Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/25/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Unveils Controversial ‘Transparency’ Rule Limiting What Research EPA Can Use
Apr 25, 2018 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt moved Tuesday to limit what science can be used in writing agency regulations, a change long sought by conservatives. -
(ACC Mentioned) Facing Legal Hurdles, EPA's 'Secret Science' Plan Punts on Key Issues
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has signed a long-promised plan barring the agency's use of any information in decision-making that is not publicly available, but the proposed rule punts on a host of tricky legal and implementation issues... -
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Offers up Another Gift to Polluters. You Know, the People He's Supposed to Monitor
Apr 25, 2018 | Los Angeles Times
By Editorial Board
Environmental Protection Agency director Scott Pruitt proposed a new rule Tuesday that he insisted would enhance "transparency," but which critics described as a thinly veiled attack on the use of science and scientific studies to craft regulations aimed at protecting the environment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Merkley, Others Question Pruitt Bid to Limit EPA's Use of Science
Apr 24, 2018 | KTVZ
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), joined by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sent a letter Tuesday to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt... -
(ACC Mentioned) Fire Suppression Market 2018 Outlook – U.S., Canada, Mexico, Germany, UK, Italy, Russia
Apr 25, 2018 | Facts Week
By Rahul
The U.S. fire suppression market is projected to exceed 150 million units of annual installation by 2024. Technological advancement in the product design and development coupled with growing construction industry will foster the industry outlook. -
Scott Pruitt’s Political Patron Now Questions the E.P.A. Chief’s Ethics
Apr 24, 2018 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, may be losing support even from his staunchest allies. His longtime political patron, Senator James Inhofe, said Tuesday that he would like to see an investigation into the ethical allegations against his protégé. -
Pruitt Must Address ‘Drip, Drip’ of Allegations, a GOP Leader Says
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sahil Kapur
The Senate's third-ranking Republican said April 24 that Scott Pruitt has to address ethics questions, which he suggested are making it difficult for the EPA chief to do his job. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appeals Court Upholds California's Prop 65 Glyphosate Listing
Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
In a ruling against agrochemical firm Monsanto, a California appellate court has affirmed that the state can use a mechanism relying on outside standards for listing substances subject to Proposition 65. -
California Court Upholds State's Prop. 65 Glyphosate Listing
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
A California appellate court has upheld the state's listing of the herbicide glyphosate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, rejecting arguments by manufacturer Monsanto Co. that the listing was unconstitutional, though a federal court has blocked the state... -
California Launches Healthy Nail Salon Certification Programme
Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has issued guidelines for local governments that choose to establish healthy nail salon programmes. -
NRDC Threatens Rare SDWA Suit over New Jersey City's LCR Compliance
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is threatening to file a rare suit against state and local officials in New Jersey over alleged violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) lead and copper rule (LCR), citing sampling and water treatment issues... -
Monsanto Bullies EPA on Glyphosate Ruling
Apr 24, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Violet Batcha
The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking public input on the health impacts of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. But despite mounting evidence, the EPA continues to ignore glyphosate’s hazards, and it looks like Monsanto’s under-the-table influence... -
Genx-Related Fluoroether Taints Water in Wells near West Virginia Chemours Plant
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
A fluoroether from a Chemours plant near Petersburg, W.Va., contaminates public and private well water in Ohio and West Virginia, U.S. EPA announced on April 23. -
Majority of EU Online Chemical Mixtures Adverts Lack Hazard Warnings
Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A major Echa Enforcement Forum project that checked more than 1,300 online adverts for hazardous chemical mixtures across the EU has found over 82% were non-compliant under the CLP Regulation. -
Enbridge Gets Conditional Approval in Pipeline Push
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Enbridge Inc.'s multibillion dollar plan to replace and reroute a transnational oil pipeline may ultimately face legal challenges, despite a Minnesota judge's conditional approval. -
Louisiana: $1.5 Billion in Tax Breaks for $9.4 Billion Plant
Apr 25, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Janet McConnaughey
State and local governments in Louisiana have offered an estimated $1.5 billion in incentives to persuade a Taiwanese company to locate a $9.4 billion plastics complex along the Mississippi River upstream from New Orleans, Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Don Pierson said. -
Dems Push Zinke to Block Leasing in Beaufort Sea
Apr 24, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
Four Democrats today asked Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to stop planning for a possible oil and gas lease sale in Alaska's Beaufort Sea next year. -
Shell Authorizes Vito Deepwater Project in Gulf
Apr 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell said Tuesday it's authorizing the multibillion-dollar Vito project in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico - the first major Gulf project announced this year. -
Pennsylvania Severance Tax Likely Offset by State Corporate Tax Cut, Says Analysis
Apr 24, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s latest proposal to implement a severance tax on natural gas production could generate more than $200 million annually in revenue over the next five years, according to an analysis of the 2018-2019 executive budget... -
New Colorado Law to Help with Capping Abandoned Wells
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Capping abandoned oil and gas wells will be a bit easier in Colorado under a bill signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D). -
Confusion, Lack of Safety Concern Led to Three Deaths at Packaging Corporation of America Mill
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Acompany’s internal confusion and lack of concern for safety caused the deaths of three workers and injuries to seven others last year at the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) container board mill in DeRidder, La. -
EPA Argues Ruling Scrapping Parts of Ozone Policy at Odds with Air Law
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel to reconsider its ruling scrapping parts of an Obama-era rule on implementing the 2008 ozone ambient air limit and revoking the 1997 standard, arguing that the court's fears over the rule... -
EPA, State Air Funding Cuts Might Hinder Implementation of NAAQS Memo
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
State air regulators are warning that President Donald Trump's bid to slash EPA and state air quality funding could hinder implementation of his memo directing the agency to overhaul and streamline the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) process... -
EPA's Toxic Air Pollution Policy Shift Sees Few Takers So Far
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Several businesses have asked two state officials about a new EPA policy that would let large emitters of toxic air pollution meet less stringent standards if they keep their emissions down. -
Macron Fails to Woo Trump on Paris Accord
Apr 24, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
French President Emmanuel Macron appeared to make little headway in climate discussions with President Trump today despite a firm show of friendship.
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) Pruitt Unveils Controversial ‘Transparency’ Rule Limiting What Research EPA Can Use
Apr 25, 2018 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
This post has been updated.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt moved Tuesday to limit what science can be used in writing agency regulations, a change long sought by conservatives.
The proposed rule would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly. Such restrictions could affect how the agency protects Americans from toxic chemicals, air pollution and other health risks.
Pruitt and proponents describe the new approach as an advance for transparency, one that will increase Americans’ trust and confidence in the research on which EPA decisions are based. “Today is a red-letter day,” he told a group of supporters at agency headquarters. “The science that we use is going to be transparent. It’s going to be reproducible.”
But a chorus of scientists and public health groups warn that the rule would effectively block the EPA from relying on long-standing, landmark studies on the harmful effects of air pollution and pesticide exposure. Such research often involves confidential personal or medical histories or proprietary information.
The move reflects a broader effort already underway to shift how the EPA conducts and uses science to guide its work. Pruitt has upended the standards for who can serve on its advisory committees, barring scientists who received agency grants for their research while still allowing those funded by industry.
His announcement Tuesday came as the administrator faces increasing heat for ethics and management decisions — from both sides of the political aisle, with even President Trump privately voicing more concern over the growing number of allegations. Pruitt only focused on the proposed rule during his remarks, saying his agency was “taking responsibility for how we do our work and respecting process.”
He made clear he intends the new requirements to be lasting ones. “This is not a policy,” he said. “This is not a memo.”
The proposal will be subject to a 30-day comment period, EPA officials said. Scientific organizations are already campaigning to block the rule from being finalized. Based on previous court cases, it could prompt legal challenges if implemented.
Former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said that requiring the kind of disclosure Pruitt envisions would have disqualified the federal government from tapping groundbreaking research, such as studies linking exposure to leaded gasoline to neurological damage or a major 1993 study by Harvard University that established the link between fine-particle air pollution and premature deaths.
Scientists often collect personal data from subjects but pledge to keep it confidential. Researchers will have trouble recruiting study participants if the rule is enacted, she predicted, even if they pledge to redact private information before handing it over to the government.
“The best studies follow individuals over time, so that you can control all the factors except for the ones you’re measuring,” said McCarthy, who now directs the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard’s public health school. “But it means following people’s personal history, their medical history. And nobody would want somebody to expose all of their private information.”
House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who was with Pruitt during his announcement Tuesday, has for years sought to establish a similar requirement. His 2017 legislation, titled the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, failed to pass both chambers.
Pruitt and Smith met at EPA headquarters on Jan. 9, according to Pruitt’s public calendar, and an email obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicates that the lawmaker pressed the administrator to adopt the legislation’s goal as his own.
Smith made “his pitch that EPA internally implement the HONEST Act [so that] no regulation can go into effect unless the scientific data is publicly available for review,” Aaron Ringel, deputy associate administrator for congressional affairs at the EPA, wrote other agency staffers. His email was obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a scientific advocacy organization.
Conservatives, such as Trump EPA transition team member Steve Milloy, have long tried to discredit independent research the agency used to justify limiting air pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels. A series of studies has shown that fine particulate matter, often referred to as soot, enters the lungs and bloodstream and can cause illnesses such as asthma and even premature death.
“During the Obama administration, the EPA wantonly destroyed 94 percent of the market value of the coal industry, killed thousands of coal mining jobs and wreaked havoc on coal mining families and communities,” Milloy said in a statement, “all based on data the EPA and its taxpayer-funded university researchers have been hiding from the public and Congress for more than 20 years.”
While the administration presses ahead, legal experts warn that the rule may be vulnerable to a court challenge. In unanimous decisions in 2002 and 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the EPA is not legally obligated to obtain and publicize the data underlying the research it considers in crafting regulations.
In the 2002 case, brought by the American Trucking Associations, two judges appointed by Ronald Reagan and one named by Bill Clinton wrote that they agreed with the agency that such a requirement “would be impractical and unnecessary.” The government’s defense had noted that “EPA’s reliance on published scientific studies without obtaining and reviewing the underlying data is not only reasonable, it is the only workable approach.”
A range of scientific organizations are already campaigning to block the rule from being finalized. On Monday, 985 scientists signed a letter organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, urging Pruitt not to forge ahead with the policy change.
“There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision-making,” they wrote. “If fully implemented, this proposal would greatly weaken EPA’s ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence across the full array of health studies.”
Under the proposed rule, third parties would be able to test and try to replicate the findings of studies submitted to the EPA. But, the scientists wrote, “many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events.”
