policy the EPA announced has been under development for many years by U.S., European, and other agencies.
It uses information from two cellular tests and another test that examines whether proteins in the skin react to the pesticide or chemical, an EPA toxicologist told Bloomberg Environment. The combination of the three tests provides insight into core biological changes that precede skin allergies, the toxicologist said.
The nonanimal data could be used in lieu of information that companies typically generate through what's called the Local Lymph Node Assay. Researchers using that test typically put the chemicals on the ears of mice, which are later killed so certain cells can be evaluated for an allergenic response.The policy will provide information about how potent a chemical may be in causing skin allergies, Anna Lowit, senior science adviser in the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, said at the agency's nonanimal testing strategy meeting. That means the data from the test could be used for labeling and classification.
The policy will apply to single chemicals or pesticide ingredients, not mixtures also called “formulations,” she said. An example of a formulation is the pesticide product a consumer would purchase that includes an active ingredient that kills a fungus and other chemicals that help the mixture cling to a plant's leaf.Beck said the interim skin allergy testing strategy illustrates the agency's commitment to nonanimal tests.
The agency is developing a broader strategy, mandated by TSCA, that is intended to spur the use of toxicity and other tests that reduce, refine, or replace animal testing.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131513279&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131513279&jd=131513279
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Cleaning Products Law Will Force Reformulation, Industry Says
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Despite significant industry support for California's 2017 cleaning products disclosure law, the way it interacts with the state’s Proposition 65 will force wholesale reformulation of cleaning products, industry experts predict.
The cleaning products law, and the prospect of other states following suit, are causing industry leaders to consider a national disclosure law, experts said at the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) recent GlobalChem conference in Washington, DC.
The new law requires that cleaning product labels disclose all ingredients included on certain hazardous substance lists, among them all chemicals listed under Prop 65, with no minimum threshold.
Industry won a five-year delay in the effective date of this provision "to give companies time to reformulate out," Julie Froelicher, senior manager for regulatory and technical relations at Procter and Gamble, is reported as saying in this month's Global Business Briefing.
"As soon as you put a Prop 65 ingredient on the label, you have the bounty hunters coming after you," she said, referring to the law's 'private enforcement' provisions.
Owen Caine, executive vice president for government relations and public policy at the Household and Commercial Products Association (HCPA), said this is a "tactical move" on the part of NGOs, which takes Prop 65 "where it was intended to go, getting companies to reformulate".
Requiring disclosure of Prop 65 chemicals without a minimum is the primary reason the ACC opposes the legislation. It is "a very dangerous precedent," said Karyn Schmidt, the organisation’s senior director of regulatory and technical affairs. The ACC is especially concerned the approach could be extended to products where reformulation is not possible.
A 'shaming device'
Mr Caine said five states are already considering disclosure legislation for at least one chemical sector. Even duplicative legislation "can be dangerous," he said, and if states "get different ideas about ingredient exposure, we have a problem."
Pressure from consumers and investors is also pushing industry to consider backing a national disclosure standard.
Laws like Prop 65 are "a public shaming device" to push companies away from legal chemical products, said James Votaw, a partner at Keller and Heckman. And NGOs are increasingly "using the marketplace" to accomplish their objective.
Mr Caine predicted "relief will be needed soon" and industry will come to support a national disclosure law, just as it eventually came to the table to discuss TSCA reform.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65895/california-cleaning-products-law-will-force-reformulation-industry-says
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Legacy?
Apr 11, 2018 | Daily Journal
By Dorothy Dimitre
“We share a frail humanity shadowed by our technological achievements.” — Anthony Lewis.
Since I have long been promoting the importance of eating natural/organic foods, a recent feature article, “Dine out much? It may be harmful,” in the San Francisco Chronicle caught my attention. Based on a national study authored by a University of California, Berkeley scientist, we are informed that this is not a good idea because of “increasing levels of potentially harmful chemicals called phthalates.” Chemicals such as this one and BPA “are used in hundreds of consumer products including wide use in food processing and packaging materials to make plastics more transparent, flexible and durable. The toxic chemicals are not bound to the material, so they escape into food and environment.” Of course, this should be reported, but for years it has been known that many harmful chemicals in the food we eat are best avoided if we want to preserve our health and well-being.
On Aug. 20, 2010, I wrote a column that warned of the risk of eating foods that contain BPA and phthalates. Now, more than eight years later, it’s as though this is something new, and if you read the Chronicle article, you know that this is not a minor issue. It’s something the Food and Drug Administration should have dealt with long ago. But aside from banning the use of these chemicals in baby bottles, “sippy” cups, etc. in July 2012, because of concerns about such chemicals interfering with child development, we are still plagued by these (and many other) chemical contaminants that should not be in our food.
In their new book, “The Boy Crisis,” Warren Ferrell, Ph.D. and John Gray, Ph.D. write that “Owing to the increased exposure to these hormone disrupters in plastics, girls are showing signs of puberty a couple of years early and boys are being delayed a couple of years. The Environmental Protection Agency has also reported that ‘studies in laboratory animals suggest that fetuses exposed to phthalates, chemicals used in plastics, can have multiple health issues as adults, including infertility, issues with genitalia development and sperm production problems.’”
The Chronicle article reports that among the most phthalate-contaminated foods were cheeseburgers and sandwiches purchased at a fast-food outlets, restaurants or cafeterias. According to the study, the meat and cheese used for these offerings often come packaged in plastic associated with phthalates. Of course, the American Chemical Council comes up with the usual defense: “The mere presence of a chemical in the body does not mean that it will cause negative health effects.” Sure, which one? And have any serious studies been done to evaluate the effect of any combination of chemicals? But gosh, we don’t want to scare anyone into taking precautions because it might impact profits of related industries. After all, it’s only our nation’s health that’s at risk.
You’d think that there would have been drastic measures taken after a group of pediatric endocrinologists called a special conference about 10 years ago to decide what should be done about the problem, but they didn’t seem to believe that the situation was serious enough to take action. But, as Leonard Sax related in his book, “Boys Adrift,” “They decided to redefine what’s normal. The experts decided that a girl who needs to wear a bra at 8 years old should no longer be considered to be an anomaly.” Outrageous.
So, as usual, we cannot trust our government agencies and scientific community to take control of such situations and take needed action. This problem should have been exposed and drastic measures to correct it implemented quickly. But, as usual, the industry is trusted to test its own products, the FDA goes along with their results, and, far too often, dangerous side effects of pharmaceuticals or the harm of other dangerous concoctions surface much later. The mantra seems to be: “We must not let problems like this interfere with profits of corporate interests.”
Let’s be realistic. It isn’t just dining out that we need to be concerned about. As reported, fast food is especially of concern. Food that we take out is often wrapped or in containers of plastic or cardboard that has been treated with phthalates and/or BPA. And home-cooked meals aren’t necessarily the answer. It depends on how they are prepared. Using canned ingredients (BPA), ingredients tainted by pesticides, hormone-treated meat, ingredients that have been stored in plastic coated containers? Not much improvement. Anyway, who takes time to cook meals from scratch anymore? All that shopping, preparation and cleaning up. And besides, you have to know something about cooking.
“When we refuse to see what we see and know what we know, we participate in a dishonest system and help to perpetrate it.” — Anne Wilson Schaef, “When Society Becomes an Addict.”
Since 1984, Dorothy Dimitre has written more than 900 columns for various local newspapers. Her email address is gramsd@aceweb.com.
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/chemical-legacy/article_37ef578e-3d21-11e8-bc04-3b9837750c11.html
-
'Mobile' Substances in Water Could Be SVHCs, Germany Says
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Christine Lepisto
Substances falling into a proposed new classification could be designated as substances of very high concern, according to Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA).
German authorities believe that persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) and very persistent, very mobile (vPvM) classifications are required to properly address the risks to water sources, particularly those supplying drinking water.
Such classifications are not currently part of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals or Europe's CLP equivalent.
And, according to the UBA, regulators could use the 'equivalent level of concern' concept of REACH, under which the substances are compared to others, to designate the substances as SVHCs.
"We really don’t need more monitoring to start acting," Michael Neumann, scientific officer at UBA, told a two-day workshop on using REACH to manage PMT and vPvM substances, hosted by the agency and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). Substances that are both persistent and mobile are difficult to remove from water systems, and action on existing and future contamination is needed, he added.
The Norwegian institute has compiled a list of 240 REACH-registered substances that potentially fulfil the proposed PMT and vPvM criteria or are candidate substances. Although some of the chemicals are already monitored in drinking water, others are off the radar.
There is a strong correlation between substances identified by PMT/vPvM screening and those detected in drinking water or identified in scientific literature on groundwater and drinking water contaminants, said Hans-Peter Arp from NGI.
The UBA first proposed introducing PMT classification criteria for substances that may reach drinking and ground water, in May 2017, later adding a vPvM category.
Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and vPvB chemicals can be identified as SVHCs under REACH. Although PMT substances have different pathways for transport and exposure, they pose an equivalent hazard, argues the UBA.
Humans are mainly exposed to PBT/vPvB substances through the diet but PM/PMT chemicals circulate in the water cycle and can reach drinking water sources.
CLP for PM
Adding a PMT/vPvM hazard class to GHS or EU CLP would be a good first regulatory step, suggested Sylvain Bintein, policy coordinator for the European Commission’s DG Environment, who presented his personal ideas to the workshop.
This would trigger communication of risk management measures, require industry to self-classify, and promote substitution, he added. But he also presented a list of other options, including:
· using PMT/vPvM properties to designate SVHCs through an equivalent level of concern;
· using case-by-case provisions in item 0.10 of Annex I of REACH, which covers effects such as ozone depletion and strong odour or tainting;
· emphasising drinking water in "secondary poisoning" during dossier evaluations. Secondary poisoning traditionally covers predators eating contaminated organisms such as fish and worms; and
· applying the "precautionary principle".
Watze de Wolf, chair of Echa’s Member State Committee, confirmed that it is already possible to identify PMT/vPvM substances as SVHCs through an equivalent level of concern, provided there is sufficient evidence. Member states can also use the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) to collect further evidence via substance evaluation, he added.
Industry concern
Industry is not keen on the PMT/vPvM proposals, with concerns that they could lead to hazard-based regulation.
Speaking on behalf of Cefic, Ronald Bock from Chemours warned against rushing into regrettable regulation. Referring to an old UBA list of potential PMT/vPvM substances, he picked out examples that he said were based either on erroneous information or on data that are not supported by industry consensus. He also identified cases where more extensive risk assessment has been done under REACH, establishing the absence of significant risk.
The UBA said it compiled its potential list of PMT/vPvM substances based on persistence criteria matching the P in PBT and mobility screening based on the carbon-water partition coefficient (Koc).