Gretchen Goldman, an expert on air pollution and research director for the organization’s Center for Science and Democracy, said the rule could put some scientists in a quandary: Keeping personal health data or propriety information private would mean having their work ignored by the EPA.
“We have this incredible science-based process that works, and it has worked, by and large, even in the face of tremendous political pressures to not go with a science-based decision,” Goldman said.
The Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA employees, issued a report Tuesday stating that many older studies — in which the original data sets were either not maintained or stored in outdated formats — would be eliminated under the proposed rule.
And while there is no estimate yet for how much it would cost EPA to obtain and disseminate studies’ underlying data, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that Smith’s measure, if enacted, would cost the agency $250 million for initial compliance and then between $1 million and $100 million annually. A 2015 CBO analysis estimated that EPA would cut the number of studies it relies on by half because of the bill’s requirements.
Geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who is president of the National Academy of Sciences, said Tuesday that she is concerned the rule would prevent the EPA from relying on the best available scientific evidence.
“This decision seems hasty,” she wrote in an email. “I would be fearful that the very foundations of clean air and clean water could be undermined.”
Yet the American Chemistry Council praised Pruitt’s effort. “Our industry is committed to working with EPA to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations,” its statement said, “while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights.”
Joel Achenbach and Dino Grandoni contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/24/pruitt-to-unveil-controversial-transparency-rule-limiting-what-research-epa-can-use/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f4620145944c
-
(ACC Mentioned) Facing Legal Hurdles, EPA's 'Secret Science' Plan Punts on Key Issues
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has signed a long-promised plan barring the agency's use of any information in decision-making that is not publicly available, but the proposed rule punts on a host of tricky legal and implementation issues, including statutory mandates to use the best available science and how to address confidential trade secrets and medically protected data.
Instead, the proposed rule -- which appears to have cleared White House regulatory review within days of its submission -- seeks public comments on a host of topics, including whether there are additional statutory authorities the agency could use and what criteria it should use to justify any exceptions.
But the proposed rule, which Pruitt signed April 24, leaves the agency with significant flexibility to continue to rely on research that would otherwise be barred from consideration.
“The proposed rule directs EPA to make all reasonable efforts to explore methodologies, technologies, and institutional arrangements for making dose response models and data underlying pivotal regulatory science used in significant regulatory decisions available to the public in a manner sufficient for independent validation, consistent with law and protection of privacy, confidentiality, and national and homeland security,” a pre-publication copy of EPA's Federal Register notice states.
It also states that the proposal “does not compel the Agency to make that information available where it concludes after all such reasonable efforts that doing so in [a] way that complies with the law and appropriate protections is not possible.”
The proposed rule also restricts the requirements to “pivotal regulatory science for final significant regulatory actions pursuant to [Executive Order] 12866[;] the proposed rule ensures that this standard for transparency affects a smaller subset of regulations which are economically significant, create inconsistency for other federal agencies, alter budgetary impacts, or raise novel legal or policy issues.”
The proposed rule delivers on Pruitt's long-standing pledge to end the agency's use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
The policy is based on stalled legislation, long championed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the retiring chairman of the House science committee, which directs the agency to use the “best available science” in all its actions, but bars the agency from using any studies that cannot be released publicly online “in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
But the policy approach has drawn significant criticisms. Agency staff, for example, have warned of significant costs if the agency is forced to replicate studies on which it might rely.
In addition, chemical industry groups and some top officials, have raised concerns that adoption of the policy would prevent use of their studies that rely on confidential business information (CBI) to approve uses of pesticides and industrial chemicals.
Nancy Beck, the top political appointee in the toxics office, echoed those concerns in internal emails.
Best Available Science
Similarly, environmentalists and others have warned that many statutes, including the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act and others, require the agency to use best available science.
They have charged that failure to consider studies that rely on data that is protected by medical privacy laws -- an approach EPA has used, for example, when setting air quality standards -- is unlawful.
“This new policy would massively damage several EPA programs, including Superfund cleanups and the control of pesticides and toxic chemicals. It would probably most affect EPA’s program to protect public health by setting [national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)], since it would bar the Agency from considering a wide range of data on which it has historically relied," the Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA staff who have critiqued Pruitt's policies, said in an April 24 legal analysis.
"Such a policy would be illegal," the group said.
It noted in the case of the NAAQS, Congress required EPA to set standards at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety and to “base NAAQS on 'the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects [of air pollution] on public health.' Scientific knowledge comes in many forms, and it would be impossible for EPA to perform this task without at least considering all of them."
And John Walke, director of clean air programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says it is likely arbitrary if EPA were to seek to use CBI when approving chemical and pesticide uses but not use confidential medical data when setting NAAQS.
“It is arbitrary and illegal for EPA to condition use of science and relevant information on the public availability of confidential health information, confidential business information, computer codes, and the like, rather than the validity and integrity of that science and information,” Walke told the Washington Examiner.
“Moreover, EPA is very likely to tie itself up knots trying, unsuccessfully, to allow confidential information desired by industry, while disallowing health studies based on confidential patient data that would support stronger health safeguards,” he added.
EPA's proposed rule does not specifically address such concerns but states that the agency believes “that concerns about access to confidential or private information can, in many cases, be addressed through the application of solutions commonly in use across some parts of the Federal government.”
“Nothing in the proposed rule compels the disclosure of any confidential or private information in a manner that violates applicable legal and ethical protections. Other federal agencies have developed tools and methods to de-identify private information for a variety of disciplines,” the proposed rule says, though it does not provide details.
But such vague indications signals the agency will have to address the issue as it moves through the rulemaking process.
For example, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), where Beck worked prior to joining EPA, in an April 24 statement commended Pruitt and EPA staff “for their continued work to ensure that best available science and the weight of the scientific evidence is the basis for the regulatory decision-making process."
But the group said it will work with EPA “to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights.”
Lengthy List Of Questions
EPA's proposed rule includes a lengthy list of questions that it asks public commenters to address, ranging from suggestions to the statutory authority for the proposed rule to addressing specific implementation issues, including the CBI issue.
The agency notes, for example, that it would like comments “on how to balance appropriate protection for copyrighted or [CBI], including where protected by law, with requirements for increased transparency of pivotal regulatory science.”
Further, “EPA also seeks comments on which criteria the Agency should use to base any exceptions, including whether case-by-case exceptions may be appropriate … [or] whether a narrower scope of coverage would be appropriate, such as only final regulations that are determined to be 'major' under the Congressional Review Act, or 'economically significant' under the EO 12866,” the notice states.
Other examples include questions such as whether a phase-in period should be used or “how to address a circumstance in which EPA has a statutory requirement to make a determination from which scientific information publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation does not exist.”
At its most specific, the notice explains that the agency “is proposing to establish a clear policy for the transparency of the scientific information used for significant regulations: specifically, the dose-response data and models that underlie what we are calling 'pivotal regulatory science.'”
EPA defines this term as “the studies, models and analyses that drive the magnitude of the benefit-cost calculation, the level of a standard, or point-of-departure from which a reference value is calculated. In other words, they are critical to the calculation of a final regulatory standard of level, or to the quantified costs, benefits, risk and other impact on which a final regulation is based.” --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/facing-legal-hurdles-epas-secret-science-plan-punts-key-issues
-
Apr 25, 2018 | Los Angeles Times
By Editorial Board
Environmental Protection Agency director Scott Pruitt proposed a new rule Tuesday that he insisted would enhance "transparency," but which critics described as a thinly veiled attack on the use of science and scientific studies to craft regulations aimed at protecting the environment.
Under the rule, the EPA could consider only studies for which the underlying data are made public. Although that may sound like something that would enhance the scientific basis of the agency's work, in fact the new rule — long on the wish list of conservatives — would reward the very industries the agency is supposed to regulate. For instance, it would make it harder for EPA to use studies based on the health effects of pollutants to limit the damage they cause.
Notably, Pruitt is doing by fiat what Congress has steadfastly refused to do: adopt the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who believes human-caused climate change to be a myth and who has, as chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, routinely defied science to help the fossil-fuel industry. Iterations of Smith's bill were backed by groups such as Koch Industries, Exxon-Mobil and the American Chemistry Council, according to the New York Times.
Pruitt said cynically on Tuesday: "The American people ought to be able to have confidence, assurance that the findings, the record that we build … can be analyzed by those that are offering comments to us in rule making." But that's a pretext; it has long been clear that Pruitt's top priority in his job is to weaken the agency's ability to regulate industry.
Scientists who routinely conduct studies and comment on proposed regulations say there is nothing wrong with the system the agency currently uses. Many studies about the health impacts of pollutants are based on the private medical records of individuals. But under this proposed rule, any study that promised those individuals confidentiality could not be used. "These are phony issues that weaponize 'transparency' to facilitate political interference in science-based decision-making, rather than genuinely address either," nearly 1,000 scientists said in a letter opposing the rule. "The result will be policies and practices that will ignore significant risks to the health of every American."
Scientists who submit studies for peer review or for publication in a scientific journal don't generally have to turn over such confidential data.
Pruitt's move follows his directive last year that scientists who receive grants from the EPA can no longer serve on the agency's scientific advisory boards because, he argued, they have a conflict of interest. The result: Industry representatives and industry-friendly state officialshave replaced academics in helping the agency frame policy. Pruitt has also ordered a rollback of higher emissions standards for motor vehicles, consolidated in his office decision-making on which waterways fall under the Clean Water Act and targeted for repeal more than 20 other regulations. Fortunately, several state attorneys general and nonprofit environmental watchdog groups have formed something of a legal firewall with court challenges over Pruitt's dangerous actions. But suing isn't the same as winning, and more reasonable voices in Washington must stand up to Pruitt and to the threat he poses to clean air and water, and to the health of the nation.
Pruitt has to go. His ethical lapses are legion. He allegedly took a sweetheart deal last year for cheap living space in a Washington townhouse co-owned by the wife of an oil lobbyist. He has squandered taxpayers' money on a soundproof phone room in his office, on exorbitant trips, and in using a round-the-clock security detail even when on personal business. The EPA say he needs the security (which has already cost nearly $3 million) because of threats; a Buzzfeed reporter, however, says the agency told him that it could find no records of threats.
But the real problem with Pruitt is his unrelenting efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other protections that have reduced pollution and saved millions of American lives without undermining the U.S. economy. Making a profit and having a clean, safe environment are not mutually exclusive.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-pruitt-epa-science-regulations-trump-20180425-story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Merkley, Others Question Pruitt Bid to Limit EPA's Use of Science
Apr 24, 2018 | KTVZ
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), joined by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), sent a letter Tuesday to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, requesting more information on his planned proposal to change the ways in which EPA uses scientific information.