But the toxicity criterion the agency used, was more strict than the T in PBT. It included, for example, category 2 carcinogens and mutagens, effects on or via lactation, derived no-effect levels (Dnels) and endocrine disruption.
The UBA will publish an update of proposals for PMT/vPvM criteria under REACH in May 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65740/mobile-substances-in-water-could-be-svhcs-germany-says
-
(ACC Mentioned) Electricity Customers Want Competition
Apr 10, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Devin Hartman , John Hughes, Owen Kean, and Caitlin Marquis
President Trump recently announced that the Energy Department is reconsidering funneling emergency aid to unprofitable power plants in response to a request from a bankrupt company. But experts agree that no grid emergency exists, and that such action would cost consumers billions and destroy market competition.
Indeed, subsidizing troubled companies would constitute an extreme measure at consumers’ expense. It’s about time consumer voices took control of the grid narrative.
The leader of the bailout push is FirstEnergy Solutions, a company that recently declared bankruptcy because some of its coal and nuclear plants are not competitive in today’s market. The company asked Energy Secretary Rick Perry to declare a grid emergency under Section 202 of the Federal Power Act to keep plants online to “serve the public interest.”
Yet such action would be a clear abuse of statutory authority. The Energy Department’s own technical report in 2017 found that the bulk power system is performing reliably. Clearly, “serving the public interest” actually means letting markets run their course.
If the plants were necessary for grid reliability and resilience, then customers would share FirstEnergy’s concern. Instead, electricity users are deeply distressed by the immediate costs they could face, as well as the long-term damage to the market, due to the proposed intervention. Specifically, FirstEnergy’s proposal would re-regulate a large portion of the competitive power fleet, which may render market pricing mechanisms nearly irrelevant by disrupting signals for market entry and exit.
FirstEnergy requested the subsidies for plants in the PJM Interconnection, which is the marketplace in the Mid-Atlantic region where its plants reside. Yet PJM, PJM’s independent market monitor, and PJM’s customers all agree that these plants are not necessary to keep the lights on. PJM, which thoroughly evaluates reliability impacts of planned plant retirements, has repeatedly disagreed with the “fundamental assertion that there is an emergency.” In fact, the PJM system has supply in excess of its reserve target. PJM’s market monitor, which objectively evaluates the performance of PJM markets, notes that the PJM markets work well and deliver the benefits of competition to customers, pointing out that the biggest problem PJM faces is excessive government intervention.
The fictitious crisis might be more credible if PJM hadn’t been experiencing the effects of large coal and nuclear retirements for the better part of a decade. In PJM, more than 20,000 megawatts of coal capacity have retired since 2011. The primary reasons are declining demand and massive new investment in low-cost natural gas-fired plants, which are strategically sited to minimize their fuel costs and maximize their grid value. The results have been robust reliability metrics and lower costs to customers. This is exactly what customers hoped for when states in PJM adopted the competitive market model.
As the backbone of the manufacturing, technology, retail, and service industries, we know what it means to compete, and we care deeply about affordable, reliable electricity. We benefit when our energy suppliers compete under fair, efficient rules, and when we have options to choose our energy sources and to take increased control of our energy use and costs. Subverting electricity markets, on the other hand, puts consumers last.
The triumph of our economy is rooted in private capital accepting risk and seeking reward. Markets work best when they facilitate new investment in low-cost resources and drive high-cost resources out of the market. Provided that the fates of coal, nuclear, renewables, natural gas, and all technologies are market-driven, consumers will benefit.
This is not an issue of coal and nuclear versus renewables and natural gas; this is about customers versus rent-seekers, good versus bad governance, and markets versus destructive government intervention.
The grid is in transition, not crisis. In fact, it is undergoing a healthy and beneficial transformation. The crisis could occur if we let government, instead of markets, determine investment decisions.
Any emergency that may exist is limited to the financial condition of companies that bet against market forces. Such companies do not deserve bailouts. Instead, they should face their creditors and reposition themselves for the energy system and economy of the future.
America’s families and businesses deserve a government that upholds fair competition. Everybody should play by the same rules. As electricity consumers and experts, we urge the Trump administration and Energy Department to champion competition and good governance by rejecting baseless calls to bailout unprofitable power plants.
Devin Hartman is electricity policy manager at the R Street Institute. John Hughes is president & CEO of the Electricity Consumers Resource Council. Owen Kean is senior director of energy policy at the American Chemistry Council. Caitlin Marquis is manager of policy at the Advanced Energy Buyers Group.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/electricity-customers-want-competition
-
Exxon, Qatar in Talks on U.S. Shale Deal
Apr 11, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Sarah McFarlane and Bradley Olson
Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM 2.94% is in talks with Qatar over a partnership that could see the Middle Eastern nation owning U.S. gas, people familiar with the matter said.
The potential deal could lead to the state energy giant Qatar Petroleum investing in Exxon’s vast U.S. gas resources, extending from West Texas to North Dakota, according to the people, as both seek to deepen an already lucrative relationship each needs to face off current challenges. It could take the shape of a joint venture in which Qatar partners or invests in future wells with Exxon subsidiary XTO Energy, these people said.
Qatar wants to broaden its investments outside the Middle East and curry favor with Washington amid an economic blockade from Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. Qatar’s leader is due to meet U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Exxon’s operations in Qatar are hugely profitable and it also needs Doha’s financial support and signoff to proceed on a massive $10 billion natural gas-export project in East Texas. The development is critical to allowing the company to find markets abroad for its U.S. gas bounty as prices come under pressure domestically.