EPA’s proposal, scheduled to be announced later Tuesday, would reportedly limit the scientific information used in rulemaking, allow the agency to ignore scientific studies where the underlying data has not been made public, and force the agency to only use scientific data that can be reproduced, the lawmakers said.
The senators wrote, “We write to inquire about recent reports regarding your intention to limit the ways in which EPA uses scientific information. Your proposed new policy likely violates several laws with which EPA must comply as the agency writes rules to protect our air, water and land from harmful pollution.”
The new policy requiring decision-making to only consider publicly available data could force EPA, an agency charged with protecting public health, to ignore peer-reviewed medical studies that rely on personally identifiable information to determine health impacts of its actions, the senators said.
The new rule could also prevent EPA from considering confidential business information, like proprietary safety information on a new chemical it is charged with regulating, or information submitted by auto companies intended to aid in determining appropriate greenhouse gas tailpipe standards.
The new policy’s requirement that underlying data must be reproducible could also force EPA to ignore invaluable information from environmental disasters, such as the studies done after the BP oil spill or the human health studies done to examine the effects of nuclear weapons, they argued.
The letter continues, “The proposed new policy will require EPA—when developing rules—to rely only on scientific studies where the underlying data have been made public and are available to be reproduced. Such a policy would likely violate several laws that mandate the use of ‘best available science,’ including the Toxic Substances Control Act and Safe Drinking Water Act because it would require EPA to ignore some of the ‘best’ scientific studies.
"Courts have explained that ‘best available science’ means that agencies ‘should seek out and consider all existing scientific evidence relevant to the decision’ and ‘cannot ignore existing data.’… In addition to potentially violating statutory requirements, EPA’s proposed new policy would also likely run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to consider and respond to all information presented to it pursuant to a rulemaking.”
Yesterday, nearly 1,000 scientists sent a letter to Administrator Pruitt, calling on him to “cease any plans to restrict the types of science that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use in regulatory decision making. EPA can only adequately protect our air and water and keep us safe from harmful chemicals if it takes full advantage of the wealth of scientific research that is available to the agency.”
The full text of the letter to Administrator Pruitt can be found below.
###
April 24, 2018
The Honorable Scott Pruitt
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Administrator Pruitt,
We write to inquire about recent reports regarding your intention to limit the ways in which EPA uses scientific information. Your proposed new policy likely violates several laws with which EPA must comply as the agency writes rules to protect our air, water and land from harmful pollution. The proposed new policy would require EPA to use only data that are public and reproducible. It is very similar to Congressional efforts to require that all raw data from scientific studies is available to the public before EPA can use it to act.[1] In April 2017, Senator Carper sent a letter to you regarding your staff’s analysis of one of these efforts, H.R. 1430, the HONEST Act. In that letter, Senator Carper shared his concerns regarding reports that EPA’s leadership prevented analysis conducted by EPA career staff analysts from being transmitted to the Congressional Budget Office. That staff analysis found that the HONEST Act would cost $250 million per year to implement. You have yet to respond to the April 2017 letter.
The proposed new policy will require EPA—when developing rules—to rely only on scientific studies where the underlying data have been made public and are available to be reproduced. Such a policy would likely violate several laws that mandate the use of “best available science,” including the Toxic Substances Control Act[2] and Safe Drinking Water Act[3] because it would require EPA to ignore some of the “best” scientific studies. Courts have explained that “best available science” means that agencies ‘“should seek out and consider all existing scientific evidence relevant to the decision’” and ‘“cannot ignore existing data.’”[4]
In addition to potentially violating statutory requirements, EPA’s proposed new policy would also likely run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to consider and respond to all information presented to it pursuant to a rulemaking. Were a comment that contained scientific information that the proposed new policy would exclude from consideration to be submitted as part of a rulemaking, the APA would require that you consider it, setting up a direct conflict between the APA and the proposed new policy.
What’s more, this proposed new policy could force EPA to choose whether to ignore non-public information submitted by companies, or to disclose it publicly. For example, EPA might not be able to consider confidential business information when determining whether to allow a chemical company to manufacture a new chemical. Further, the agency might not be able to use proprietary information submitted by auto companies intended to aid in determining appropriate greenhouse gas tailpipe standards unless the data were made public.
Finally, under new policy’s requirement that the underlying data used to develop regulations be must be able to be reproduced, EPA could not use unique research study data collected following pollution events. Such a requirement would exclude valuable information, such as the studies done after the BP oil spill[5] or the human health studies done to study the effects of nuclear weapons,[6] or the Framingham Heart Study (a 70-years-long cardiovascular study of the residents of Framingham, Massachusetts).
To help us better understand this anticipated policy and how it will be implemented in a manner consistent with EPA’s other statutory obligations and responsibility to make sound and informed policy decisions, we respectfully request that you respond to the following questions by May 24, 2018:
1. Please provide a copy of the new policy.
2. The anticipated policy, as well as the HONEST Act and Secret Science Act, were born from the allegation that EPA’s work is often based on secret science—i.e., scientific studies whose data has not been made available to and vetted by the public. However, in reality, scientific studies—whether they and the underlying data are made publicly available or not—are subject to rigorous peer review to ensure that the science is sound before agencies rely on it to make policy. In fact, courts have recognized that the best available science required under the law must be peer-reviewed.[7]Please explain why you believe that the peer review process used in the scientific community is not sufficient to be relied upon for agency policy-making.
3. Please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) related to this new policy and its development.
4. Please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) containing any discussion or analysis regarding how it will be possible to comply with both this policy and the Administrative Procedure Act. How will EPA treat a study that is ineligible for consideration under the new policy but must be considered and responded to under the Administrative Procedure Act because, for example, a member of the public has submitted it to the Agency during notice and comment on a proposed rule?
5. Please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) containing any discussion or analysis regarding how it will be possible to comply with both this policy and statutory mandates to use the best available science (or other statutory requirements that guide EPA’s use of scientific information).
6. Please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) containing any discussion or analysis regarding how EPA will handle confidential personal health information, confidential business information, trade secrets or other information required to be kept non-public under this new policy. How does EPA intend to handle confidential information submitted to it by companies? For example, will EPA reject chemical safety data submitted by chemical companies from being considered under the Toxic Substances Control Act because that data contains confidential business information? Will it disclose proprietary data submitted by car companies, or simply decide not to use it?
7. Has EPA conducted an analysis of the cost of implementing the new policy? If so, please provide a copy of the analysis as well as all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) related to the analysis. Does EPA plan to redact confidential information before the science is made public, or will it just eliminate the study from being utilized completely? If EPA intends to redact the information, has EPA calculated the cost of redacting thousands of documents and ensuring that each page made public is in compliance with EPA’s own privacy policy?[8]
8. Have EPA and the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs discussed this new policy? If so, please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) containing any discussions between EPA and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs regarding this new policy.
9. Did EPA communicate with scientific advocacy organizations or academies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science or the American Geophysical Union, while formulating this new policy? If so, please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) evincing these discussions.
10. Did EPA communicate with any regulated entities or trade associations, such as the American Chemistry Council, about the policy at any time before its release? If so, please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) evincing these discussions. Will the new policy apply to all regulated areas (air, water, and land) and regulated industries equally? If not, please explain any differences.
11. Please provide all documents (including emails, comments, memos, white papers, meeting minutes and correspondence) containing any discussions or analysis about how EPA will treat data collected in unique research studies that cannot or should not be reproduced. Will EPA exclude these important studies under the reproducibility prong of the new policy?
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter.
http://www.ktvz.com/news/merkley-others-question-pruiit-bid-to-limit-epas-use-of-science/734019351
-
Apr 25, 2018 | Facts Week
By Rahul
The U.S. fire suppression market is projected to exceed 150 million units of annual installation by 2024. Technological advancement in the product design and development coupled with growing construction industry will foster the industry outlook. Rising demand for less toxic, environment friendly, new generation and automatic systems will further enhance the business growth. In the U.S., National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has set regulations and codes to standardize the protection systems and equipment in the country.
Fire Suppression Market is predicted to exceed USD 16 billion by 2024. strict government norms towards public safety coupled with rising consumer awareness will stimulate the fire suppression market size. Introduction of safety standards and codes along with growing commercial floorspace will further boost the product penetration. As per the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the fire codes set by IFC and NFPA states that zones with upholstered furniture must be installed with sprinkler system.
Growing awareness towards the adoption of fire protection equipment to mitigate the accidents and hazards will fuel the fire suppression market growth. Introduction of green buildings in Europe along with strict safety regulations will foster the business landscape. In 2014, as per the NFPA, the U.S. reported around 37,000 accidents from industrial sector, occurred majorly due to structured fires.
Rapid industrialization across the developing nations coupled with growing demand for safety equipment will embellish the fire suppression market share. Ongoing investments across Africa and Asia-Pacific towards the expansion of commercial, industrial, and residential establishments will further propel the product penetration. As per the statistics bureau of Central Banks and Governments, Asia Pacific has witnessed investment of USD 10.6 billion for the development of Industrial sector in 2016.
Germany fire suppression market is set to witness substantial growth owing to the improvisation and enhancement of safety standards. As per European Commission, offices and residential buildings with height of over 60 meters must be installed with a sprinkler system to meet the safety standards in Germany.
Saudi Arabia fire suppression market was valued over 150 million in 2016 on account of ongoing oil & gas projects coupled with establishment and expansion of other available industries. In 2015, the total number of industrial units reached up to 7,007 with an investment of USD 290 billion. Growing investments toward advanced building technologies along with government regulations to reduce natural hazards will further boost the product adoption.
Key players in global fire suppression market include United Technologies Corporation, TYCO, Minimax, Bristol Fire Engineering, Lubrizol, Halma PLC, Firetronics, SFFECO, NAFFCO, Master Fire Preventions, National Fire Equipment and Amerex Corporation.
https://factsweek.com/722702/fire-suppression-market/
-
Scott Pruitt’s Political Patron Now Questions the E.P.A. Chief’s Ethics
Apr 24, 2018 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, may be losing support even from his staunchest allies. His longtime political patron, Senator James Inhofe, said Tuesday that he would like to see an investigation into the ethical allegations against his protégé. If any prove true, he said, they could “have an effect” on Mr. Pruitt’s job.
Mr. Inhofe said he was troubled by a recent New York Times story that detailed allegations of unchecked spending and ethics questions during Mr. Pruitt’s career as attorney general and state senator in Oklahoma.