For Exxon, the talks also underscore the challenge many Western companies face as they seek to navigate growing rifts in the Middle East, where several countries are embarking on multibillion-dollar global expansions to diversify their economies.
“The relationship between Exxon Mobil and its affiliation with Qatar is deep, symbiotic and of significant strategic importance,” said Ehsan Khoman, head of research for the Middle East and North Africa at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ. “From Exxon’s perspective, Qatar is by far its most significant international investment.”
The talks could still break down and no deal has been finalized, the people said. An Exxon spokeswoman declined to comment. Qatar Petroleum didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The fate of the Golden Pass gas export facility in East Texas could hinge on a deal. The terminal is mainly owned by Qatar Petroleum, which has held off from agreeing to develop it with Exxon until it owns U.S. natural gas supplies.
“We are not going to proceed with that without upstream assets in the U.S.,” Saad Sherida al-Kaabi, QP’s chief executive, said in an interview.
While the world has been focused on rising U.S. oil production, gas output is also expected to hit record levels in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Exxon wants to triple its production in the red-hot Permian basin in West Texas and New Mexico to 600,000 barrels a day of oil and natural gas by 2025.
As gas production from the region begins to exceed existing pipeline capacity, natural-gas prices from the region have plunged this year. Some analysts say this may have a knock-on effect on oil production for many companies. In the Permian basin, most natural gas is produced as a byproduct of drilling for oil. In the past, producers could flare the gas, or burn it at the wellhead, but that practice is set to fallout of favor due to pressure from state regulators and environmental groups. As crude output from the Permian basin continues to boom, operators who cannot find a destination for their gas may have to curtail their growth plans. Many are racing to avoid that outcome now.
Qatar is already one of Exxon’s most profitable partnerships. The tiny country produces more than a quarter of the world’s liquefied natural gas. In 2018, Qatar will account for about 25% of Exxon’s after-tax cash flow and 16% of its oil and gas production, according to estimates from analytical firm GlobalData.
Outside of production in Qatar, Exxon and Qatar Petroleum have recently signed deals to explore for oil and gas off the coast of Cyprus and the two jointly bid for access to drilling rights in Brazil.
Qatar also is interested in investing in Exxon’s Mozambique operations, and the two have discussed the possibility of setting up a joint trading operation to market liquefied natural gas, according to people familiar with the matter.
But while Exxon is eager to strengthen its ties to Qatar, the company also wishes to keep options open with Doha’s antagonists. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt have enforced an economic blockade against Qatar since June 2017 to try to pressure Doha to scale back its ties with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey.
Exxon has been in discussions with Saudi Arabia on potential partnerships, one of the people familiar with the matter said. It already is in the final stages of evaluating plans to build a petrochemical complex in Texas in a joint-venture with state chemical company Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
Like Qatar, Saudi Arabia wants to gain a foothold in U.S. shale, while Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met with a number of U.S. technology, entertainment and energy companies last week to discuss possible investments.
For Qatar, owning U.S. gas assets is one way to court Washington. Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, is due to meet with President Trump Tuesday to discuss ways to strengthen ties between the two countries and advance common security and economic priorities, the White House said.
The departure of former Exxon Chief Executive Rex Tillerson as the U.S. Secretary of State has clouded the picture for Qatar, one person familiar with the matter said. While Mr. Tillerson played no role in discussions between Exxon and Qatar, he was seen as sympathetic to Qatar in its dispute with Saudi Arabia and its allies, the person said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-qatar-in-talks-on-u-s-shale-deal-1523358862?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=8
-
What Will It Take to Keep Up With Shale Gas Boom? $170 Billion
Apr 11, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Naureen S. Malik
Bottlenecks on the U.S. natural gas super highway are starting to stack up, raising concerns about whether infrastructure can be built fast enough to meet surging supplies.
Gas output will expand by 24 billion cubic feet, or 32 percent, through 2025 from last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates. To support that growth, the country’s gas industry needs to spend $170 billion over the next seven years on pipelines, compressor stations, export terminals and other related infrastructure, said Meg Gentle, chief executive officer of gas exporter Tellurian Inc.
“One threat to the U.S. being able to export LNG and expand its export capability is the overall commitment to invest in infrastructure to move natural gas,” Gentle said in an interview at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Future of Energy Summit in New York Tuesday.
It’s a warning that for parts of the country the pipeline woes aren’t over yet. Appalachian producers have been grappling for the better part of the shale boom of the past decade with limited pipeline access. Spot prices there slumped to record lows last year and have started to rebound as new capacity starts up.Permian Problem
Now the Permian Basin, know for its oil-rich layers of rock, is facing the threat of having to slow down the output of crude because drillers lack capacity to handle all the the gas that’s flowing as a mere byproduct.
For companies building multibillion-dollar plants to chill gas into liquid and ship it abroad, the abundance of cheap gas from the Permian in West Texas is an advantage. Developments there “will happen” because it’s an environment supportive to energy infrastructure, she said. That may not happen fast enough for Appalachia.
Producers are getting increasingly concerned about worsening pipeline constraints, Drillinginfo co-founder Allen Gilmer said during a panel at the BNEF summit. Its harder for the industry to get its hands around this because these limits aren’t being driven by operating or engineering issues but more by “social change and cultural conditions,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-10/what-will-it-take-to-keep-up-with-shale-gas-boom-170-billion
-
(ACC Mentioned) Faster Infrastructure Permitting Signaled by DOE, EPA, Interior and Other Agencies
Apr 11, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Eight months after President Trump called for the federal government to expedite its review and permitting of major infrastructure projects, 12 agencies agreed Monday to follow permitting timetables designed to complete the reviews within two years.