“I’ve known him since he was in the state legislature and supported him,” Mr. Inhofe said Tuesday. “These are accusations I did not know anything about.”
It is a remarkable turn for Mr. Inhofe, who as the senior senator from Oklahoma had championed the career of Mr. Pruitt, a fellow conservative from his home state.
Mr. Inhofe, 83, who has long been known for his view that the established science of human-caused climate change is a hoax, seemed to have found a kindred spirit and possible successor in Mr. Pruitt, 49. As attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt built his career suing the Obama administration over environmental regulations, particularly on climate change. Mr. Pruitt is widely thought to be considering a run for Mr. Inhofe’s Senate seat when he retires.
Mr. Inhofe once flew Mr. Pruitt around the state in his personal airplane as the younger man campaigned for office. When the Trump administration nominated Mr. Pruitt to run the E.P.A., Mr. Inhofe gave him a glowing introductory speech at his Senate confirmation hearing.
As reports have piled up in recent weeks questioning the ethics of several of Mr. Pruitt’s decisions, including his illegal purchase of an office phone booth, his expenditures on first-class travel and his rental of a condominium linked to an energy lobbyist, Mr. Inhofe continued to support him.
But Mr. Inhofe said on Tuesday that he was now concerned enough about the allegations — particularly those of ethical lapses in Oklahoma — that he would like to see them investigated.
“I want to check and see how authentic the accusations against him are. If they are authentic it could have an effect,” he said. “But sometimes things are not all that authentic.”
The possible loss of Mr. Inhofe’s support means “that Pruitt is in big trouble,” John Feehery, a Republican strategist who worked for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the former House majority leader Tom DeLay, wrote in an email.
Ultimately, of course, Mr. Pruitt’s fate depends on President Trump, who until now has continued to back his E.P.A. chief, cheering his aggressive efforts to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations.
Asked about Mr. Pruitt on Monday, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said: “Administrator Pruitt has done a good job of implementing the president’s policies, particularly on deregulation; making the United States less energy-dependent and becoming more energy independent. Those are good things. However, the other things certainly are something that we’re monitoring and looking at and I’ll keep you posted.”
Mr. Inhofe said he had not spoken with Mr. Trump or Mr. Pruitt in recent days, but the president and the Oklahoma senator have a good relationship. They spoke several times by phone during Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and Mr. Inhofe’s influence on environmental policy is evident throughout the Trump administration: many of his former staff members now work at the White House and the E.P.A.
Indeed, much of Mr. Trump’s environmental agenda, like undoing E.P.A. climate change rules and pulling the United States out of the Paris climate change accord, is taken straight from the playbook Mr. Inhofe has pushed for years on Capitol Hill.
Privately, many of the former Inhofe staff members now in the Trump administration say they are fed up with the chaos surrounding Mr. Pruitt and are more than ready to see him go. They noted that another former member of Inhofe’s staff, Andrew Wheeler, had recently been confirmed as Mr. Pruitt’s deputy, and that Mr. Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, was well positioned to continue the agenda of rolling back environmental rules should Mr. Pruitt step down.
Some of the former Inhofe staff members noted that they were not surprised to see their former boss raise questions about Mr. Pruitt once the allegations about Mr. Pruitt’s ethical lapses touched his home state.
“Senator Inhofe is a very principled guy,” said Dimitri Karakitsos, who used to work for Mr. Inhofe and now represents energy companies with the Washington law firm Holland & Knight. “Despite his reputation for being an ideologue, his character is why he has such good relationships with so many people, including Democrats. He’s not the type of person to blindly support someone in any circumstance.”
Mr. Karakitsos added: “He’s big on government waste and abuse of power. If there is inappropriate behavior or misappropriation of funds, he takes that seriously, and he is a great champion and voice for the people of Oklahoma who take it seriously as well.”
Mr. Pruitt is scheduled to appear before two House committees for questioning on Thursday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/climate/pruitt-inhofe-epa-ethics.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience
-
Pruitt Must Address ‘Drip, Drip’ of Allegations, a GOP Leader Says
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sahil Kapur
The Senate's third-ranking Republican said April 24 that Scott Pruitt has to address ethics questions, which he suggested are making it difficult for the EPA chief to do his job.
“Obviously, Scott Pruitt has got some serious questions to answer,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters at the Capitol. “So we'll see where that goes. But I think that's being looked at, not just by the administration but also up here” in the Senate.
Thune said many members of Congress, particularly Republicans “like, on a policy level, many of the things that Administrator Pruitt is doing.” But on questions about Pruitt's spending and travel, “obviously it's hard to explain that away. He's going to have to do it.“
The remarks of Thune—who chairs the Senate Republican Conference—indicate a crack in support for Pruitt among Republican leaders. They come amid scrutiny of Pruitt's unorthodox $50-per-night rental of a Capitol Hill bedroom from a lobbyist's wife, frequent travel to his home state of Oklahoma and questionable spending decisions at the EPA.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who until recently had been one of Pruitt's staunchest defenders, told reporters he had become concerned about some of the recent allegations against the administrator.
“If they are all accurate, I would be very disturbed,” Inhofe said. Asked if Pruitt should step down if the allegations are true, Inhofe said it “depends on which ones we are talking about.“
Thune said the steady stream of revelations creates “a drip, drip out there, and that makes it harder to be effective in his job.”
He wouldn't say if Pruitt should stay in his job or step down.
Democrats in Congress have been calling for Pruitt's ouster and are likely to highlight the controversies surrounding him and other members of President Donald Trump's cabinet as they campaign ahead of November congressional elections. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California accused the Trump administration of fostering a “culture of corruption.“
—With assistance from Jennifer A. Dlouhy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132775792&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132775792&jd=132775792
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appeals Court Upholds California's Prop 65 Glyphosate Listing
Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
In a ruling against agrochemical firm Monsanto, a California appellate court has affirmed that the state can use a mechanism relying on outside standards for listing substances subject to Proposition 65.
The 3-0 ruling by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno upholds a 2017 decision that it is not an "unconstitutional delegation of authority" to list chemicals, based on determinations by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc).
Monsanto sued in January 2016, after the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) announced its intention to list the herbicide glyphosate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. The proposal followed Iarc’s classification of the chemical as "probably" carcinogenic to humans.
Inclusion on the Proposition 65 list triggers requirements that consumers and employees exposed to the substance are warned, primarily through labelling.
Labour code mechanism
Proposition 65's "labour code mechanism" requires listing of materials that Iarc deems to be carcinogens. Stakeholders are not allowed to challenge the science underlying the classification.
Monsanto argued this process unconstitutionally delegates state authority to bodies like Iarc.
But the appellate panel agreed with the lower court that California voters made the key policy decisions in enacting Proposition 65. The wording of the law requires listing of chemicals designated as carcinogens or teratogens by "a body considered to be authoritative" by state experts.
Iarc is properly considered such an "authoritative" body, the court ruled.
The panel noted that the law allows a company to seek an exemption from labelling requirements, by demonstrating to Oehha that a substance is not hazardous at actual exposure levels.
Monsanto could appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy at Monsanto, said in a statement that "no regulatory body in the world has concluded that glyphosate causes cancer" and Iarc’s finding was based on "flawed and incomplete science".
However, Rebecca Riley, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said: "This is a win for science and democracy. Monsanto doesn't get to tell California how to protect its people from dangerous chemicals or how to run the Prop 65 list."
Labelling suspended
Monsanto has been more successful in challenging Proposition 65 in federal court, arguing that the requirement to label a product as a carcinogen violates the company's free speech rights.
A federal judge agreed in March that it is unconstitutional to require a statement on labels if it is not an "undisputed fact". He temporarily blocked California from requiring labelling of products containing the herbicide, while that lawsuit continues.
The ruling does not interfere with the state’s adding glyphosate to the Proposition 65 list. But if the interpretation sticks, California could be forced to defend the scientific basis underlying the listing of chemicals in order to impose the warning requirements.
The procedures behind Iarc's decisions, and particularly its findings on glyphosate, have been challenged in the US Congress. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) launched a campaign to alter Iarc's practices last year, and stepped it up in January with the formation of the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research Coalition.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66202/appeals-court-upholds-californias-prop-65-glyphosate-listing
-
California Court Upholds State's Prop. 65 Glyphosate Listing
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
A California appellate court has upheld the state's listing of the herbicide glyphosate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, rejecting arguments by manufacturer Monsanto Co. that the listing was unconstitutional, though a federal court has blocked the state from requiring the pesticide be labeled as a carcinogen.
A three-judge panel of California's Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously April 19 in Monsanto Co. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) et al. to reject the company's arguments that the listing, based on the findings of a non-governmental global health science organization, was unconstitutional.
Monsanto is fighting OEHHA's decision to list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's widely used Roundup product and many other herbicides, under Prop. 65.
In the instant case, the company challenged the program's use of a Labor Code listing for glyphosate as a means of adding the chemical to the list of substances addressed under Prop. 65. The company argued in part that the listing was unconstitutional because it was based on a scientific assessment conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
But the court rejected the company's argument, finding it was inapplicable because IARC is not a “private corporation” as alleged by the industry groups.
“On appeal, the parties dispute whether the Agency is a 'private corporation,' whether it was named or identified by the [Prop. 65] initiative, and whether the initiative provided the Agency with any power,” the ruling states. “We conclude appellants cannot state a claim for relief because the Agency does not qualify as a private corporation under the constitutional provision."
Monsanto representatives are reviewing the ruling “and will be analyzing further options,” Scott Partridge, the company's vice president of global strategy, said in a written statement. Options may include a petition to the California Supreme Court for review.
“More than 800 scientific studies, the U.S. EPA and the National Institutes of Health have determined that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer,” Partridge said.
He noted that a federal district court judge in California in February ruled in favor of Monsanto Co. and national agriculture groups in blocking OEHHA from requiring that Prop. 65 carcinogen warning labels be affixed to products containing glyphosate while the federal litigation proceeds on its merits. Prior to the injunction, companies would have been required to provide the warnings beginning July 7.
That Feb. 26 preliminary injunction order in National Association of Wheat Growers, et al., v. Lauren Zeise, et al. by Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, concludes that requiring companies to provide Prop. 65 warnings saying that glyphosate is "known to the state of California to cause cancer" would be "false and misleading" and violate companies' First Amendment rights.
"On the evidence before the court, the required warning for glyphosate does not appear to be factually accurate and uncontroversial because it conveys the message that glyphosate's carcinogenicity is an undisputed fact, when almost all other regulators have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer," the Feb. 26 order states.
However, Shubb also faulted the industry plaintiff groups' First Amendment arguments that the Prop. 65 listing of glyphosate itself should be rescinded through an injunction, saying that they likely will fail on their merits.
As a result, Monsanto and the agriculture groups appear to face an uphill battle to overturn the OEHHA listing.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-court-upholds-states-prop-65-glyphosate-listing
-
California Launches Healthy Nail Salon Certification Programme
Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has issued guidelines for local governments that choose to establish healthy nail salon programmes.
The initiative, mandated by the state legislature in 2016, aims to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals for employees and customers.
The department estimates that California has 48,000 nail salons. Of these, about 200 have been designated as 'healthy' in five jurisdictions that already have a similar programme: Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties; the city of Santa Monica; and the city and county of San Francisco.
In order to be certified as a healthy nail salon, a business must:
· choose polishes and related products that do not contain dibutyl phthalate (DBP), toluene, formaldehyde, or liquid methyl methacrylate (MMA) monomer;
· avoid using nail polish thinners, if possible, and use none that contain toluene or methyl ethyl ketone (MEK);
· choose polish removers that do not contain ethyl acetate or butyl acetate;
· obtain safety data sheets (SDSs) for all products used;
· have employees use disposable gloves and evaluate whether respirator masks are needed to prevent exposure to dust;
· follow approved practices for handling, storing and disposing of toxic substances, as well as approved sanitation practices; and
· provide at least basic ventilation.
To receive a 'gold' certification, salons must also have air conditioning and/or a job-specific ventilation system; employ protective goggles; use environmentally friendly cleaning products; provide ergonomic seating and lighting; and train employees on healthy work practices.
The DTSC is separately considering naming nail salon products as a 'priority product' under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66204/california-launches-healthy-nail-salon-certification-programme
-
NRDC Threatens Rare SDWA Suit over New Jersey City's LCR Compliance
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is threatening to file a rare suit against state and local officials in New Jersey over alleged violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) lead and copper rule (LCR), citing sampling and water treatment issues that are central to EPA's debate over how to update the LCR.
SDWA allows for citizen suits when plaintiffs have given proper notice and if federal or state authorities are not “diligently prosecuting a civil action” in federal court, but compared with other environmental statutes, very few citizen suits have been brought under the drinking water law.
NRDC and a group of educators who teach in public schools in Newark, NJ, announced their notice of intent to sueApril 24, noting that Newark's drinking water lead levels are among the highest recorded by a large water system in the United States in recent years.
In 2017, NRDC says, more than 10 percent of samples collected by the Newark Water Department showed lead levels in excess of 26 parts per billion (ppb) -- significantly higher than the federal action level of 15 ppb. Approximately 20 percent of samples were above 15 ppb, with some individual sampling locations jumping to three and even nine times higher, NRDC says, adding that the samples above the action level also were measured in February, March and April.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued the city two notices of non-compliance with SDWA's LCR for limiting lead in drinking water, first in July 2017 and a second on Jan. 23, 2018, NRDC says.
NRDC alleges Newark is violating the LCR in five ways and that DEP is violating the rule in two ways.
The city's alleged violations include impermissibly sampling lower-priority priority sites that are less likely to have high lead concentrations in order to reach a 100-sample quota in each monitoring period, which NRDC says is likely masking the extent of the lead crisis.
Compliance with the lead portion of the LCR is determined by sampling at the tap in people's homes, and if samples indicate concentrations above the action level of 15 ppb, the water utility is required to change its corrosion control techniques (CCT) by adjusting the chemicals used in water treatment.
Newark's other alleged violations are failing to meet a 1997 deadline for installing optimal CCT; failing to maintain optimal CCT; failing to provide each water system customer with printed materials containing information about the health effects of lead and how to get their water tested; and failing to complete an evaluation of the materials used in Newark’s water distribution system, including identifying the locations of its lead service lines, in order to inform the city's monitoring for lead and other contaminants.
NRDC alleges DEP has violated the LCR by failing to meet a 1995 deadline for approving optimal CCT proposed by the water system or designating its own treatment plan for Newark, and providing written notice of its determination. Additionally, NRDC says the state has failed to establish for Newark optimal water quality parameters, which provide values for water quality indicators such as pH level and chemicals added to the water. The parameters are used to measure whether a system is effectively operating its CCT.
LCR Revisions
EPA, as part of its effort to revise the LCR, is considering a number of ways to change the sampling requirements, following concerns that current requirements do not accurately measure lead exposure.
State regulators have urged EPA to keep the sampling requirements as close to the current rule as possible because they are well known.
Separately, rural water utilities are urging EPA to decouple tap sampling requirements from utility compliance and allow drinking water utilities to demonstrate compliance with CCT requirements through water quality parameter sampling within the public water system
EPA is also weighing changes to its CCT requirements, although the American Water Works Association (AWWA) has warned EPA that identifying corrosion control changes that will reduce lead levels further for systems already reliably below the action level, while also not leading to undesirable unintended consequences will likely take longer than the quick action the agency has indicated it wants on the rule.
AWWA says when EPA first promulgated the LCR, there was a surge in technical capacity for selecting CCT, but this expert capacity “has not been adequately developed through academia, maintained in the water system or consulting engineering community, or retained in the regulatory community,” and new capacity must be built.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/nrdc-threatens-rare-sdwa-suit-over-new-jersey-citys-lcr-compliance
-
Monsanto Bullies EPA on Glyphosate Ruling
Apr 24, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Violet Batcha
The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking public input on the health impacts of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. But despite mounting evidence, the EPA continues to ignore glyphosate’s hazards, and it looks like Monsanto’s under-the-table influence may be a reason why.
Monsanto has launched a campaign to pressure the EPA into declaring glyphosate safe. It is terrified of losing the profits from selling this ubiquitous herbicide.
Tell the EPA to stand up to Monsanto and protect human health.
The use of glyphosate on U.S. farmland has exploded in recent years. A recent studyfound that Americans’ exposure to the pesticide has increased fivefold since it was first introduced more than 20 years ago.
As use of glyphosate has increased, so have concerns about its health hazards.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Earlier this year, California added glyphosate to the state’s Proposition 65 registry as a chemical known to cause cancer. A 2018 study out of Indiana University linked glyphosate to shorter pregnancy, which can increase a child’s risk of chronic diseases later in life.
California’s Proposition 65 listing would require cancer warning labels on Roundup. A group of Big Ag lobbyists, backed by Monsanto, has taken action to stop the labeling rule from taking effect.
Meanwhile, unsealed court documents have revealed Monsanto’s efforts to collude with the EPA to cover up glyphosate’s cancer risks. In lawsuits against Monsanto by cancer victims, an EPA official who was in charge of evaluating the herbicide's cancer risk has been accused of aiding the company’s efforts to kill the agency's investigation.
The EPA’s draft safety assessment reviewed 14 cancer studies of glyphosate in animals. Eight of the studies reported elevated cancer rates in at least one organ or tissue. But the agency dismissed the findings, contending that glyphosate is “unlikely to cause cancer,” which means that American children will continue ingesting glyphosate through their everyday foods.
But now we have a chance to make our voices heard. We can urge the EPA not to cave to Monsanto’s pressure and to review all the science linking glyphosate to cancer. But we only have until April 30 to flood the EPA with comments.
Make sure EPA chief Scott Pruitt knows you’re watching. Tell him to stand up to Monsanto and protect public health.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/04/monsanto-bullies-epa-glyphosate-ruling#.WuA4V76FPIU
-
Genx-Related Fluoroether Taints Water in Wells near West Virginia Chemours Plant
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
A fluoroether from a Chemours plant near Petersburg, W.Va., contaminates public and private well water in Ohio and West Virginia, U.S. EPA announced on April 23.
This marks the first time that the industrial chemical hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) has been found in U.S. water outside of North Carolina. In that state, the substance contaminates the Cape Fear River downstream of a Chemours plant near Fayetteville that makes fluoroethers. HFPO-DA has also been found in that river’s sediments, well water up to 11 km from the plant, and rainwater.
Tests of well water in West Virginia and Ohio found HFPO-DA at levels ranging from 16 to 81 parts per trillion in untreated drinking water from nine of 14 wells that Chemours sampled earlier this year at EPA’s behest.
Drinking water drawn from these wells is run through granulated activated carbon filters to strip out another industrial compound, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The filters, installed between August 2011 and February of this year, apparently also remove HFPO-DA, the water tests suggest. After filtering, the amount of HFPO-DA dropped to less than 10 ppt, EPA says.
or decades, the West Virginia facility, which DuPont owned before it spun off Chemours in 2015, discharged PFOA into the Ohio River and placed PFOA-containing waste in dumps. The facility also emitted the perfluorocarbon to air, where it blew over the river and deposited on Ohio land. From there, it was carried to aquifers by water percolating through the soil. DuPont installed the granulated activated carbon drinking water filters on the wells early this century. In 2017, DuPont and Chemours together agreed to pay $670 million to settle 3,550 lawsuits in West Virginia and Ohio from residents who say their health was harmed by drinking PFOA-tainted water. The International Agency for Research on Cancer says PFOA is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
DuPont also formerly owned the North Carolina plant, now the property of Chemours. That facility produces GenX, the ammonium salt of HFPO-DA. GenX is an industrial surfactant used as a polymerization aid to manufacture fluoropolymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene, which is made at Chemours’s West Virginia facility. DuPont introduced GenX about eight years ago as a “sustainable replacement” for PFOA. The health risks from drinking HFPO-DA are unclear, but some studies suggest it could be more toxic than PFOA.
Chemours did not respond to C&EN’s requests for comment on this or other articles this year about fluoroether pollution.
EPA says it is working closely with regulators in West Virginia and Ohio on the well-water contamination.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/GenX-related-fluoroether-taints-water/96/web/2018/04
-
Majority of EU Online Chemical Mixtures Adverts Lack Hazard Warnings
Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A major Echa Enforcement Forum project that checked more than 1,300 online adverts for hazardous chemical mixtures across the EU has found over 82% were non-compliant under the CLP Regulation.
Of the 1,083 non-compliant internet adverts, 903 did not mention the type or types of hazard indicated on the product label, the agency said. And only 220 – 16.7% of inspected online adverts – had the correct information on hazard.
Nearly all of the inspected websites – 95.9% – belonged to professional suppliers.