Seven cabinet-level departments including the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Department of Energy, as well as FERC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) to coordinate their environmental review of projects, which should include oil and natural gas pipelines.
Other signatories of the MOU include the Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Homeland Security departments, plus the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
"No longer will we allow the infrastructure of our magnificent country to crumble and decay," Trump said. "While protecting the environment, we will build gleaming new roads, bridges, railways, waterways, tunnels, and highways."
DOI Secretary Ryan Zinke said his department "understands the importance of having an efficient permitting process. I am 100% committed to ensuring that the DOI does its part to collaborate and work together with other federal agencies to complete the necessary reviews in accordance with the permitting timetable."
In a note to clients Tuesday, analysts with ClearView Energy Partners LLC said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has averaged 20.2 months for "major certificate reviews" since the firm began tracking them in 2010. Under the MOU, the permitting process is considered to have started once a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement is filed.
"For projects that rely on the Commission's pre-filing process, the NOI occurs before the formal application is filed," ClearView analysts said. "By this metric, the Commission's review intervals wind up slightly longer than the two-year target, at 756 days, or 25.2 months. In short, we think that FERC will be able to meet these new targets."
Under the MOU, one federal agency is to serve as the lead agency responsible for steering a project through the entire federal environmental review and permitting process. Trump put forth the lead agency concept in an executive order (EO) he signed last August. At the time, the EO received praise from several trade associations representing the oil and gas industry.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) reacted cautiously to the news.
"We appreciate the guidance given to all permitting agencies to work cooperatively on reviewing infrastructure projects," INGAA spokeswoman Cathy Landry told NGI's Shale Daily. "By law, FERC is already designated as the lead agency for interstate natural gas projects. We view better cooperation and concurrent review by participating agencies as important to the timely review of proposed pipeline projects."
API spokeswoman Sabrina Fang added that a streamlined regulatory process "is good for our economy, consumers, and strengthens our national security. Industry relies upon a cost-effective regulatory system that promotes the certainty and predictability necessary to make the massive capital investments required to bring energy and other projects to the U.S. economy."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) used the rollout of the MOU as an opportunity to tout the U.S. shale revolution.
"Updating America's infrastructure will facilitate job creation, including in the chemistry industry, which -- thanks to shale gas -- is experiencing historic growth," the ACC said. "Overcoming today's infrastructure challenges will help ensure that our nation can fully realize the benefits of increased production."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President Neil Bradley said streamlining the permitting process for infrastructure projects "is critical for generating economic growth...Simply put, it shouldn't take longer to approve a project than to build it. Environmental reviews are crucial to ensuring clean air and water, but it's possible and necessary for the reviews to be completed in a more timely manner."
Association of Oil Pipe Lines spokesman John Stoody said "two years is more than enough time for a reasonable review of the environmental impacts of a project."
Trump also touched on speeding up the permitting process last February, when he unveiled a$4.4 trillion budget proposal to fund the federal government in fiscal year 2019. The budget proposal included $137.2 million for DOI's Bureau of Land Management to "expedite permitting to facilitate increased environmentally responsible energy development."
The MOU was issued under a joint memorandum by Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Mary Neumayr, acting chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. Both are offices within the White House.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113980-faster-infrastructure-permitting-signaled-by-doe-epa-interior-and-other-agencies
-
Nitrogen Dioxide Air Standards Good for Another Five Years: EPA
Apr 11, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
National standards for nitrogen dioxide air pollution adequately protect public health and don't need to be revised, the EPA said April 10.
All areas in the U.S. meet the national nitrogen dioxide standards, and the Environmental Protection Agency's decision means states won't need to set new emission limits on vehicles and power plants. Nitrogen dioxide primarily comes from burning fuel.
The agency's decision matches recommendations from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, an EPA advisory group of industry, state, and academic scientists, to retain the existing standards.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to evaluate six regulated air pollutants—including nitrogen dioxide—on a five-year basis through a review of scientific literature.
Exposure to nitrogen dioxide can irritate the lungs and lead to asthma and increased risk of respiratory infections. Nitrogen dioxide also reacts with volatile organic compounds to form ozone, another air pollutant harmful to public health.
The hourly exposure standard of 100 parts per billion, set in 2010, and annual exposure standard of 53 parts per billion, set in 1971, will remain.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131513283&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131513283&jd=131513283
-
EPA Rejects Industry's Push to Ease NO2 NAAQS Limit, Implementation
Apr 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has issued its final rule retaining the existing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 100 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour, rejecting a request from several industry groups to consider softening the standard and also declining to adopt suggestions on easing the NAAQS' implementation.
Administrator Scott Pruitt April 6 signed a final “primary” NAAQS rule, yet to be published in the Federal Register, leaving the existing 2010 standard unchanged, and also retaining an older annual NAAQS limit of 53 ppb. NO2 is the “indicator” for nitrogen oxides regulated under the NAAQS. “Primary” NAAQS are intended to be protective of public health, while secondary standards are designed to protect the environment.
The final rule retains the same conclusions as the version proposed July 14 in which EPA suggested retaining the 2010 limit. EPA defends its scientific conclusion that the current standards are sufficient to protect public health “with an adequate margin of safety” as required by the Clean Air Act. The agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which advises EPA on its NAAQS reviews, backed this conclusion.