Checks were carried out on the following product types:
· household, e.g. cleaning products (37.7%);
· construction, e.g. paints, coatings, adhesives (16.7%);
· motor, e.g. cleaning agents, coatings, lubricants (14%);
· hobby, e.g. glues, paints, solvents (11.9%);
· garden, e.g. plant protection agents, biocides (9.3%); and
· others (10.4%).
The Forum embarked on the project in 2016 with an objective to focus on the compliance of online sales with Article 48(2)2 of CLP. This states that an advert must mention hazards indicated on the label if the mixture can be purchased without seeing this.
National enforcement authorities from 15 European countries took part in the pilot project. Its scope also included compliance with the requirement under Article 17(2) that hazard warnings are written in the official language of the member state.
Outcomes
Desktop inspections were carried out between January and August last year, with most taking place in Germany (508), followed by the Czech Republic (361), Echa said in a report.
Inspectors issued 280 fines, 124 verbal advice and 460 written advice statements. In four cases, enforcement authorities undertook a criminal complaint or referred the case to the public prosecutor’s office.
For 321 cases, follow-up activities continued after the operational phase of the project finished on 31 August last year. In 223 cases, information was forwarded to another enforcement authority in the same member state for further action.
Recommendations
Echa issued a set of recommendations, based on the findings of the project, as well as feedback from the questionnaires completed by national authorities.
Industry and trade associations could develop "common strategies" to clarify what is a lawful sale on the internet, Echa said. A collection of "positive examples" could also be compiled by industry and distributed to associations to pass to the companies concerned.
In recommendations to the European Commission, the agency called for "specification of the wording of Article 48 (2)" to avoid undefined legal concepts. The Commission should also consider developing a guideline for online retailers to facilitate their implementation of Article 48 (2), it said.
Enforcement authorities should continue to perform inspections and Forum members that did not participate in the project should consider conducting their own, the agency added.
Additionally, given the high rate of non-compliance detected, the Forum could include the topic in a future REACH-En-Force (Ref) project.
The Forum's Ref-6 project is currently underway to check whether the classification and labelling (C&L) of a mixture corresponds to the information presented in the safety data sheet (SDS).
https://chemicalwatch.com/66235/majority-of-eu-online-chemical-mixtures-adverts-lack-hazard-warnings
-
Enbridge Gets Conditional Approval in Pipeline Push
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Enbridge Inc.'s multibillion dollar plan to replace and reroute a transnational oil pipeline may ultimately face legal challenges, despite a Minnesota judge's conditional approval.
The 1,030-mile pipeline that runs from Alberta to a Wisconsin terminal on Lake Superior can be replaced specifically in its current trench, but not rerouted over about 380 miles of northern Minnesota land as the company wished, administrative law judge Ann C. O'Reilly recommended in an April 23 report.
The proposed pipeline will transport western Canadian crude oil to refinery markets in Canada as well as Chicago and the eastern U.S. The proposal, if completed, will be the largest infrastructure project in Enbridge's history.
O'Reilly's decision was at least a partial win for Enbridge Energy Partners LP, which is one step closer to getting approval for the project.
Enbridge estimates the pipeline could be put in service in 2019 if it receives all needed approvals.
“Enbridge is pleased that the Administrative Law Judge has listened to the extensive evidence that there's need for this safety-driven maintenance project,” Enbridge said in an April 23 statement. “We will be taking time to review in more detail the recommendation that we use the existing right-of-way, and will have additional comments to follow.”
But while project supporters pointed to the judge's overarching support for the program, opponents noted its conditional language.
“It's a big of a mixed bag,” Leili Fatehi, outside counsel for the Sierra Club in the case, told Bloomberg Environment. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
“We would have liked the ALJ to say affirmatively there is no need for this pipeline,” Fatehi added.
Next Steps
O'Reilly recommended that a state utility agency grant a certificate of need to the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline project as long as the pipeline is replaced in its current trench.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will make a final ruling on the project “sometime in June,” Dan Wolf, commission spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Republican legislators favoring the project introduced legislation to streamline its approval, but Gov. Mark Dayton (D) March 28 told reporters he will veto any legislation compromising the integrity of the commission's decision-making independence.
Fatehi didn't rule out the Sierra Club suing the commission if it approves the project, while the administrative law judge's recommendation said Enbridge has publicly indicated it will sue if it isn't satisfied with the outcome.
Slight Benefit
The pipeline was constructed in the 1960s and “is old, needs significant repair, and poses significant integrity concerns for the State” and that “replacement of the line is a reasonable and prudent action,” the recommendation said.
Because of the pipeline's deterioration, it is currently operating at about 50 percent of capacity. The U.S. portion of the proposed Line 3 pipeline would cost an estimated $2.9 billion and be capable of pumping up to 760,000 barrels of light, medium, and heavy crude oils.
O'Reilly addressed whether Enbridge's application for a required “certificate of need” should be granted. If granted, her recommendation considered the best route for the pipeline and any conditions that should be attached to the approval.
But Enbridge's proposed replacement in reality wouldn't replace the existing pipeline, the judge wrote. Instead, it would abandon hundreds of miles of existing steel pipeline and build a new one in new areas of Minnesota, the recommendation said.
The pipeline's benefits to Minnesotans only “slightly” outweigh its downside, O'Reilly said.
Placing a new pipeline in the existing trench would largely mitigate the detrimental effects of abandoning the existing pipeline, isolate environmental risks to the existing corridor, and avoid constructing new oil pipeline corridor in a particularly sensitive region of the state, the recommendation said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132775795&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132775795&jd=132775795
-
Louisiana: $1.5 Billion in Tax Breaks for $9.4 Billion Plant
Apr 25, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Janet McConnaughey
State and local governments in Louisiana have offered an estimated $1.5 billion in incentives to persuade a Taiwanese company to locate a $9.4 billion plastics complex along the Mississippi River upstream from New Orleans, Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Don Pierson said.
The package includes about $1.4 billion in local property tax exemptions for the Formosa Petrochemicals Corp. subsidiary that would build and run the plant, Pierson said in a statement emailed Monday night.
Louisiana’s Board of Commerce and Industry and Gov. John Bel Edwards must sign off on the tax breaks, which would fully exempt the plastics complex from local property taxes for a decade. Such long-term exemptions are now against the rules, but this one could be grandfathered-in because it was initially offered when the Formosa subsidiary first proposed the plant in 2015.
Bel Edwards changed the property tax program’s rules in mid-2016 to allow five years of full exemptions and three of 80 percent exemptions, saying he wanted limited tax dollars to be spent wisely. He earlier required tax breaks to be tied to job creation and retention and required local governments to be consulted. Some groups wanted more changes to reduce tax breaks.
An analysis made for Formosa subsidiary FG LA LLC by economist James Richardson estimates that the project will generate $675 million in new state and local taxes through 2035. His report estimated that, including ripple effect jobs, the plant will also bring $4.7 billion in new personal earnings and $18.5 billion in business spending statewide during the same period.
The complex’s payroll is expected to reach $121 million by 2030, he wrote.
Aside from the industrial tax exemption program, other estimated incentives add up to about $146 million: $125 million over 10 years in rebates for well-paid jobs; $12 million in a performance-based grant and $9 million for a state job training and recruitment program.
The Louisiana Environmental Action Network has criticized the project, saying it and other plants will increase air pollution in St. James Parish.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/louisiana-15-billion-in-tax-breaks-for-94-billion-plant/2018/04/25/bc8c7e80-4876-11e8-8082-105a446d19b8_story.html?utm_term=.2aaee8c597c8
-
Dems Push Zinke to Block Leasing in Beaufort Sea
Apr 24, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
Four Democrats today asked Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to stop planning for a possible oil and gas lease sale in Alaska's Beaufort Sea next year.
"Expanding oil development in frontier regions like the Arctic Ocean, where any oil would not come to market for decades even if it were discovered and could be developed safely, harms our nation's urgent need to transition to a low-carbon future," they said in a letter to Zinke.
House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva of Arizona and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell of Washington led the letter.
They were joined by the two Democrats who are the lead sponsors of the "Stop Arctic Ocean Drilling Act": Rep. Jared Huffman of California (H.R. 1784) and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon (S. 991).
The Trump administration last month took the first step toward allowing oil and gas leasing in the Arctic Ocean by soliciting industry nominations and public comments on possible energy development in the Beaufort Sea. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management opened a 30-day comment period on the proposed Beaufort lease sale (Energywire, March 29).
The announcement came after a federal court rejected requests from the Trump administration and the oil and gas industry to toss litigation by environmentalists that challenged BOEM's development plans for the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
In their letter, the Democrats said the administration's move was an "attempt to fast-track dangerous and unpopular oil drilling in vulnerable Arctic waters" and would likely end up wasting taxpayer money.
And they warned that a major oil spill in the sea "would occur more than a thousand miles from the nearest Coast Guard station, with the threat of sea ice in all seasons, subzero temperatures, storms, fog, and complete darkness up to 20 hours a day."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/24/stories/1060079971
-
Shell Authorizes Vito Deepwater Project in Gulf
Apr 24, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell said Tuesday it's authorizing the multibillion-dollar Vito project in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico - the first major Gulf project announced this year.
Although the offshore energy sector continues to languish after the recent oil bust, Big Oil players like Shell are now beginning to move forward with big new projects at dramatically reduced prices. While Shell isn't revealing the project cost, Shell said it has cut the Vito cost estimate by 70 percent from the initial project design.
Kurt Shallenberger, Shell's Vito project manager, said the decision to move forward marks a pivotal moment in the deepwater sector. "Not about going deeper, but making it affordable and repeatable," he said.
The decision to build the four-column semi-submersible platform and the subsea system to develop eight wells comes just before Shell launches the Appomattox platform into the Gulf from its current docking point near Corpus Christi.
Shell said Vito is designed to remain profitable with oil prices close to $35 a barrel. Oil prices currently are hovering near $70 a barrel.
The simplified, modular designs with discounted services and construction costs and greater drilling and production efficiencies all combine to drive down the project costs and make the deepwater sector economical again.
"With a lower-cost developmental approach, the Vito project is a very competitive and attractive opportunity industry-wide," said Andy Brown, Shell Upstream director. "Our ability to advance this world-class resource is a testament to the skill and ingenuity of our development, engineering and drilling teams."
The Vito field is more than 4,000 feet deep in the Gulf and is located about 150 miles southeast of New Orleans.
Shell owns more than 63 percent of the project while Norway-based Statoil owns the remaining 36.9 percent.
The project is expected to come online with oil production in 2021 and churn out 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Shell estimates the Vito field has more than 300 million barrels of oil equivalent in recoverable resources.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Shell-authorizes-Vito-deepwater-project-in-Gulf-12860933.php
-
Pennsylvania Severance Tax Likely Offset by State Corporate Tax Cut, Says Analysis
Apr 24, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s latest proposal to implement a severance tax on natural gas production could generate more than $200 million annually in revenue over the next five years, according to an analysis of the 2018-2019 executive budget by the state’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO).
However, any boost the tax gives to the state’s general fund would be offset by the administration’s proposal to phase-in a reduction of the corporate net income tax (CNIT).
Wolf, a Democrat, has proposed a severance tax every year since taking office in 2015. The budget unveiled in February would establish a volumetric severance tax that would rise and fall with gas prices. Under the proposal, producers would pay about 4-7 cents/Mcf based on a price range of below $3.00/Mcf to more than $6.00/Mcf. Wolf’s budget would increase spending by 3.1% from current levels, and includes no other broad-based tax increases, relying solely on a severance tax to fully fund investments.
When the budget was released, the administration estimated that the tax would raise $250 million. The IFO analysis released this month assumes a gas price of less than $3 and about 5 Tcf of natural gas production for fiscal year (FY) 2018-2019, when the severance tax would generate $210 million. The IFO’s analysis assumes gas prices rise above $3 by FY2022-2023 and production increases to 7.9 Tcf, at which point revenue from the tax would increase to $420 million.
But by FY2022-2023, the analysis projects that both the severance tax and CNIT proposals would together generate $305 million in revenue. New revenues peak in FY2019-2020 at $571 million, the IFO said, but then begin to decline after that because of the phase-in of a CNIT reduction.
Wolf’s plan would also retain the state’s existing impact fee, which is levied on all unconventional wells during their first 15 years of operation. Unlike last year’s proposal, Wolf’s latest does not allow an impact fee credit or deduction to be taken against the severance tax.
The IFO said the projected effective tax rate for both the impact fe and severance tax combined for FY2018-2019 would be 4.4%, increasing to 4.9% in FY2020-2021 and then dropping back to 4.4% by FY2022-2023.
If Wolf’s plan were to pass the legislature, the proposed tax would be effective on July 1, with the first payment due June 15, 2019. Last year, Wolf proposed a 6.5% severance tax. Such proposals, along with his calls for other tax increases and Republicans’ unwillingness to support them, have led to partisan fights and budget impasses in recent years.
Wolf faces reelection this year. Three Republican candidates are currently vying in a primary to challenge him in the general election.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114140-pennsylvania-severance-tax-likely-offset-by-state-corporate-tax-cut-says-analysis
-
New Colorado Law to Help with Capping Abandoned Wells
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Capping abandoned oil and gas wells will be a bit easier in Colorado under a bill signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D).
Orphaned and abandoned wells, which can leak and contaminate groundwater, are on the rise in Colorado, and the state has been unable to use leftover money in an environmental response fund designed to address the problem. That changes with the governor's signing the bill (H.B. 1098) April 23.
The bill specifies that the year-end balance of an environmental response fund in the Department of Natural Resources will be retained in the account at the end of the fiscal year, according to the Colorado Legislative Council, the General Assembly's nonpartisan research arm. Up to now lawmakers have occasionally “raided” the account to pay for other budget needs unrelated to oil and gas, environmentalists told Bloomberg Environment.
Seepage, Leakage
Abandoned wells, if not properly capped, can lead to seepage and leakage that contaminates nearby groundwater and soil, Bruce Baizel, energy program director for Earthworks, a nonprofit in Durango, Colo., told Bloomberg Environment.
In a recent letter to leaders in the Colorado General Assembly, the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission said the rate of new orphan wells is accelerating every year. The average costs to mitigate environmental impacts and reclaim a well site exceed the financial assurance posted by companies by a factor of 14, the commission said.
The commission knows of 244 orphan wells and 300 associated locations in need of cleanup.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132775797&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132775797&jd=132775797
-
Confusion, Lack of Safety Concern Led to Three Deaths at Packaging Corporation of America Mill
Apr 24, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Acompany’s internal confusion and lack of concern for safety caused the deaths of three workers and injuries to seven others last year at the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) container board mill in DeRidder, La. In a report released today, the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) urges that tanks holding liquids at atmospheric pressure, such as the one that exploded at PCA, be regulated. Alternatively, companies should voluntarily take adequate safety precautions, CSB says.
On Feb. 8, 2017, welders above a leaking 380,000 L waste tank likely provided a spark that set off an explosion. The tank flew over the top of a six-story building and landed 114 m away. The people who died were all contract workers conducting routine maintenance during an annual shutdown.
The welders were repairing water lines above a pulp waste tank that held a mix of water, sulfuric substances, and residual turpentine. Most of the turpentine had been stripped during manufacturing processes, and the waste tank was intended to hold only small amounts of the hydrocarbon.
But because of a company dispute over who was responsible for skimming and removing the residual turpentine, the tank instead held an unusually large amount of turpentine—a fact that the welders working above it did not know. Turpentine is immiscible in and less dense than water, so it separated to rest on top of the waste mixture.
Additionally, a crack in the tank allowed air to mix with flammable vapor in the tank. The crack also likely provided a pathway for vapor to extend between the tank and the welders working above, permitting a welder’s spark to ignite the tank contents.
“Hot work, such as welding, conducted around tanks containing flammable materials can be catastrophic,” says CSB chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland. “That is why it is so important for companies to effectively identify, evaluate, and control potential hazards prior to initiation of hot work.” CSB first identified atmospheric tanks as a potential hazard in 2002.
Sutherland reiterated a 2002 CSB recommendation issued to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) that the agency include atmospheric storage tanks under its process safety management (PSM) standards if the tanks are connected to a PSM-covered process, which would have included PCA’s tank. Sutherland also recommends that the pulp and paper industry apply PSM principles, even if not required by regulation.
For this accident, OSHA has proposed a fine of $63,375. The company is contesting OSHA’s findings.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Confusion-lack-safety-concern-led/96/i18
-
EPA Argues Ruling Scrapping Parts of Ozone Policy at Odds with Air Law
Apr 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel to reconsider its ruling scrapping parts of an Obama-era rule on implementing the 2008 ozone ambient air limit and revoking the 1997 standard, arguing that the court's fears over the rule worsening air quality are unfounded and at odds with the Clean Air Act.
In its April 23 petition for rehearing of South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al, v. EPA, et al, EPA says the complex ruling is fundamentally at odds with the intent of Congress when it crafted air law protections to apply when the agency replaces one national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) with a new standard.
The unanimous Feb. 16 ruling, authored by Judge David Sentelle, scrapped large parts of EPA's 2015 rule for implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS set at 75 parts per billion (ppb), specifically those relating to revoking the weaker 1997 ozone NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb.
The South Coast air district, which regulates air quality in greater Los Angeles, has also filed a request for the three-judge panel that heard the case to reconsider its ruling with respect to the narrow issue of which “baseline year” areas can use to count “reasonable further progress” (RFP) in cutting ozone. South Coast seeks to ensure it can use 2012 as a baseline year, rather than 2011. The district sued EPA over a related question of whether Southern California areas can count “out of area” emissions reductions in their demonstrations of RFP in cutting ozone, after the agency disallowed such out of area reductions. The court sided with EPA on this point.
EPA now seeks a rehearing on several broader aspects of the decision. However, if the court grants rehearing, EPA also requests supplemental briefing on a range of complex issues raised by the ruling, including concerns that the implementation rule allows “backsliding,” or loosening of existing ozone emissions controls.
The Clean Air Act's “anti-backsliding” provisions were intended to guard against a weakening of air pollution controls if EPA weakens the NAAQS -- but to date, EPA has only made the standards stronger, such as the 2008 decision and the 2015 decision to tighten the ozone limit further down to 70 ppb.
EPA argues that the court has failed to recognize the air law's ambiguity on what to do in this situation, and has failed to defer to EPA's judgment on the issue under the Chevron legal doctrine that requires judicial deference to federal agencies where the agency has reasonably construed an ambiguous statutory requirement.
'Inflexible' Decision
The D.C. Circuit has in prior litigation held that anti-backsliding measures must apply even when NAAQS are tightened, but despite this precedent EPA broadly criticizes the court's opinion.
The agency in its rehearing petition says it has in the past “taken guidance” from the anti-backsliding provisions, but this was a reasonable use of EPA's discretion -- not a statutory requirement, EPA argues.
The “Court’s analysis is grounded on the apparent assumption that the Clean Air Act’s anti-backsliding provision requires retention of all preexisting 'controls' when, as in this case, a [NAAQS] is revised to be more stringent and the earlier standard is revoked. However, that provision, by its express terms, only applies in the event of 'relaxation' of a NAAQS, and even then, only requires controls that are 'not less stringent' than those that previously applied,” EPA says.
“While the Court in prior cases upheld, as a reasonable exercise of the Agency’s discretion, EPA’s decision to take
guidance from these anti-backsliding principles even when a more stringent NAAQS is adopted, the Court has never held that such an approach is required by the statute at all in this context, let alone in the expansive and inflexible manner reflected in the Court’s Decision here.”
The agency adds, “Congress simply did not intend the complete regulatory infrastructure for every revoked and superseded NAAQS (especially less stringent NAAQS that are superseded by more stringent ones) to live on automatically and indefinitely, draining State and federal resources that would be better directed to compliance with a more stringent and up-to-date standard.”
Transportation Conformity
EPA further raises several specific aspects of the court's ruling that warrant either rehearing or a remand without vacatur, rather than a simple vacatur as ordered by the court.
For example, EPA raises provisions that relate to keeping “transportation conformity” mandates, which seek to ensure transportation projects do not result in NAAQS violations, in place for the revoked NAAQS, and also to preserving measures applicable to “orphan maintenance areas."
These areas were once designated “nonattainment” for the 1997 NAAQS, but were redesignated attainment prior to the 1997 standard being revoked, and further designated attainment for the tougher 2008 standard. Ordinarily, such areas must retain pollution controls, but since the older NAAQS is now revoked and areas meet a tougher standard, EPA argues this is not necessary.
EPA says the court's requirement that transportation conformity measures apply to orphan maintenance areas conflicts with the court's own precedent, and will cause serious practical problems.
The agency seeks remand without vacatur for aspects of its ozone implementation rule relating to specific provisions that do not impose anti-backsliding measures on orphan nonattainment areas, and which establish that transportation conformity requirements for the revoked 1997 NAAQS are not applicable in orphan maintenance areas. Orphan nonattainment areas are areas designated attainment for the 2008 NAAQS, but never designated attainment for the weaker 1997 standard.
The “disruption caused by immediately vacating these provisions . . . would be substantial and profoundly inequitable,” EPA says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-argues-ruling-scrapping-parts-ozone-policy-odds-air-law
-
EPA, State Air Funding Cuts Might Hinder Implementation of NAAQS Memo
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
State air regulators are warning that President Donald Trump's bid to slash EPA and state air quality funding could hinder implementation of his memo directing the agency to overhaul and streamline the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) process, saying even current funding might be insufficient to achieve the memo's goals.
One Northeastern state air quality expert questions whether the April 12 memo from Trump to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has committed EPA to achieving goals its funding may not allow it to reach. For example, the memo requires EPA to issue implementation guidance to states concurrently with new of revised NAAQS, rather than the long-running practice of issuing such guidance many months after finalizing a NAAQS revision.
“In considering that EPA's funding stayed level this year, it will be interesting to see where the new resources will come from to do this, meaning what things will EPA say it's going to stop doing in order to follow through with this directive?” the source says.
Congress in its fiscal year 2018 budget deal agreed to fund EPA at $8.8 billion, a slight increase from its FY17 funding level of $8.05 billion. The increase is, however, dedicated almost entirely to water infrastructure. But the White House has proposed further budget cuts for the agency in FY19, asking lawmakers to cut its overall budget to $6.1 billion.
States rely on EPA to provide certain air quality tools, such as modeling platforms, and also obtain significant grants through the agency budget to fund their air quality programs.
Internally, EPA is relying on a structural reorganization to increase its processing speed for approving states' NAAQS compliance plans and Clean Air Act permits, seeking efficiencies where possible under a process led by former Arizona environmental regulator Henry Darwin.
While Pruitt has recently touted his agency's success in clearing the substantial backlog of state implementation plans (SIPs) -- blueprints for NAAQS attainment -- inherited from the Obama era, a Western state air official says it is unclear whether Darwin's plan will work.
Much of the agency's work is required by statute on fixed timelines, and indeed many rules are issued under court order, which may limit the scope to restructure the agency's processes and workload, sources say.
The Northeastern state air quality expert and air regulators from states in other regions all say that funding is already too low for Clean Air Act programs, and that further budget cuts will complicate the agency's ability to fully implement the various directions in Trump's memo given the existing work mandated by statute.
Policy Changes
For example, the memo includes several policy changes long sought by Western states, including expanding EPA's ability to allow for consideration of international emissions when calculating a state's attainment with NAAQS. Section 179B of the air law says that if a state can demonstrate an area within its border would meet an ambient air standard “but for” the impact of international emissions, it can be deemed in compliance.
Trump's memo says, “the Administrator shall ensure that EPA does not limit its consideration to emissions emanating from Mexico or Canada,” as the Obama EPA did, “but rather considers, where appropriate, emissions that may emanate from any location outside the United States, including emissions from Asia."
Further, “the Administrator shall endeavor to take final action within 120 days” of receiving a complete state petition to consider international emissions impacts on NAAQS compliance, the memo says.
One Western state air official says the section 179B language and provisions on regional haze “are things the western states have advocated for in letters to EPA over the past few years.”
However, “there is no federal appropriation or funding for states to work on regional haze or background ozone, so the flexibility that the memo conveys may be somewhat offset by the lack of funding that can be applied to these issues. The technical and scientific work and data does not come without a significant cost.”
The regional haze program requires states to reduce emissions in order to improve visibility in “Class I” national parks and wilderness areas, but EPA is years behind schedule approving states' compliance plans.
The president in his memo says the EPA administrator “shall undertake a process to review all” full or partial federal haze plans for states issued under the initial phase of the regional haze program, from 2008 to 2018, “and to develop options, at the request of affected States, consistent with law, to replace” those federal plans with state-crafted SIPs instead.
But whether EPA will have the resources in FY18 or FY19 to fully implement Trump's various requests for overhauling the NAAQS process remains highly uncertain.
Another state source notes that the agency's funding, and its contribution to state coffers, has been in decline in real terms since 2004. “We want them to meet their deadlines,” the source says of EPA. But equally, “we do depend on EPA” to provide adequate funding to do air quality work. This dependence on federal funding would if anything increase if states' workload grows as a result of more deference by EPA, sources say.
Trump's Memo
The memo directs the agency to consider a number of steps designed to help states and industry move forward faster with industrial projects, such as setting time limits for EPA to process SIPs and to issue air permits where it is the direct permitting authority.
The document establishes a policy preference for EPA to defer to states on issues such as air quality modeling, inviting states to use their own, alternative modeling where appropriate. It further also provides maximum flexibility for states to take advantage of regulatory exemptions for high air pollution encountered during “exceptional events” such as wildfires, and also for pollution of foreign origin. Trump's memo requires that EPA process states' requests to exclude air quality data gathered during exceptional events within 120 days.
The memo urges EPA to take fully into account “background” levels of pollution that are natural or foreign-sourced and cannot be controlled by local regulators. High background, especially in the mountain West, can at times reach the level of NAAQS, making the standards effectively unattainable.
But sources warn that even for those states in agreement with these provisions, taking advantage of the policy direction will be tough without adequate resources.
States' Plan
Still, the Northeastern air expert does not think a lack of funding will deter states from crafting SIPs using their own methodologies, or EPA from approving them, because the agency may decrease the level of scrutiny to only a cursory review and make it easier to win SIP approval.
“I think states still could try to do this, and reduced budgets could even make it easier (in my cynical view). EPA would give more leeway to states to come up with alternatives, then be defunded from being able to evaluate whether those alternatives are appropriate (assuming it even wanted to). States could pursue alternatives on the cheap, and EPA could approve them on the cheap as well,” the source says.
Under this negative view of the Pruitt EPA's vision of “cooperative federalism” in which he has vowed to defer more to states' decisions on environmental policy, all states need do would be to “pass the laugh test,” the source suggests.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-state-air-funding-cuts-might-hinder-implementation-naaqs-memo
-
EPA's Toxic Air Pollution Policy Shift Sees Few Takers So Far
Apr 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Several businesses have asked two state officials about a new EPA policy that would let large emitters of toxic air pollution meet less stringent standards if they keep their emissions down.
One business has already contacted Ohio officials about taking advantage of the Environmental Protection Agency's policy, and Lori Hanson from Iowa's Air Quality Bureau told Bloomberg Environment that she's fielded inquiries from several curious industries.
About 70 percent of the largest sources of toxic air pollutants could be eligible to be reclassified under the EPA's new policy, the Union of Concerned Scientists in an April 24 analysis.
If all 1,926 eligible facilities sought that reclassification, then toxic emissions could increase by 35,000 tons annually, Juan Declet-Barreto, the climate scientist at Union of Concerned Scientists who conducted the analysis, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA in January announced that it would reverse its policy on toxic air pollutants, known as “once in always in.” This policy prevented the largest sources of toxic air pollutants from removing pollution control devices after their emissions fell below the threshold for regulation. Under the EPA's new policy, those facilities could ask to be reclassified as smaller “area” sources that are subject to less stringent requirements.
States See Little Impact
While the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that toxic emissions would increase as a result of the EPA's policy change, state officials said only those facilities that successfully reduced their emissions could apply.
“Because Ohio EPA permits and permit modifications are written to be protective of human health, the suggestion that 12 facilities in the Cincinnati area could increase allowable hazardous emissions as a result of this policy change seems very unlikely,” James Lee, a spokesman for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
The analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists is one of the first attempts to quantify the effect of the EPA's new policy, which the agency didn't address in its memorandum.
“Without any analysis of what the emissions outcomes are, there is a decent chance that the burden of understanding [emissions outcomes] is going to fall on state and local agencies,” Miles Keogh, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, told Bloomberg Environment.
While EPA staffers have told state officials that they are working on implementation instructions, the agency hasn't provided a timeline for when it will issue further guidance, Keogh said.
Brad Miller, assistant director of the Southwest Ohio Air Quality Agency, said his district, which covers five counties, has approximately 20 facilities subject to air toxics standards, including General Electric Aviation, AK Steel, Metal Coaters Ohio, and Core Molding Technologies, but none of the major sources have applied for permit modifications so far.
It was unclear why none of the facilities have taken advantage of the policy change, he said.
None of the companies immediately responded to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment.
The New York State Department of Conservation said in an emailed statement that because “New York has some of the most stringent regulations to limit air pollution in the nation,” they were concerned about “the potential increase in the release of hazardous air pollutants from neighboring states” that don't have as stringent air pollution control plans.
Nebraska, Indiana, and Alabama, also identified by the Union of Concerned Scientists report to be possible hot spots for potential emissions increases, didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132775796&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132775796&jd=132775796
-
Macron Fails to Woo Trump on Paris Accord
Apr 24, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
French President Emmanuel Macron appeared to make little headway in climate discussions with President Trump today despite a firm show of friendship.
Smiling amid awkward handshakes, embraces and kisses, Trump and Macron pushed to underscore a strong alliance but seemed to end up far apart on the Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear agreement, the conflict in Syria, and U.S. tariffs on products like steel and aluminum.
Before heading into a private meeting with Macron this morning, Trump told reporters the two leaders would likely discuss the international climate pact.
And the French president said on the South Lawn before meeting privately with Trump that the United States and France would "act effectively for our planet" to tackle not only climate change but also ocean health, biodiversity and pollution.
But as the afternoon wrapped up, Macron revealed that he and Trump remained far apart on the Paris Agreement. And Trump remained noticeably silent when Macron said French scientists and businesses are working hand in hand to address climate change.
"We also talked about the climate, and here, also, we know where we stand, that France will continue to work on major pieces, including the global compact for the environment," Macron said at a formal joint news conference in the East Room, where he addressed reporters' questions alongside Trump.
"But I think I can say our economic, our businesses, our researchers can continue to work on concrete solutions in the field, and we are both attached to that," Macron said.
Observers said Macron, who has blasted Trump publicly for exiting the Paris accord, may be playing the only card he has — technology.
"I think it's his only move," said Paul Bledsoe, a strategic adviser for the Progressive Policy Institute. "He needs to engage with Trump where he'll engage, and the administration will engage on low-emissions technology that's in the U.S. interest."
Those technologies include U.S. exports of domestic natural gas and potentially nuclear technology given France's long history of prowess in the nuclear sector and reprocessing used nuclear fuel, Bledsoe said.
The Trump administration is also trying to commercialize technology to capture and sequester carbon, Bledsoe said, noting that Energy Secretary Rick Perry has been increasingly talking about the issue.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/24/stories/1060079967
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