“While the evidence supports the occurrence of adverse NO2-related respiratory effects at ambient NO2 concentrations likely to have been above those allowed by the current primary NO2 NAAQS, that evidence, together with analyses of the potential for NO2 exposures, does not call into question the adequacy of the public health protection provided by the current standards,” EPA concludes. The agency finds that scientific studies do not show harm to public health in “locations with NO2 concentrations that would have clearly met those standards.”
Public health advocates had pushed for an even-stricter NAAQS, but EPA in the final rule rejects as unfounded the advocates' push to tighten the standards to no more than 50 ppb averaged over one hour.
The agency further defends its “causal framework” that shows which health effects are caused by NO2 exposure, and overall scientific method, from industry criticism. EPA has fully taken scientific uncertainties in the underlying science into account, the agency argues.
Some groups such as the American Petroleum Institute pushed the agency to consider weakening the existing standards, casting doubt on the solidity of the science.
But EPA rejects these suggestions, and also fends off industry comments seeking steps to ease the air permitting process related to NAAQS. The agency sticks to its traditional, court-mandated position that it may not take implementation concerns into account when setting NAAQS.
Meanwhile, EPA also rejects a specific criticism from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers that the agency unlawfully failed to consider alternative, weaker standards as well as tougher ones.
“The Administrator is not required to identify or evaluate specific alternative standards in order to make a determination than an existing standard or suite of standards provide the requisite protection. To the contrary, where the record supports a judgment that the current standards are requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and that more or less stringent standards would not be requisite, the EPA may conclude, as it has here, that detailed evaluation of specific alternative standards is not warranted,” EPA says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-industrys-push-ease-no2-naaqs-limit-implementation
-
EPA NSR Overhaul Will Target 'Aggregation,' 'Maintenance' Permit Policies
Apr 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's push to overhaul and ease Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting mandates includes plans in the coming months to issue a mixture of guidance and regulation on key issues including “aggregating” emissions for permitting purposes, and revising a policy on what qualifies as facility “maintenance” exempt from NSR.
In an April 5 presentation to a meeting of state air regulators, Anna Marie Wood -- a top career official in the Office of Air & Radiation (OAR) -- said that the list of NSR “improvements” and “updates” includes steps EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has already taken, such as deferring to industry calculations of whether a project's estimated emissions should trigger NSR.
Upcoming steps include a guidance change to “aggregating,” or combining, sources for air quality permitting. Combining emissions from several nearby sources could push facilities over the threshold for triggering NSR, so EPA's reform could make it easier for companies to keep sources separate and never trigger NSR permitting.
Additional reforms include changes to the definition of “ambient air” that could change when permits are required for certain facilities, and the revision to the facility “maintenance” exemptions from NSR.
Pruitt's initial NSR reform steps have been taken through policy memos, not binding regulations. And OAR Assistant Administrator William Wehrum has suggested a targeted “piecemeal” approach to NSR reform, rather than the sweeping reform attempt he unsuccessfully pushed while serving as President George W. Bush's acting EPA air chief.
Wood, director of the air quality policy division at OAR's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said in her presentation that the upcoming policy overhauls will be done with a mix of guidance and rulemaking. While notice-and-comment rulemaking is binding nationwide, some critics of EPA's early steps to ease NSR have said that because they were done through guidance and not rules, states opposed to the changes could ignore them.
Wood's presentation to the spring meeting of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) -- which represents several state and local air agencies -- in Lexington, KY, lists at least 10 NSR policy revisions and other updates that the agency has either implemented or is in the process of implementing.
The revisions include Pruitt's December memo ending a years-old policy against deferring to industry calculations on whether a project triggers NSR, and a March memo that aims to “streamline” the process companies must go through to determine whether facilities are subject to NSR.
Overhauling the NSR program is a top priority for various industry groups that have long claimed the NSR permit process is too lengthy and subjects too many routine facility updates to strict permitting mandates. Facilities subject to NSR, which applies in areas violating EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), must meet strict air pollution permit limits. Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) is NSR for NAAQS attainment areas.
Wood confirmed prior EPA statements that EPA intends to go further than just non-binding guidance for NSR reform. For example, EPA intends to incorporate Pruitt's March memo on “project emissions accounting” -- sometimes known as “project netting” -- into a forthcoming rule to be released in proposed form this fall.
The memo, sent to all 10 of EPA's regional divisions, announced a change in policy that will shorten the process for industrial facilities to determine whether full review under the NSR program is necessary. The shift allows permit applicants to at the outset consider likely emissions decreases, as well as increases, of their project -- but also allows them to define “project” broadly, increasing the scope to avoid NSR, environmentalists say.
Policy Revisions
Environmentalists and other Trump administration critics are likely to object to many of the pending NSR reforms, including the change to the definition on when facilities must be aggregated for permitting purposes.
Aggregation refers to the practice of combining related stationary sources' emissions, making them more likely to exceed “major source” thresholds that trigger NSR, of 100 tons per year (tpy) of a pollutant subject to NAAQS, or 250 tpy, depending on the pollutant.
Currently, EPA defines “stationary source” as all pollutant-emitting activity from points “located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, which are under common control of one person (or persons under common control), and belonging to same major industrial grouping.” EPA will address the definitions of “common control” and “adjacent” in the forthcoming guidance, Wood said.
In addition, Wood said EPA will finalize a reconsideration of a 2009 Obama EPA rule on aggregation of projects. The Obama EPA granted reconsideration of the rule in 2010 in response to a petition by environmental groups that argued it was insufficiently stringent. The rule addresses the criterion that projects be “substantially related.”
While the Obama administration expressed a preference to scrap its own rule on reconsideration, the Trump EPA may take the rulemaking in a different direction. Wood said the agency intends to publish the rule in “summer” this year.
EPA further intends to issue guidance documents this spring on the definition of “ambient air” for the purposes of PSD permitting. Wood said in her presentation that EPA currently defines “ambient air” as “that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access.”
She added, “We are evaluating several key terms associated with the definition including: 'general public', 'access' and 'building' to determine where additional flexibility may be appropriate.”
Another guidance will target NSR/PSD exemptions for facility routine maintenance, repair and replacement (RMRR). Wood said, “EPA believes there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the [RMRR] provisions in the New Source Review program,” and that “EPA is evaluating the need to clarify the interpretation and appropriate application of the RMRR provision under the NSR regulations.”
Like aggregation, the routine maintenance exemption from NSR has spawned many disputes over NSR applicability and substantial litigation, with permit applicants and regulators clashing over what maintenance is truly “routine,” and what constitutes a “major modification” that triggers NSR.
EPA further plans this spring to release technical screening tools to assist in air permit applications, known as “significant impact levels” (SILs) for both ozone and fine particulate matter. The SILs are threshold levels of predicted pollution below which emissions from a project are considered de minimis, and the project may avoid additional NSR permit analysis.
Permit Implications
Meanwhile, on an American Bar Association webinar April 10, industry consultant John Iwanski of Trinity Consultants said that Pruitt's March “project emissions accounting” memo is already having a substantial impact on several permit applications.
The guidance allows project applicants to count predicted emissions reductions, as well as increases, in “step one” of the NSR applicability determination, hence potentially avoiding the more onerous “step two” that requires a “project netting” analysis.
Project netting requires comparison of the proposed project's impacts with other industrial sources in the vicinity, covering a period of several years. The “full bore” process is very intensive to comply with, Iwanksi said, and several projects may now escape it.
But some states and environmentalists will likely resist the eased NSR process established by the various memos, Iwanksi said, warning that states may seek to make projected emissions decreases included in permit applications legally enforceable.
Attorney Shannon Broome, of law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, suggested that states seeking to disregard the memos may struggle to do so, given that the memos represent EPA's interpretation of its own rules. States seeking to follow a different policy will have to carefully explain and justify the move in their state implementation plans (SIPs) -- state plans for reducing emissions to attain EPA's NAAQS -- that must be approved by the agency.
Incorporation of the project netting guidance into a rule by EPA will also ultimately narrow states' options, although such a rule might also be easier to challenge in court as a “final agency action.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-nsr-overhaul-will-target-aggregation-maintenance-permit-policies
-
Green Groups Urge Senate to Reject Pompeo Nomination
Apr 10, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
More than 200 environmental advocacy groups are asking the Senate to reject President Trump's nomination of Mike Pompeo for secretary of State due to his climate views.
In a letter dated Tuesday, national and state groups including Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace and 350.org call the former GOP congressman from Kansas and current CIA director a "climate denier" and urge senators to reject his nomination.
"At a time when our planet is rapidly warming and millions are being impacted by climate change supercharged hurricanes, fires, drought, mudslides, and more, the last thing we need is another climate denier in the White House administration; his nomination must be rejected," the letter reads.
"Any Senator who votes in support of his nomination to the important position of Secretary of State is complicit in advancing the Trump/Pompeo pro-fossil fuel, anti-climate agenda."
Trump nominated Pompeo to lead the State Department after he ousted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last month amid a reshuffling of top advisers and Cabinet officials.
As secretary of State, Pompeo would be responsible for representing U.S. interests abroad and would have wide latitude in international negotiations on various issues, the environmental and left-leaning advocacy groups noted Tuesday.
"Climate change is the most pressing issue of our time; indeed, many of our past and remaining responsible national security experts consider climate change to be a major threat to this country’s national security and safety. We cannot afford to have a pro-fossil fuel climate denier in that position. All senators who accept the settled science and care for future generations around must reject his nomination," they said in the letter.
The letter cites concerns that Pompeo's stance on climate change could hinder international talks on climate, including the Paris accord. Trump announced last year that the U.S. would withdraw from the agreement.
Pompeo is facing a fierce nomination battle Thursday in front of the closely divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A number of senators have already vowed to oppose his nomination, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Pompeo has served as CIA chief since shortly after Trump took office in January 2017.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/382476-green-groups-ask-senate-to-reject-pompeo-nomination
-
Climate Solutions Caucus Looks Beyond Just Policy Goals
Apr 11, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Arianna Skibell
Climate change has been notably absent from the burgeoning conversation around infrastructure in recent months.
It went without a single mention in President Trump's plan to invest in the nation's roads, water systems and electrical grid, and climate has had only a bit part in various congressional hearings to examine the proposal.
But there is one group that's at least thinking about it: the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus.
"Infrastructure is the perfect opportunity for both parties to come together to prioritize coastal communities and those most at risk to sea level rise and climate change," Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), co-chairman of the caucus, said in a statement.
"By working together in a bipartisan way, we can make sure federal projects will mitigate for those effects in the future — not just saving property from damage, but also saving taxpayer dollars."
As a result of the departure of President Trump's top infrastructure aide last week, the president's hopes for a broad infrastructure bill this year are all but dead. Instead, leadership is looking to pass it through a piecemeal approach using a number of smaller measures.
Even so, some see the broad conversation as a potential opportunity for the Climate Solutions Caucus to notch some legislative and messaging wins and dispel criticism from the environmental left that it's a shelter for vulnerable Republicans.
"We have to start to have the infrastructure we're investing in deal with this, and I think that will come out of the Solutions Caucus," said Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), a member of the caucus, during a recent interview. "If the group doesn't do that, then they're useless. But I think they can do that."
Emily Wirzba, a legislative representative with the Quaker lobby group Friends Committee on National Legislation, said there could be opportunities for caucus members to include provisions on clean energy and barrier island protections.
"The infrastructure package is one of the few remaining legislative vehicles for 2018, and I think there could be opportunities for Climate Solutions Caucus members to weigh in and support climate resiliency both around energy infrastructure and natural coastal infrastructure," she said.
Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), a caucus member, confirmed bipartisan talks are happening within the group about the possibility of using infrastructure as a legislative vehicle for climate action, though he said members have not developed specifics nor a timeline.
"Let's face it, the climate is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it's an Earth issue. It's certainly an American issue," Crist told E&E News. "We have significant coasts that we have to be concerned about, and the nature of the rising sea levels affects everybody and it doesn't have an 'R' or a 'D' behind it."
Crist said there's no one measure he's pushing for but would rather see an "all-hands-on-deck" approach.
"None of the ideas that are discussed are bad. I think we have an obligation because the onset of this is so powerful that we need to get about the business of addressing it as quickly as possible," he said.
Roadblocks
That kind of wait-and-see strategy is typically how the caucus has operated in its limited legislative role.
It often ends up whipping votes for potentially controversial climate change legislation, rather than shaping the policy itself.
"My experience has been that those opportunities tend to pop up a bit unexpectedly and quite quickly," said Danny Richter, vice president of legislation and research at Citizens' Climate Lobby, the group that helped shape the caucus (E&E Daily, Sept. 6, 2017).
But one problem lawmakers face with infrastructure is that there are few clear-cut answers on how to deal with climate change.
Experts say it can be difficult to pin down what climate resilient infrastructure actually looks like.
The majority of building standards that communities are using are backward facing, according to Ryan Colker, vice president of the National Institute of Building Sciences.
"They take into account events that have already happened," he said in a recent interview.
National building rules are designed to withstand the intensity of historically severe weather, and climate change is threatening to produce intensified and unprecedented extremes, say scientists (E&E Daily, Feb. 6).
According to Richard Wright, a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers who focuses on climate change issues, the "science has not been done."
There is also little congressional focus in an election year. Most observers expect posturing votes and a few must-pass bills to come up, but not much of substance, much less a big infrastructure bill.
Lowenthal blames it on the Trump administration, but it's clear that Democrats, too, have little incentive to compromise on marquee Republican issues, such as changing environmental permitting.
"Under this administration we don't have a sustained effort on any issue for more than a week," Lowenthal said. "There's no planning. There's no commonsense goal that we've all agreed upon. It's just projects thrown out there."
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) has said he's started work on a broad, bipartisan package with ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). But leadership isn't on board with that approach, GOP aides say.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has suggested lawmakers could move pieces of the plan in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization and the water resources development authorization bill. Both are nominally must-pass measures that lawmakers are hoping to take up over the summer.
The FAA bill has already drawn some attention from the Climate Solutions Caucus. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said he's eyeing the legislation as a vehicle to extend the existing moratorium on offshore leasing and drilling in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico (E&E Daily, April 9).
But many predictions, even from the president himself, say most of the infrastructure conversation will have to wait until after the election.
"I would not expect something substantial on infrastructure in this Congress," Richter said.
Emerging conversations
Still, lawmakers are beginning to talk about ways to try to build climate resilient infrastructure.
At an event earlier this year, organized in part by the Citizens' Climate Lobby, caucus members Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) and Crist spoke about the need for improvements in the real estate sector to prepare for climate change (E&E Daily, March 7).
As an example of climate resilience legislation that could get rolled into another vehicle, Zeldin pointed to H.R. 2868, a bill he co-sponsored with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) that passed the House last summer.
The measure would authorize a study of flood insurance coverage for urban properties and give a credit to National Flood Insurance Program policyholders who invest in climate mitigation.
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) also raised the issue of climate change last month at the T&I Committee's first hearing to examine Trump's plan.
"Something's going on when it comes to sea-level rise," Sanford said. "We can have long debates as to the why and the what, but the bottom line is it's happening."
For Richter, that's all good news.
"The fact that you have Lee Zeldin co-hosting this event with Charlie Crist, talking about adaptation, talking about sea-level rise — I think that's a huge step forward," he said. "I do think those are the kind of signals that make it possible to reclaim the party of Theodore Roosevelt — conservatives that want to conserve."
While critics say caucus members talk a big talk without taking tangible action, Richter stressed that for "democracy to be healthy" there needs to be a space where people who disagree can have a conversation.
"Those forums are worth defending regardless of the specific output you can tie to that conversation. So for me, particularly considering how many caucuses in the House don't do that much, I've been extremely pleased in the number of the conversations, the frequency of conversations and the productive tone of the conversations that have happened with the caucus," he said.
"And if you're asking the question, is this good for the climate? I think the answer is unambiguously yes," he said. "It's better for the climate to depoliticize the issue. ... For me, that's the first and foremost reason the caucus is important."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/11/stories/1060078689
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested