Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/26/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Rule Could Force EPA to Ignore Major Human Health Studies
Apr 25, 2018 | Science Magazine
By Warren Cornwall
Research looking at everything from links between air pollution and disease to the impact a pesticide has on children’s brains could be banned from consideration by environmental regulators under a new policy proposed yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency... -
(ACC Mentioned) First-Of-Its-Kind PS Recycling Facility Now Operational
Apr 26, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
A ribbon-cutting ceremony last week at the Agilyx plant in Oregon drew a mix of business and government representatives, including one major PS producer who said the technology could help stem consumer backlash against foam plastics. -
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Great Chemical Stocks to Boost Your Porfolio Performance
Apr 26, 2018 | Zacks
By Swarup Gupta
Ever since the shale boom began, U.S. companies have stepped up their investments on chemicals projects within the country. -
(ACC Mentioned) Power Rental Market Is Expected to Show Significant Growth over the Forecast Period
Apr 26, 2018 | Coherent Chronicle
By Mohan Pawar
Major drivers propelling the growth of power rental market globally include rapidly developing construction industry. According to CMI, the global construction industry is projected to expand at a CAGR of 5.8% from 2017 to 2025. -
Scientists Denounce Pruitt’s Effort to Block ‘Secret Science’ at EPA
Apr 25, 2018 | Washington Post
By Joel Achenbach
In the annals of science there aren’t many reports that had as much impact as Harvard’s Six Cities Study of 1993. It showed a dramatic association between long-term exposure to air pollution and higher risk of an early death. It influenced government pollution standards... -
Make-Or-Break Moment for EPA Chief Pruitt
Apr 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt faces a pivotal moment Thursday at back-to-back congressional panels where he will be grilled over a series of controversies endangering his tenure at the EPA. -
4 Things to Watch as Pruitt Heads to Capitol Hill
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Will Scott Pruitt's allies in Congress turn against him? Will the embattled EPA chief apologize? Will President Trump tweet about the performance? -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Round-Up
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
...The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is also offering assistance through a website that aims "to address processor questions about the inventory reset process"... -
Expecting New TSCA Resources, OPPT Proposes New Reorganization Plan
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Responding to staff concerns, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has delayed its ongoing reorganization effort to propose a revised plan that relies on OPPT leadership being able to hire sufficient number of new scientists to fill a second risk analysis division... -
House Lawmakers Seek Expedited EPA Rulemaking for PFAS Standard
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, whose districts are affected by drinking water contaminants such as perfluorinated chemicals, is urging appropriators to adopt report language that requires EPA to conduct an expedited rulemaking to craft a standard for the substances... -
EPA Grants $4M to Fight Lead
Apr 25, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA awarded $4 million in grants for lead research today to Virginia Tech and the Water Research Foundation. -
SC Johnson Reveals Ingredients Selection Criteria
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Consumer products giant SC Johnson has published the criteria behind its Greenlist ingredient selection programme. -
REACH Directors’ Contact Group Extends Registration Solution to Distributors
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The REACH Directors’ Contact Group (DCG) has agreed to extend to distributors a solution to a registration issue that concerns substance information exchange fora (Siefs) that do not have either an EU manufacturer or importer. -
European Commission Identifies DCHP as an SVHC
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has identified dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) as an SVHC because it is toxic for reproduction category 1B (REACH Article 57 (c)) and has endocrine disrupting properties with probable serious effects to human health (Article 57(f)). -
Phthalates, BPA Found in Major European Toy Checks
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A fifth of toy samples tested as part of a major European market surveillance exercise have been deemed non-compliant with regulations that restrict the content of substances of concern. -
Study Finds 'Novel' Brominated Flame Retardant in North America
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Scientists have found evidence that a member of a "relatively new" class of brominated flame retardant (BFR) is entering the environment in North America. -
Cows Won’t Like This, and Neither Will You: New Report Finds Farm Equipment May Be Source of Toxic Chemicals in Food
Apr 25, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Nika Beauchamp
Investigators have begun to answer a growing consumer concern: How are toxic chemicals called phthalates (THAL-eights) getting into cheese and other dairy products? -
EPA Faulted for Justifying Oil & Gas CTG Repeal by Citing Methane NSPS
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Environmentalists are criticizing EPA for justifying its proposed withdrawal of oil and gas sector volatile organic compound (VOC) reduction guidelines by saying the CTG are “fundamentally linked” to methane and VOC standards for new oil and gas drilling that EPA is reconsidering... -
West Virginia Natural Gas Industry Has High Hopes for Speedier Permitting
Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
An executive order signed by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice on Monday to expedite all permitting in the state was welcomed with open arms by the oil and natural gas industry, whose representatives said it’s most likely to benefit the midstream sector and downstream projects. -
Ruling Tosses Green Group Claims over N.M. Fracking
Apr 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Proposed fracking wells in New Mexico's San Juan Basin, one the largest oil and gas fields in the U.S., may proceed because the U.S. Bureau of Land Management followed federal requirements in assessing and issuing permits for those wells, a federal court in New Mexico ruled. -
Permian Takeaway Constraints Likely into 2019 for Natural Gas and Oil, Say Analysts
Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
With Permian Basin crude oil basis widening recently to as much as $8.00/bbl off of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), and as Waha natural gas capacity appears to be tapping out, producers working the widest and deepest stretch of land in the U.S. onshore... -
Williams Companies to Try Again for New York's Pipeline Approval
Apr 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Williams Companies Inc. will press forward to get New York approval of an expansion of its Transco natural gas pipeline through three states, despite a permitting setback from state environmental regulators. -
EPA Plan to Limit Science Use May Undercut Air, Climate Programs
Apr 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu and Abby Smith
New EPA plans to limit “secret science” in policy making could unravel the agency's decades-old approach to crafting environmental protections, both supporters and critics of the proposal said. -
Climate Activists Are Lousy Salesmen
Apr 25, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Stewart Easterby
Politicians, bureaucrats, activists, scientists and the media have warned Americans for decades that the Earth is headed toward climate catastrophe.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Rule Could Force EPA to Ignore Major Human Health Studies
Apr 25, 2018 | Science Magazine
By Warren Cornwall
Research looking at everything from links between air pollution and disease to the impact a pesticide has on children’s brains could be banned from consideration by environmental regulators under a new policy proposed yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
At an event at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., that was closed to the press, agency head Scott Pruitt touted the new policy as a way to increase transparency and enable the public to double-check research underpinning environmental regulations. The rule would require the agency to use only studies in which the underlying data are available for public scrutiny when formulating new “significant” regulations, which typically are regulations estimated to impose costs of $100 million or more.
Specifically, the proposed rule says that EPA is seeking transparency for “the dose response data and models that underlie what we are calling ‘pivotal regulatory science.’” The agency does not define pivotal regulatory science, but says it could include studies that “are critical to the calculation of a final regulatory standard or level, or to the quantified costs, benefits, risks, and other impacts on which a final regulation is based.”
“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said, speaking to an audience that included conservative lawmakers and advocates who have questioned the science underpinning climate and health regulations. “Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”
But a number of leading epidemiologists studying the effects of pollution say the new regulations could pose a problem for existing and new studies aimed at teasing out connections between pollution and large populations. “I think this rule is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the science that’s available for the EPA to use in its decision-making,” says Peter Thorne, a toxicologist at The University of Iowa in Iowa City, and chairman of EPA’s science advisory board until late 2017, when his membership wasn’t renewed by Pruitt.
The new proposal would effectively block the use of key scientific studies and “help big polluters avoid regulations that protect human health,” warned the American Thoracic Society, a New York City–based medical association representing physicians and scientists involved in respiratory disease.
Other critics say EPA has failed to adequately calculate the costs of complying with its proposal, or clearly articulate its legal authority to issue the new rule, potentially opening the agency to a legal challenge.
Privacy concerns
The problem, critics say, is that human epidemiological studies often rely on gathering reams of sensitive information from thousands of individuals, such as their medical history and personal habits, along with exactly where they live and work. Those details are usually guarded by confidentiality agreements that bar researchers from sharing data that would allow an individual to be identified.
Existing studies could be bound by confidentiality agreements that make it impossible to give EPA the data it wants, Thorne says. And future researchers could have more trouble recruiting participants if they fear their information would be made public. “If those [confidentiality] documents say we will be required to release your private information to the U.S. government or to the public, [people] would be wise not to participate,” he says.
In its proposed rule, EPA says it wants to make data publicly available “in a manner that honors legal and ethical obligations to reduce the risks of unauthorized disclosure and reidentification” of anonymous study subjects. The agency says sensitive data could be shielded by a variety of measures, including storing them at special federal data centers and restricting who has access to them. And it suggests that the transparency requirement could, in certain circumstances, be waived if not practical to implement. It does not provide an estimate of the cost of complying with the rule.
In a press release the agency claimed the proposed provisions are consistent with data access requirements of major scientific journals include Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Science, along with many other journals, has recently adopted measures to encourage data sharing and increase transparency, Science Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Berg said in a prepared statement. Those measure can include requiring authors of published papers to deposit underlying data in a publicly available database. But he noted there are “exceptional circumstances, where data cannot be shared openly with all,” including cases where papers are based on data sets that include personal information. Journals will still publish those papers, but will tell researchers wishing to reanalyze or replicate the studies to negotiate directly with the authors to obtain the sensitive data.
In general, researchers who share their data usually first strip information such as name, date of birth, or place of residence that would enable people to trace it back to an individual, says Joel Kaufman, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who is studying air pollution and heart disease. He’s now preparing a “limited” data set for the roughly 7000 participants in his study, so that other researchers can work with it. “That’s the right thing to do,” Kaufman says. “But I fear that that’s not enough for what the proponents of this regulation are trying to do, which is to get data that we know we can’t provide.”
On the industry side, an American Chemistry Council (ACC) spokesperson says the Washington, D.C.–based trade group is looking at the new EPA rule, but has few detailed comments at this point. “Our industry is committed to working 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,” spokesperson Jon Corley said in a prepared statement. In the past, ACC has supported similar efforts to bar EPA from using nonpublic data in certain kinds of rulemakings, while noting that the agency often uses confidential or proprietary data provided by industry in doing its work.
For example, industries fund extensive research into the health effects of chemicals, often through private laboratories that rely on animal testing. In internal EPA emails released by the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the agency’s deputy administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Nancy Beck, wrote that for a majority of industry studies, confidential business information “can be waived and the data can be made available.” (Beck was formerly a top official at the chemistry council.) But the EPA proposal also suggests such industry information could be exempted from the transparency rule.
Long history
The new EPA proposal is the latest in a long-running campaign to let the public and regulated industries sift through the raw data of epidemiologists whose work could affect pollution regulations.
In the 1990s, members of Congress pressed for legislation requiring scientists to disclose their raw scientific data, partly in response to a Harvard University study finding a correlation between more air pollution and lower life expectancy. Several times in recent years, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring public disclosure of data from any new studies used by EPA to write regulations, but the proposal never made it out of Congress. The champion of that bill, Representative Lamar Alexander (R–TN), flanked Pruitt at Tuesday’s unveiling of the new proposal, smiling.
EPA will now accept public comments on the proposal for 30 days, then is expected to issue a final rule.
Environmental groups and others have already said they expect to challenge the rule in court. Potential lines of attack, attorneys say, include claims that EPA has not met the letter of federal law in evaluating the rule’s costs and benefits, or explained which federal law has provided it with the authority to issue the new requirements.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/new-rule-could-force-epa-ignore-major-human-health-studies
-
(ACC Mentioned) First-Of-Its-Kind PS Recycling Facility Now Operational
Apr 26, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
A ribbon-cutting ceremony last week at the Agilyx plant in Oregon drew a mix of business and government representatives, including one major PS producer who said the technology could help stem consumer backlash against foam plastics.
Officials celebrated the opening of Tigard, Ore.-based Agilyx’s polystyrene recycling facility, which can convert 10 tons per day of rigid and foam PS into a styrene monomer for sale into chemical markets.
Plastics Recycling Update previously provided an in-depth look at the technology behind the process, which leverages equipment Agilyx had formerly used in a pyrolysis system.
The plant is now fully operational and is processing material.A ‘foam lifesaver’ for one resin maker
Dozens of stakeholder representatives attended the April 19 event, which included speeches and tours of the Portland-area facility.
Among the speakers was Jon Timbers, senior manager of innovation and sustainability at Americas Styrenics (AmSty). His company, a major producer of PS and styrene monomers, is a joint venture of Trinseo and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co.
He said his company was excited to see a development of a process that could help lift the recycling image of PS.
“Consumers have started to walk away from our products because they don’t have options for our products after use,” Timbers told the audience. “And this is the one thing that American Styrenics is focused on: How do we bring solutions to market for our products after use? And working with Agilyx has made that idea a reality.”
“For a polystyrene producer, it’s a little bit like being in the ocean drowning and somebody throws you a, well, a foam lifesaver,” he added.
Timbers indicated AmSty is interested in purchasing Agilyx’s products. “I told one the Agilyx guys earlier I brought my checkbook,” he said. “I’m ready to buy some styrene made from polystyrene.”
Meanwhile, Agilyx CEO Joe Vaillancourt credited company employees for developing the technology. They tested thousands of product mixtures and substrates to arrive at the product created today. “They’re doing something that even the biggest petroleum companies haven’t been able to figure out, so it’s truly impressive,” he said.
Agilyx is in discussions with over 500 potential feedstock suppliers and styrene purchasers, Vaillancourt said.
Also speaking at the event were Brian Moe and Matt Durbin, both of Agilyx; Mike Levy of the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group; and elected leaders from the city of Tigard and Washington County.
Last fall, a different PS producer, INEOS Styrolution America, U.S. subsidiary of German-headquartered INEOS Styrolution, entered a development agreement with Agilyx. INEOS also signed a deal with a different company recovering styrene monomers from PS: Pyrowave. That Ontario, Canada-based company uses microwaves in a depolymerization process.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/04/25/first-of-its-kind-ps-recycling-facility-now-operational/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Great Chemical Stocks to Boost Your Porfolio Performance
Apr 26, 2018 | Zacks
By Swarup Gupta
Ever since the shale boom began, U.S. companies have stepped up their investments on chemicals projects within the country. The shale revolution has given them abundant access to cheap ethane which provides them with a competitive edge over their foreign competitors who largely depend on naphtha derived from oil.
Fears of a trade war between the United States and China had raised concerns that chemicals companies would reconsider their investments on new projects. However, such concerns have receded following President Trump’s decision to send a delegation to China in order to negotiate on tariffs.
This development indicates that prospects of chemicals producers remain bright. Adding them to your portfolios would make for a profitable option at this point.
Shale Boom Boost Chemicals Investments
According to Martha Gilchrist Moore of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the chemical industry has stepped up investments in the United States from 2010. This is primarily due to the availability of low-cost natural gas reserves discovered by shale drillers. Moore was speaking in Pittsburgh on Apr 20.
Moore added that from 2010 up to February this year, various companies have said that they will set up 313 projects related to chemicals, together valued at $188 billion. Nearly 60% of this amount, around $113 billion, will come from foreign companies. Additionally, nearly 700 projects related to plastics as well as fresh constructions and expansions have been announced during this period.
Mnuchin’s Visit Likely to Ease Trade-related Worries
However, the good fortunes of the chemicals industry have been clouded by prospects of a trade war between China and the United States. China’s proposal to levy 25% tariffs on nearly $50 billion of U.S. imports would harm a major market for a range of plastics and chemicals produced in the United States.
According to the ACC, China imported $3.2 billion worth of plastic resins from the United States in 2017, which makes it one of most United States’ largest trading partners. Nearly 40% of the items mentioned on China’s tariffs list are chemicals, including polyethylene and polycarbonates.
But President Trump’s decision to send a team to China in order to discuss tariff related issues have helped to calm fears that a trade war is likely to begin. Chinese President Xi Jinping has made several conciliatory statements in this connection earlier this month, promising to open up his economy further to investors.
Subsequently, Xi’s government relaxed foreign ownership norms for auto JVs set up within China. Now, the U.S. team led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, which includes Trump’s top economic adviser Larry Kudlow and U.S. Trade representative Robert Lighthizer could ease trade-related worries further. On Apr 25, Trump stated at the White House that “We’ve got a very good chance at making a deal.”
Our Choices
The U.S. chemicals industry seems to be in good shape as we head into the second quarter. The ACC has revealed that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes have increased significantly over the first quarter. Further, though the ACC’s Chemical Activity Barometer declined by 0.1% in April to 121.6%, it has experienced a 3.8% yearly increase
And now Mnuchin’s visit to China promises to ease out trade-related worries for the chemicals industry. Investing in chemicals stocks looks like a smart move at this time. However, picking winning stocks may be difficult.
This is where our VGM Score comes in. Here V stands for Value, G for Growth and M for Momentum and the score is a weighted combination of these three scores. Such a score allows you to eliminate the negative aspects of stocks and select winners. However, it is important to keep in mind that each Style Score will carry a different weight while arriving at a VGM Score.
We have narrowed down our search to the following stocks based on a good Zacks Rank and VGM Score.
Univar Inc. (UNVR - Free Report) is a distributor of chemicals and innovative services.
Univar has a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and a VGM Score of A. The company has expected earnings growth of 23.5% for the current year. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 14.7% over the last 60 days.
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. (KRO - Free Report) is a global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments.
Kronos Worldwide has a VGM Score of B. The company has expected earnings growth of 62.8% for the current year. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 33% over the last 60 days. The stock has a Zacks Rank #1. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
The Chemours Company (CC - Free Report) is a provider of performance chemicals on a worldwide basis.
Chemours has a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) and a VGM Score of A. The company’s expected earnings growth for the current year is 40.6%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 1.3% over the last 30 days.
Huntsman Corporation (HUN - Free Report) is among the world's largest global manufacturers of differentiated and commodity chemical products for a variety of industrial and consumer applications.
Huntsman has a Zacks Rank #2 and a VGM Score of A. The company’s expected earnings growth for the current year is 13%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 2.3% over the last 30 days.
Eastman Chemical Company (EMN - Free Report) manufactures and sells chemicals, plastics and fibers.
Eastman Chemical has a Zacks Rank #2 and a VGM Score of B. The company’s expected earnings growth for the current year is 12.2%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 1.2% over the last 60 days.
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/300906/5-great-chemical-stocks-to-boost-your-porfolio-performance
-
(ACC Mentioned) Power Rental Market Is Expected to Show Significant Growth over the Forecast Period
Apr 26, 2018 | Coherent Chronicle
By Mohan Pawar
Major drivers propelling the growth of power rental market globally include rapidly developing construction industry. According to CMI, the global construction industry is projected to expand at a CAGR of 5.8% from 2017 to 2025.
Power rental plants are required for temporary supply of power for industries due to the supply-demand gap in electricity. To avoid financial losses, industries requires a constant power supply. Therefore, industries use additional power by introducing short-term initiatives, such as leasing or renting addition power by using diesel generators to fulfill their need for power.
North America led the power rental market and is expected to witness a CAGR of 6.4% during the forecast period. Increasing demand for electricity and challenges in power sector, such as federal carbon policies on carbon emission and meeting energy targets are the main reasons for development of power rental market in this region. The emerging economies in Asia Pacific such as India and China, are expected to propel the growth of power rental market in the region in near future. Furthermore, industries such as construction, event, oil and gas, mining, manufacturing, and shipping have a high requirement for rental electricity for continuous operation. These factors are highly responsible for the growth of the power rental market in Asia Pacific.
On the basis of application, base load/continuous segment dominated the power rental market in 2016, with a market share of around 43.5% in the same year. Base load or continuous power plant provides continuous electricity supply with the requirement of minimum power generation. Some of the continuous power plant includes a geothermal power plant, tidal power plant, and coal-fired power plant.
Among the end-use industry, construction and oil & gas industries dominate the global power rental market, owing to high adoption rate of power rental technologies. According to American Chemistry Council (ACC), due to availability of cheap and abundant ethane and shale gas, there is boom in chemical industry in the U.S with starting of 294 new projects by 2017. The rising demand for oil and gas throughout the globe is the major factor driving the growth of global power rental market. According to the International Energy Outlook 2016, the global energy demand is set to increase from 268 mboe/d in 2013 to 399 mboe/d by 2040.
Base load/continuous was the largest segment in 2016 and is expected to maintain its position during the forecast period. Base load segment was valued at US$ 5.55 billion in 2016 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 7.3% during 2017 – 2025.
http://www.coherentchronicle.com/power-rental-market-is-expected-to-show-significant-growth-over-the-forecast-period/
-
Scientists Denounce Pruitt’s Effort to Block ‘Secret Science’ at EPA
Apr 25, 2018 | Washington Post
By Joel Achenbach
In the annals of science there aren’t many reports that had as much impact as Harvard’s Six Cities Study of 1993. It showed a dramatic association between long-term exposure to air pollution and higher risk of an early death. It influenced government pollution standards that research shows have saved thousands of lives.
But the Six Cities Study, as well as many other scientific research papers, could be deemed unreliable and discarded by the Trump administration under a proposal announced Tuesday by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Pruitt, who as attorney general in Oklahoma battled the EPA before becoming its leader last year, has pushed forward a new rule that would limit the kind of scientific research used by the agency when crafting regulations. Research would be banned if its underlying data had not been made public or been independently reproduced.
“If you don’t publish the data, you only publish the conclusions. … That’s simply wrongheaded,” Pruitt said.
Such a rule could potentially affect any study relying on confidential health records and clinical data. The Six Cities Study and a follow-up 1995 report using confidential data from the American Cancer Society are prime examples.
Supporters of Pruitt say that in crafting regulations in the past, the EPA has relied on “secret science.” Moments before Pruitt announced the rule Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) took the rostrum to praise the effort as a way of “putting a stop to hidden agendas.”
Leaders of the scientific community expressed outrage, saying that such a restriction, which must go through a 30-day comment period and will probably face legal challenges, would suppress solid science.
This showdown has been building for a quarter-century.
Douglas Dockery, a Harvard University research scientist, was the lead author of the Six Cities Study and saw it through an exacting peer-review process. The results were so stark and surprising that Dockery and his collaborators embarked on the second, larger study, using the American Cancer Society data, to make sure the first one was right.
In the first study, Dockery and his colleagues looked at six communities — two with clean air (Portage, Wis., and Topeka, Kan.), two with serious air pollution (Steubenville, Ohio, and St. Louis) and two with air quality between those extremes (Watertown, Mass., and Kingston, Tenn.). They found that greater air pollution was strongly associated with a higher risk of an early death and that the association persisted even when factoring in cigarette-smoking habits, occupational hazards and other health risks.
Fine particulates, so tiny that they can penetrate deep into the lungs, contribute to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, Dockery said in an interview this week. People living in Steubenville, with the dirtiest air, lost roughly two years of life because of their exposure to air pollution, compared with people in Portage, Dockery said.
The follow-up study examined 154 cities and produced a similar result. This research influenced regulators at the EPA. In 1997, when they crafted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, they included a standard for fine particulate matter, 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. (A human hair is about 70 micrometers wide.)
The researchers then turned over their data to the Health Effects Institute — a neutral organization funded jointly by the EPA and industry — to conduct a full review. “That was a very anxious time,” Dockery said this week.
“I knew that we had analyzed the data as honestly and accurately as we knew how,” said Six Cities co-author C. Arden Pope, who was the lead author of the American Cancer Society study and is now a professor of economics at Brigham Young University.
The institute’s review broadly validated the quality of the research of Dockery and his colleagues. The data was of “generally high quality,” and the reanalyses “replicated the original results” and “did extend and challenge our understanding of the original results in several important ways.” For example, mortality linked to air pollution was higher among people with less than a high school education, the institute found. The reanalyses also noted an association between sulfur dioxide pollution and mortality.
Since then, scores of studies in many countries have affirmed a connection between air pollution and health problems, according to Dockery and Pope.
“You always wonder when you have a new finding like that whether it’s true or not, and whether it will stand up to scrutiny,” Dockery said. “And it has over these — where are we now? — 25 years. It’s been tested and retested.”
But the research has remained controversial politically, if not scientifically, and has been a target of attacks by EPA critics. These are anxious times for many scientists who are concerned about a federal government headed by a president and political appointees who have expressed doubt about the consensus on climate change and other issues.
Pruitt’s actions follow a failed legislative effort by Smith and other conservative members of Congress known as the Honest Act. The Pruitt proposal is titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.
Some proponents of “transparency” borrow language that has been used by scientists who have been pushing for better reproducibility in research and open access to data. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia professor who is a leader of that movement, said the goal is not to suppress scientific research. In an email to The Washington Post, Nosek said that policymakers should know which findings have been reproduced and how transparent the research data is, “but that doesn’t justify a blanket prohibition of evidence that doesn’t meet the aspirational ideal.”
Pope said: “Almost all of us believe that open, transparent, peer-reviewed, reproducible science is what we want. On the other hand, all of us want to meet the [legal] requirements and privacy and confidentiality ethics that are required to do some of this research.”
Gretchen Goldman, an expert on air pollution and the research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said of the move by Pruitt and his allies: “The goal was always to stave off science-based policies, not to promote transparency. What they’re doing now is couching that language in ways to confuse the public and make this sound innocuous.”
Dockery noted that air quality has improved greatly in the United States since he began his research in 1974. Health outcomes have also improved. Those are not unrelated facts, he said.
“People are living longer in the United States and other countries in proportion to how much the air quality has improved,” he said. “I continue to be very proud of the impact we’ve had.”
Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/25/scientists-denounce-pruitts-effort-to-block-secret-science-at-epa/?utm_term=.a22e794dabc6
-
Make-Or-Break Moment for EPA Chief Pruitt
Apr 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt faces a pivotal moment Thursday at back-to-back congressional panels where he will be grilled over a series of controversies endangering his tenure at the EPA.
Democrats have been chomping at the bit to challenge Pruitt, while Republicans have shown impatience with his negative headlines despite their support for the EPA administrator’s regulatory record.
“It will be a cordial reception, but he has some tough questions to answer,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The hearings before subpanels of the Energy and Commerce and Appropriations committees are Pruitt’s first in front of Congress since his future at the EPA came into question because of the string of controversies — including reports of a $50-per-night Capitol Hill condo lease from the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist and raises given to EPA aides without White House approval.
Pruitt’s performance could be a make-or-break moment, and the White House and congressional Republicans are among those who will be watching his answers carefully.
“What I’d like to see from the administrator, frankly, is some contrition and admission that maybe he’s gone too far, if he believes that, and maybe a plan for improvement,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who has been a close ally to the Trump administration on energy and environmental policy. “I think that if he were to offer something like that, maybe he’d be offered some grace that he currently isn’t enjoying.”
Pruitt’s support at the White House has reportedly waned in the past weeks, with staffers going as far as telling members of Congress not to publicly support Pruitt, according to Bloomberg News.
The White House on Wednesday did not give Pruitt a resounding vote of confidence, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying it was “evaluating” concerns raised about Pruitt. “We expect the EPA administrator to answer for them,” she added.
President Trump appears to have been Pruitt’s biggest supporter.
He tweeted earlier this month that Pruitt “is doing a great job.”
“It’s really up to one guy. You know, he plays to an audience of one,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of the Appropriations panel, said of Pruitt’s relationship with Trump.
Cole said Pruitt reached out to him last week for advice on preparing for the hearing.
“He just said, ‘What do you think it’s going to be like?’ I said, ‘It’s going to be rough. And, you know, be ready,’ ” Cole said.
“As long as he’s got the confidence of the president of the United States, he’s going to be all right. He may have a rough ride. But if he were to lose that, then really not much else matters,” Cole told reporters.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who will be leading one of the hearings as chairman of an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, expected Pruitt to face questions both on his controversies and his policies.
“I think he’s done a good job in the policy. I think there’s been a lot of unforced errors that have taken people’s eye off of the policy,” Shimkus said.
Pruitt also reached out to Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee holding the EPA hearing, for advice going into Thursday.
Calvert said he told him, “Be prepared.”
“He’s a very capable attorney,” he said. “He’s spent some time in some very confrontational courtrooms in the past. I’m sure he’ll do fine in the hearings.”
Democrats were tight-lipped on Wednesday about their plans.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) offered a one-word expectation: “Fireworks.”
A person familiar with Democrats’ preparations said the lawmakers will try to be “prosecutorial” in their questioning to try to corner Pruitt.
The challenge, the source said, “will be what to elevate” given the “buffet” of controversies surrounding Pruitt.
Pruitt’s prepared remarks for the Energy and Commerce hearing released Wednesday make no mention of any of the scandals, and focus only on his budget request and his priorities at the agency, such as closing Superfund sites and expanding clean drinking water.
But a document obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday shows Pruitt will likely come to the Capitol armed with talking points that mostly aim to shift blame for the scandals to others — namely his chief of staff and security heads.
Pruitt has previously sought to explain away many of the controversies as having been driven by his liberal opponents.
“There are people that have long in this town done business a different way and this agency has been the poster child of it,” he told the Washington Examiner earlier this month. “And so do I think that because we are leading on this agenda that there are some who want to keep that from happening? Absolutely.”
If Pruitt just tries to shift blame on Thursday and does not show some contrition, however, it could backfire.
When he tried to deflect blame during an interview with Fox News’s Ed Henry the same week as the Examiner interview, it blew up in his face.
“President Trump said he would drain the swamp. Is that renting an apartment from the wife of a Washington lobbyist?” Henry asked at one point during the sit-down interview.
“I don’t think that that’s even remotely fair to ask that question,” Pruitt shot back.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Pruitt should apologize to the American people and try to be transparent.
“What I’d do if I were Pruitt … I’d call a full-blown press conference and say ‘I’m here as long as y’all want to talk,’ ” suggested Kennedy. “ ‘Here’s what I did, here’s why I think it was right, and I’m going to defend myself. Here are the criticisms that I think are fair, here’s what I’m going to do differently.’ ”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/384946-make-or-break-moment-for-epa-chief-pruitt
-
4 Things to Watch as Pruitt Heads to Capitol Hill
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Will Scott Pruitt's allies in Congress turn against him? Will the embattled EPA chief apologize? Will President Trump tweet about the performance?
These are some of the themes to look for as Pruitt heads to the House today for back-to-back hearings that are certain to turn into a media spectacle. This will be Pruitt's first congressional appearance since headlines about mounting scandals and ethical missteps have piled up in recent weeks.
Pruitt will start the day in a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing before heading to a House Appropriations subcommittee in the afternoon. The doubleheader gives House members the chance to publicly grill Pruitt about spending on his travel, security and $50-per-day condo deal, among other concerns. It'll also give Pruitt the chance to publicly make his case for keeping his job as critics — including some Republicans in Congress — call for his ouster.
Here are four things to watch as the hearings kick off:Do Republicans have his back?
Some Republicans have openly slammed Pruitt for his spending at the agency, but it'll be notable if GOP lawmakers broadly pile on the criticism about the ethics allegations.
Fiscally conservative Republicans who support Pruitt's policy agenda may join their Democratic colleagues in chiding Pruitt for his use of taxpayer cash.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee hosting Pruitt this morning, signaled that Republicans on the committee won't stick just to policy — discussions Pruitt would likely prefer to ethics issues.
Pruitt's prepared remarks deal entirely with policy and budget talking points, skirting ethics and spending allegations entirely (Greenwire, April 25).
"I think you'll hear people ask him about policy and stewardship of his office," Shimkus told E&E News yesterday. He declined to say whether he thinks Pruitt ought to be fired.
The Illinois Republican said he hadn't been asked by the White House to temper criticism of Pruitt. Bloomberg reported earlier this week that White House officials cautioned GOP lawmakers against defending the EPA boss.
"It's my subcommittee. They haven't talked to me," Shimkus said.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, declined to detail his line of questioning for the administrator.
"We'll have an opportunity to address the issues that have been raised and talk about policy," he said. "He serves at the pleasure of the president."
Pruitt still has some stalwart supporters in the House GOP ranks, including House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). Smith visited EPA headquarters earlier this week when Pruitt rolled out plans to reform science at the agency — one of Smith's longtime legislative goals.
Asked whether he's worried about Pruitt's future, Smith said, "No, he's doing a great job, I think."
Smith's committee won't be among those grilling the EPA boss today, but the Texas Republican expects Pruitt to have "good answers" for ethics questions raised by his colleagues. "They're just that, they're allegations, and I think we need to hear what he has to say, and I think there will be good explanations."Does Pruitt admit fault?
To date, Pruitt has deflected criticism of his first-class flights onto his security team and blamed his staff for the hefty bonuses approved (and later revoked) for two favored aides who came with him from Oklahoma.
The New York Times reported yesterday that the administrator is likely to continue to avoid personal responsibility today. A prep sheet obtained by the newspaper revealed that Pruitt plans to say career and political staff were responsible for the raises to staffers and his security team required him to fly first and business class.
If he does, Pruitt will be repeating the same approach he used in an April 4 interview with Fox News' Ed Henry, largely seen as damaging to Pruitt. In that interview, Pruitt stated he was unaware of the raises at the time they were approved.
"I found out this yesterday, and I corrected the action, and we are in the process of finding out how it took place and correcting it," Pruitt told Henry. Pruitt's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, later took responsibility for the substantial raises and backed up the administrator's statement (Greenwire, April 10).
In addition to questions from Congress, Pruitt is facing a series of investigations into misuse of funds and power from EPA's inspector general's office and the Government Accountability Office. The White House is also looking into Pruitt's actions, although officials have declined to provide details (Climatewire, April 25).A presidential tweet?
Pruitt observers are keeping a close eye on the president's Twitter feed to see how Trump responds to his EPA administrator's performance today.
The last time Trump tweeted about Pruitt was on April 7, just a few days after the administrator's Fox News interview. At that point, he defended Pruitt's actions.
"While Security spending was somewhat more than his predecessor, Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at EPA. Record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars. Rent was above market rate, travel expenses OK. Scott is doing a great job!"
The president has remained largely silent on the administrator since then, although White House staffers believe Pruitt will soon be fired, according to a White House official (E&E News PM, April 24).
Democrats and environmental groups are turning up the pressure on the administrator in the lead-up to the hearing. Yesterday, EPA union members joined members of Congress and environmental and public health groups outside EPA's Washington, D.C., headquarters to call for the president to fire Pruitt.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) was among those rallying outside the agency.
"In my perfect world, the president would fire [Pruitt]," he told E&E News.
"But I don't expect that necessarily moves us in the right direction on the environment because the [Deputy] Administrator [Andrew] Wheeler moves right in, a coal lobbyist. For that reason, for me as an environmentalist, I don't think the regulatory environment is going to suddenly improve with Scott Pruitt gone," he added.Does climate change come up?
Pruitt and his allies would prefer to steer the conversation toward policy, meaning his work to roll back climate regulations could get some attention today.
Today's hearings coincide with the final day to comment on a proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era rule aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Many of the more than 19,000 public comments are highly critical of the agency's plan to ax the rule.
Pruitt's own prepared remarks for the Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing make no mention of the Clean Power Plan repeal or replacement actions. They do, however, discuss funding for the popular Energy Star program, which certifies the energy efficiency of various products. EPA is asking Congress for the authority to fund Energy Star through fees, a year after it faced fierce backlash for zeroing out funding for the program.
He also plans to highlight efforts to fund "core work" in air and water quality, as well as initiatives to remove lead from drinking water and to clean up Superfund sites.
Some Democrats want Pruitt to be grilled on policy, too.
"The things we really care about are not the phone booth or the first-class travel to New York or Boston, it's the dismantling of the environmental regulatory system put in place by Democrats and Republicans over the last 46 years," Beyer told E&E in a recent interview.
Reporter Robin Bravender contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/04/26/stories/1060080125
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Round-Up
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Consultation extended on draft strategy to reduce animal use in chemical testing
The EPA has extended the public comment period on its strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods by 15 days. The consultation will now close on 11 May.
Inventory aid for processors
The EPA has scheduled a webinar for 23 May to help processors with reporting substances as "active" on the TSCA inventory.
The programme will include an overview of reporting requirements for processors, a demonstration of the reporting software and time to ask questions. Registration is not required.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is also offering assistance through a website that aims "to address processor questions about the inventory reset process".
Under the 'inventory reset' rule, the EPA is seeking to identify substances active in commerce during a ten-year 'lookback period' ending 21 June 2016. The agency's recently published inventory update is the first to include an 'active' designation, which reflects retrospective reports submitted to the agency by manufacturers and importers during the first phase of the TSCA inventory notification period.
Processors may elect to report any substances that did not get notified by upstream suppliers until 5 October. Downstream users may choose to forego reporting, but they must cease processing substances labelled inactive until the EPA is notified.
Safer Choice nominations sought
The US EPA is seeking applications for the 2018 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards.
The Safer Choice programme recognises products that use "safer" chemical ingredients and also meet standards for sustainable packaging and ingredient disclosure. Manufacturers can use the Safer Choice logo on their products.
The annual awards recognise programme stakeholders – including distributors and retailers as well as manufacturers – that have demonstrated leadership in advancing the cause of greener chemistry.
Nominations are due by 27 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66263/us-epa-round-up
-
Expecting New TSCA Resources, OPPT Proposes New Reorganization Plan
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Responding to staff concerns, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has delayed its ongoing reorganization effort to propose a revised plan that relies on OPPT leadership being able to hire sufficient number of new scientists to fill a second risk analysis division to bolster chemical assessments required by the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
According to documents obtained by Inside EPA, OPPT leaders are now proposing a revamped structure with six divisions, down from the existing seven-division structure.
Previous straw options floated last year proposed new structures with just five divisions, and at that time, managers maintained they wouldn't expand beyond five divisions.
The structural changes are intended to help OPPT better meet new responsibilities to implement the reformed TSCA, OPPT Director Jeff Morris explained to staff in an internal September memo.
There, Morris introduced three different proposals to reorganize OPPT, with each plan cutting OPPT's existing seven-division structure to five divisions, though in different ways.
The latest draft reorganization diagram, on which Morris has asked staff to comment through May 9, was released to staff shortly before an internal OPPT meeting April 24.
It proposes moving OPPT staff into a six-division structure: a new chemicals management division and existing chemicals management division with matching new chemicals science and existing chemicals science divisions; a Chemical Right-To-Know, Analysis and Innovation Division; and a Mission Operations Division.
“This major change is centered on creating two science divisions that will provide assessments and other scientific support to the office. One will focus on conducting evaluations in support of the new chemicals program and the other will focus on risk evaluations for existing chemicals,” Morris writes to OPPT staff in the April 24 memo. “This has been done in part to better align our science resources to our two core TSCA program areas in a way similar to the model we are using for risk management.”
The revised TSCA law significantly increased EPA's responsibilities overseeing both new chemicals and existing chemicals, which were already on the market when the original law took effect in 1976.
Among other things, the updated TSCA directs EPA to prioritize existing chemicals for risk analysis, gives EPA quotas and deadlines for evaluating existing chemicals, and directs the agency to take risk management action on those deemed to present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The updated law also altered EPA's new chemicals responsibilities, requiring that EPA reach a finding on each submission.
'Science Resources'
Staffing sufficient to cover the new demands revised TSCA places on OPPT has been a concern since the new statute's 2016 enactment. EPA leaders have sought to address the issue with details, moving staff from across the agency to temporary duties in OPPT.
Two months ago, Morris announced that he is seeking to move staff from OPPT's Pollution Prevention program to TSCA duties -- again a stopgap measure to address the demands of the new TSCA program.
And Nancy Beck, the top Trump appointee in EPA's toxics office, lamented that lawmakers had failed to authorize specific staffing levels for the new TSCA program as they did for a pesticide fee program years earlier, suggesting the administration's government-wide hiring freeze is undermining the agency's ability to implement the law.
Given such constraints, agency staff raised concerns in comments, obtained by Inside EPA, that urged managers to reorganize OPPT's existing single science division, known as the Risk Assessment Division (RAD), as part of the effort. They argued that failure to tap the RAD for overhaul would hobble TSCA implementation because the division was slow in conducting chemical reviews.
Such comments reflect heightened concern within OPPT -- and among industry and environmental groups -- over bottlenecks that have delayed key decisions within OPPT since enactment of the 2016 TSCA reform law.
Other comments in the summary document illuminates a concern for some that RAD's focus has been on existing chemicals rather than new chemicals -- and proposed the twin science divisions now found in the latest proposal.
Responding to the suggestion, Morris says in his memo that the latest proposal, with two science divisions, “will also enhance senior management accountability in these two critical program areas.”
And he adds that the change is driven by “significant growth anticipated in our science resources. We believe having two complementary science divisions for new chemicals and existing chemicals with senior executive ownership over two key processes in the office will assist in the accomplishment of these aspects of the office’s mission.”
Sources tell Inside EPA that Morris at the meeting explained that the new reorganization proposal with two science divisions is “predicated on the notion that we would get new [full-time employee equivalents], and in fact we did. We are working hard to hire up, primarily in the science area."
Morris added that “should we succeed we'll have the numbers to support two science divisions,” a source says.
Other changes also appear to respond to staff comments, such as proposing to move the Industrial Chemistry Branch (ICB) to the proposed New Chemicals Science Division, rather than previous proposals which placed it in the proposed New Chemicals Management Division.
A summary of the comments explains that ICB “functions parallel and support existing RAD functions. They include establishing the chemical and biological identity of the substance that is subject to New Chemical review. They help determine if the subject substance is 'new' and provide guidance to subsequent reviewers by establishing structural features that can then be analyzed for potential effects issues by RAD modelers. Moving ICB to RAD finally integrates the chemists with the remainder of the reviewers.”
Right-To-Know
The proposal also puts forward a new plan for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The OPPT program was, in some ways, most affected by the initial reorganization plan because in reducing the number of divisions, OPPT leaders propose eliminating TRI as an independent division within the office.
Not surprisingly, TRI proposals developed some of the most intense comments, with staff urging leaders to maintain TRI as a distinct unit in the ongoing effort to reorganize OPPT -- either by continuing to have a TRI division within OPPT, or making TRI a distinct branch within a new division.
The latest plan proposes distributing TRI in three branches within a new proposed division, the Chemical Right-To-Know, Analysis and Innovation Division: a TRI management branch and two branches were TRI work would be combined with other OPPT data collection, analysis and dissemination activities for its Chemical Data Rule and ChemView programs.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/expecting-new-tsca-resources-oppt-proposes-new-reorganization-plan
-
House Lawmakers Seek Expedited EPA Rulemaking for PFAS Standard
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, whose districts are affected by drinking water contaminants such as perfluorinated chemicals, is urging appropriators to adopt report language that requires EPA to conduct an expedited rulemaking to craft a standard for the substances, pushing back on agency concerns that such an effort could drag on for years.
In a recent letter to Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA) and Betty McCollum (D-MN), the chair and ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee that funds EPA, respectively, the lawmakers seek report language in EPA's fiscal year 2019 spending bill to require the agency "to publish a maximum contaminant level goal and promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for perfluorinated compounds (including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid [PFOS] and perfluorooctanoic acid [PFOA]) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, based upon the most precautionary scientific evidence within 90 days of enactment."
The request adds to pressure EPA is under ahead of a planned May 22 "National Leadership Summit" EPA is hosting with state and tribal officials to share information on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and identify near-term actions for addressing the substances.
A host of senators, states and environmentalists are also calling on the agency to develop an enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS, as the agency has so far only established provisional health advisories, which are not enforceable, for two such chemicals.
But the lack of enforceable standards has created a patchwork of state standards, as a growing number of states adopt their own advisories and standards to address the increasingly ubiquitous contaminants.
Peter Grevatt, an EPA water official, signaled recently that the agency is weighing the possibility of issuing a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFAS, although he cautioned it is a lengthy process.
But the House lawmakers note that the use of health advisories as guidance, rather than an enforceable drinking water standard, poses challenges for drinking water programs and systems. The health advisories for PFOA and PFOS established by EPA "do not provide clarity on necessary actions for water systems to address the compounds, and how to communicate their actions and the associated health risks to the public," they say.
Despite the request, at least one of the lawmakers who signed the letter is pessimistic that EPA will act. A spokesman for Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), whose district in Flint, MI, faces significant lead contamination from drinking water, says that while Pruitt has said he is committed to responding to PFAS contamination, "we have seen repeatedly, like with lead in water issues, he has not prioritized action on drinking water contamination in the country."
ATSDR Funding
The House lawmakers are also urging appropriators to increase funding for the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) so the health agency can better examine impacts from the contaminants.
They want a boost over the $74.7 million the agency has received in recent years, but do not specify how much higher the agency's budget should go.
The lawmakers say they are speaking on behalf of communities negatively affected by drinking water contaminants, particularly PFAS.
Specifically, they point to the more common PFAS known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), noting a growing amount of peer-reviewed data pointing to serious health risks from such substances. The chemicals have been used in a variety of applications due to their non-stick qualities.
ATSDR's "work is critical to our growing understanding of the human health impacts of perfluorinated chemicals," they say. "We respectfully urge your Subcommittee to more robustly fund ATSDR in FY 2019 so that the agency may better understand the health impacts of increasingly prevalent drinking water issues across the country," they say.
The letter was signed by Reps. Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Patrick Meehan (R-PA), Brian K. Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Paul D. Tonko (D-NY), Peter Welch (D-VT), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Daniel T. Kildee (D-MI), Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) and James P. McGovern (D-MA).
EPA and the Defense Department (DOD) have identified elevated levels of the more common PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at or near more than 600 DOD bases, while EPA has also identified them in public drinking water systems, the letter says. It notes the difficulty DOD faces in complying with various state regulations, which is causing the department "great legal and budgetary uncertainty." DOD used PFAS in fire-fighting foam, and has investigated training sites and airfields where it was used.
The lawmakers say ATSDR's "work is critical to our growing understanding of the human health impacts of perfluorinated chemicals." They note that the agency responds to environmental health emergencies, investigates emerging environmental health threats, performs research on the health impacts of hazardous waste sites and provides guidance to state and local health entities.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-lawmakers-seek-expedited-epa-rulemaking-pfas-standard
-
Apr 25, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA awarded $4 million in grants for lead research today to Virginia Tech and the Water Research Foundation.
Each entity received $1.98 million from the agency.
Virginia Tech will use its funding to create a "consumer-based framework" for detecting and controlling lead in drinking water.
Dr. Marc Edwards, who is credited with helping to discover the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., four years ago, is leading that research.
"We will tap a growing 'crowd' of consumers who want to learn how to better protect themselves from lead, and in the process, also create new knowledge to protect others," he said in a statement. "Whether from wells or municipalities, we all consume water, and we can collectively work to reduce health risks."
The Water Research Foundation will use its funds to create a risk-based model for identifying opportunities to mitigate lead exposure from drinking water.
Research manager Jonathan Cuppett said the project is meant to provide "resources that effectively reduce exposure from lead in drinking water."
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement that the grants would help alleviate "one of the greatest environmental threats we face as a country."
"This research will move us one step closer to advancing our work to eradicate lead in drinking water," he said.
Pruitt told Congress in December that he would refocus his agency on fighting a "war on lead."
He has since been criticized for taking few concrete steps to fight lead. EPA employees working to combat the potent neurotoxin have been left out of the loop on high-level interagency meetings on the issue, leaving critics to wonder if the effort is just for show (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/25/stories/1060080109
-
SC Johnson Reveals Ingredients Selection Criteria
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Consumer products giant SC Johnson has published the criteria behind its Greenlist ingredient selection programme.
It is the latest in the company's transparency efforts, which have included disclosing the presence of 368 skin allergens and revealingdetailed fragrance ingredients for its products online.
The company’s sustainability report, The Science Within, gives a detailed breakdown of how ingredients are evaluated for its household brands, including Glade, Pledge and Mr Muscle.
It details how ingredients undergo a four-step evaluation of their potential impact on human health and the environment, which looks at both hazard and risk.
The ingredients are assessed for:chronic human health hazards;long-term environmental hazards;acute risks to human and environmental health; andother potential effects such as allergic reactions'Leader in transparency'
Boma Brown-West, senior manager of consumer health for the NGO, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said SC Johnson continues to "be a leader when it comes to transparency – first long ago on ingredient identity, now on its ingredient assessment methodology".
"It is clear that SC Johnson’s Greenlist methodology was rigorously designed, and that the company is not afraid to evolve its methodology in its pursuit of safer products," she told Chemical Watch.
Nneka Leiba, director of healthy living science at the NGO, Environmental Working Group (EWG), said: "It is always welcome news for consumers when companies like SC Johnson take concrete steps to increase transparency and disclose more information about the chemical ingredients in their products."
And US NGO, Women Voices for the Earth (WVE), director of corporate accountability, Sarada Tangirala, said the report offers "a level of detail and specificity in its approach to chemical screening and safety that we have not seen before in a cleaning products company."
"Their candidness and point of view clearly reflects a thoughtful approach to living their values, and also a responsiveness to consumer concerns around chemical safety and reducing harm," she added
Ms Tangirala said that SC Johnson is "driving the whole industry to be better" and she hoped other companies would follow its example.
"At a minimum, we want to see all cleaning product companies offering the same level of transparency in their chemical screening programmes, so that we can start to compare companies on their specific standards and criteria," she said.
There has been increasing pressure for ingredient transparency in consumer goods products in the US. In October 2017, California's Cleaning Products Right to Know Act (SB258) was signed into law. This requires "chemicals of concern" including fragrance ingredients in products in the state, to be listed on the item's label.
Brian Sansoni, vice president of sustainability initiatives at the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), said SC Johnson’s disclosure was "yet another example of how cleaning product manufacturers are providing more information than ever on their products and ingredients."
Last year, Unilever US made fragrance ingredient information for more than 100 products available online and through an app.
US consumer goods giant, Procter & Gamble, also said it will reveal the fragrance ingredients, down to 0.01% of content, for all products sold in the US and Canada by the end of 2019.
For more details on SC Johnson's criteria, visit Chemical Risk Manager.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66260/sc-johnson-reveals-ingredients-selection-criteria
-
REACH Directors’ Contact Group Extends Registration Solution to Distributors
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The REACH Directors’ Contact Group (DCG) has agreed to extend to distributors a solution to a registration issue that concerns substance information exchange fora (Siefs) that do not have either an EU manufacturer or importer.
The DCG is an informal group of directors from the European Commission, Echa and industry associations. It was set up to respond to concerns arising from companies' REACH registration obligations.
The problem in hand – DCG 'issue 21' – relates specifically to substances with no registration intentions from an EU manufacturer or importer and was originally applied to downstream users only. In its solution, the contact group provides advice on what companies can do if they intend to use or distribute the substance in question.
The extension, it says, is to ensure a steady supply of substances critical to EU businesses.
Echa is urging downstream users or distributors with no EU supplier intending to register a substance they rely on, to consider importing and registering it themselves.
Businesses would, however, need to submit an inquiry and a registration without delay. The agency says if companies face any difficulties in obtaining all the required information and registering by the 31 May deadline, they can apply for DCG solution 21 and the agency will assess the case.
According to circumstances, Echa will set a deadline offering a reasonable amount of time to complete registration, it says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66270/reach-directors-contact-group-extends-registration-solution-to-distributors
-
European Commission Identifies DCHP as an SVHC
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has identified dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) as an SVHC because it is toxic for reproduction category 1B (REACH Article 57 (c)) and has endocrine disrupting properties with probable serious effects to human health (Article 57(f)).
Identification by the Commission now paves the way for Echa to add the chemical to the REACH candidate list as part of its update in June or July.
EU member states approved the Commission’s proposal at a REACH Committee meeting in December last year.
Sweden made the original proposal to identify the substance as an SVHC according to Article 57(f), but later withdrew it.
Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) reached a unanimous agreement to identify the chemical as an SVHC because it meets the criteria of Article 57(c).
However, it did not agree unanimously on the identification of DCHP under Article 57(f).
Five members of the MSC said the effects for human health stated in the Annex XV dossier were the same effects, caused by the same mode of action, as those already taken into account in the dossier for identification of the substance as an SVHC in accordance with Article 57(c) due to the adverse effects on development.
In June last year, Echa referred the MSC opinion to the European Commission for a decision. It said Article 57 "does not preclude identifying a substance as being of very high concern several times based on more than one intrinsic property causing the same effect on human health and relying on the same scientific evidence".
https://chemicalwatch.com/66265/european-commission-identifies-dchp-as-an-svhc
-
Phthalates, BPA Found in Major European Toy Checks
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A fifth of toy samples tested as part of a major European market surveillance exercise have been deemed non-compliant with regulations that restrict the content of substances of concern.
Seventeen EU and EEA authorities checked 255 samples. An average of 19.6% failed tests. Phthalates were the most common chemical found.
The joint market surveillance activity mainly focused on risks associated with chemicals in plasticised toys. This activity was part of a larger project – the Joint Market Surveillance Action on General Product Safety Directive Products JA2015, which was coordinated by the Product Safety Forum of Europe (Prosafe).
Of 255 samples tested for phthalates, 18% failed. DEHP and DINP were the two predominant phthalates found in concentrations higher than the respective limits stipulated in legislation.
For the same number of samples tested for short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) 3.9% failed. And 10% of 30 samples tested for bisphenol A (BPA) were found to be non-compliant.
"The level of non-compliance with regards to phthalates, SCCP and BPA, still needs to be better controlled so as to ensure that economic operators only place safe toys on the single market," the project report said.
However it added that "the positive results" from testing show that there were no detected non-compliances related to migration of lead, cadmium or organic tin in these plasticised toys. "This is worth noting especially since lead was a major concern for market surveillance authorities some years back."
Additionally, there were no non-compliances related to the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
The toy samples were divided into four main categories:
· plastic dolls (48%) – out of 121 samples, 33 failed tests;
· bath/squeezable toys (27%) – seven samples failed out of 30 tested;
· plastic books (13%) – no failures were detected; and
· inflatable toys (12%) – 10 out of 70 failed tests.Authority action
A few months before the end of the survey, the European Commission issued guidance to help authorities to take a "much simpler" approach to risk assessment for future surveillance actions, the report said. It said that 48 out of the 49 toy samples that were non-compliant were determined to present a "serious risk".
Surveillance authorities issued a sales ban on 71% of the non-compliant toys and issued recalls for an additional 25% of these toys.
Out of the 48 samples with a serious risk, 43 Rapid Alert Notifications (88%) were issued or are about to be issued using Rapex, the European Commission’s rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products.Project details
Authorities inspected manufacturers, importers and distributors. "Special attention" was given to low-cost toys and to toys which lacked proper markings and warnings – from previous experience, the report said, these present the highest levels of risk.
One hundred and thirty samples (51%) were collected via traditional market surveillance activities, 47 samples (18%) were collected with assistance from customs authorities and 78 (31%) were collected via online sales.
Hazardous chemicals in toys have been under the spotlight recently. At the end of March, the Commission notified the WTO of a draft Regulation, amending REACH Annex XVII to restrict the use of the phthalates DIBP, DEHP, DBP and BBP in toys.
And a recent European Commission report on Rapex activity in 2017 found that, for the second year running, hazardous chemicals in products, such as toys, remained the second biggest risk to health and safety on the EU and EEA market.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66279/phthalates-bpa-found-in-major-european-toy-checks
-
Study Finds 'Novel' Brominated Flame Retardant in North America
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Scientists have found evidence that a member of a "relatively new" class of brominated flame retardant (BFR) is entering the environment in North America. They say their findings demonstrate the possibility for human exposure to the substance, TTBP-TAZ, which has the potential to be a persistent organic pollutant.
The research team, led by Marta Vernier at Indiana University, found TTBP-TAZ in waste electrical and electronic equipment (e-waste) in Canada and house dust in the US.
It is a triazine-based compound, used in acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and high impact polystyrene (HIPS) for the casing of a range of electrical and electronic equipment, including:
· televisions;
· audio and video equipment; and
· computer monitors.
In 2012, a European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) scientific Opinion on emerging and novel BFRs in food described TTB-TAZ as a 'novel' BFR, meaning that there was "almost no data regarding toxicity". Efsa also suggested that analytical methods were not yet available for detecting the chemical.
Nevertheless, studies indicate that it has a persistence of about 17 years in the indoor environment. They also suggest that, because of its long half-lives in the atmosphere and water, it has similar long-range transport potential as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
Furthermore, a closely-related member of the same class, TBC, has demonstrated:
· neurotoxicity in rats;
· reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruption in zebrafish; and
· the potential to limit algal growth.
In 2014, scientists at the VU University's Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) in Amsterdam found TTB-TAZ in consumer electronic products and house dust in the Netherlands. The Indiana University scientists say that their findings represent the first evidence of its presence in North America.Discovery
The scientists were analysing BFRs in e-waste dust from a recycling facility in Ontario, when they found signs of TTBP-TAZ in their readings. They then expanded their research to include indoor air and house dust samples from residential buildings in Indiana, as well as air, sediment and water samples from the Great Lakes region.
"While manufacturers claim that it doesn't pose any risks for humans or the environment, TTBP-TAZ can easily degrade into 2,4,6-TBP, which has shown some adverse effects to fish and rodents," says Dr Vernier.
"When you combine all these pieces of information with the high production and import volumes in many countries, and their potential persistence and toxicity, it is likely that triazine compounds will be an emerging group of chemicals of concern."
The company ICL Industrial Products sells TTBP-TAZ as FR-245. Sander Kroon, regulatory affairs manager at the Europe division, reaffirmed to Chemical Watch comments made following publication of the Dutch research.
TTBP-TAZ has no hazard classification, and consequently the extremely low levels identified do not impact either health or the environment, he said. Furthermore, the product has not changed significantly over the past four years.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66249/study-finds-novel-brominated-flame-retardant-in-north-america
-
Apr 25, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Nika Beauchamp
Investigators have begun to answer a growing consumer concern: How are toxic chemicals called phthalates (THAL-eights) getting into cheese and other dairy products?
A new report released today by the Coalition for Safer Food Processing & Packaging may provide answers that won’t make cows, farmers, or consumers happy.
The first-of-its-kind report confirms that some plastic and rubber farm equipment used to milk cows still contains these hormone-disrupting chemicals.
“Shockingly, the most toxic phthalate DEHP is still used in food processing, even though it’s banned in Europe and in children’s toys,” said Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center. “With the U.S. Food & Drug Administration failing to act, it’s up to manufacturers to phase out all remaining uses of phthalates in order to protect dairy farmers and their customers.”
Previous studies have shown that phthalates can escape into high-fat foods (such as cheese and milk) during processing, packaging, and preparation. The good news, investigators found, is that dairy equipment suppliers already offer many non-phthalate alternatives that are effective and affordable.
More awareness of this issue and the knowledge that alternative equipment is available can help get toxic chemicals out of consumers’ food supply.
“Parents who buy dairy products and other food for their families want greater assurance of safety,” said Tracy Gregoire, Healthy Children Project Coordinator at the Learning Disabilities Association of America. “Industrial chemicals that put children at risk for IQ deficits, and learning and behavior problems don’t belong in our food supply.”
Study after study shows that phthalates exposure disproportionately impacts lower-income communities and people of color, making this an issue of environmental justice.
“Lower income consumers and families of color shouldn’t bear the brunt of phthalate exposure from processed foods like mac and cheese,” said Adrienne Hollis, director of federal policy of WE ACT for Environmental Justice. “We must ensure food safety and justice for all.”
One way that we get these toxic chemicals out of our food supply? Major food manufacturers can look into their supply chain—farms, manufacturing facilities, and materials used in preparation and packaging—and find and eliminate any and all sources of these toxic chemicals. That’s exactly what we’re urging Kraft Heinz, the leading dairy food manufacturer in the U.S., to do.
Big companies like Kraft have the power—and the responsibility—to lead the whole food industry in helping to protect the health of kids and families from toxic chemicals like phthalates.
Sign and share our petition calling on Kraft to do the right thing and take public action to keep toxic phthalates out of food!
Interested in learning more our investigation of dairy farm equipment for phthalates? Read the full report here. And then sign our petition demanding action from Kraft!
Thank you for taking action. Together, our voices will make all the difference.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/04/25/cows-wont-like-this-and-neither-will-you-new-report-finds-farm-equipment-may-be-source-of-toxic-chemicals-in-food/
-
EPA Faulted for Justifying Oil & Gas CTG Repeal by Citing Methane NSPS
Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Environmentalists are criticizing EPA for justifying its proposed withdrawal of oil and gas sector volatile organic compound (VOC) reduction guidelines by saying the CTG are “fundamentally linked” to methane and VOC standards for new oil and gas drilling that EPA is reconsidering, previewing possible lawsuit arguments if EPA finalizes the withdrawal.
In April 23 comments to EPA, a coalition of major environmental groups says, “We respectfully urge EPA to abandon its proposed withdrawal, which is legally flawed, entirely unnecessary, and threatens to harm the health of Americans across the country,” indicating they could sue over a final withdrawal.
The groups include the Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force and Earthjustice.
Calling on the agency to retain the guidelines, they warn that the withdrawal plan “is legally flawed, entirely unnecessary, and threatens to harm the health of Americans across the country”, the groups state.
They argue EPA is wrong to connect the CTG to the oil and gas methane rule -- though the Obama EPA at times drew a broad policy connection between the two. The environmentalists distinguish what they say is the previous administration's references to the methane and VOC NSPS -- finalized in 2016 -- as a separate policy from the CTG from what they see as the Trump EPA's attempt to inextricably link the two policies.
The Obama-era CTG provide a roadmap for states to incorporate strategies for reducing ozone-forming VOC in their Clean Air Act compliance plans. The guidelines suggest how states can meet an air law mandate to require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for reducing VOCs.
In an October 2016 press release, the Obama EPA said the CTG were “part of EPA’s strategy, announced in January 2015, to reduce harmful pollution from the large and complex oil and natural gas industry,” which also included first-time new source performance standards (NSPS) limits on the greenhouse gas methane from new oil and gas operations, finalized in 2016.
“Many controls to reduce VOCs also reduce methane -- a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential more than 25 times that of carbon dioxide -- and other air toxics as a co-benefit,” EPA said. It estimated that if states implemented the CTG then methane would be reduced by 200,000 tons, “the equivalent of reducing more than 4.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, or the [GHG] emissions of nearly a million passenger vehicles driven for one year."
The release said that EPA in crafting the CTG “reviewed other [CTG], the final NSPS, state and local VOC emission reduction approaches, and information on costs, emissions and available control technologies, along with public comment it received on the draft CTG released in 2015.”
After President Donald Trump took office, EPA then said it would reconsider the NSPS and subsequently said it aimed to repeal the CTG and make revisions to the methane rule.
In the June 5, 2017, proposal to withdraw the guidelines, the agency said the CTG are “fundamentally linked” to the NSPS. EPA referenced its plans to look “broadly” at the NSPS, said the NSPS and CTG “share certain key pieces of data and information,” and wrote it would be “prudent to withdraw the CTG in its entirety."
But the environmentalists in their comments allege EPA's proposed withdrawal of the CTG is arbitrary for reasons including: the NSPS is a “wholly separate regulation”; the agency's rationale is “not grounded” in the Clean Air Act statute as required by the landmark Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. EPA that found EPA has authority to regulate GHGs under the air law; and the Trump EPA has departed “without adequate explanation” from the Obama EPA's position that the CTG are a necessary pollution control strategy not inextricably linked to the NSPS.
'Constructive Denial'
The groups warn that withdrawal would constitute “constructive denial” of a 2012 petition from environmental groups requesting CTG for the oil and gas industry, a move that would pave the way for litigation.
The legal warnings from environmental groups supplement and sometimes intersect with policy arguments on the real world impact of EPA's plan, with the groups noting in part that the agency its proposed withdrawal estimated but understated emissions increases that would result.
“[T]he Agency understated these impacts and arbitrarily failed to consider the associated health consequences,” the groups state. They cite flaws including basing the estimates of increased pollution from withdrawing the guidelines on the 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), rather than the more-stringent 2015 ozone standard of 70 ppb for which the Trump administration has sought to delay its implementation.
The groups in their legal arguments against the proposed repeal play up the legal distinction between the NSPS and CTG, writing that EPA's justification for withdrawing the CTG is “fundamentally at odds with the Agency's prior conclusion that the CTG were not inextricably linked to the NSPS.”
Citations include the Obama EPA's response to comments on the draft CTG, in which the agency acknowledged use of “similar inputs” to both the NSPS and the CTG but said it considered different criteria for RACT recommendations that “took into account that the sources [affected in the CTG] are existing and not new sources.” the Obama EPA also noted that the RACT recommendations included in the CTG are based on a separate supporting analysis.
“Many of EPA’s CTG recommendations were similar to the control measures adopted by EPA in the 2012 and 2016 NSPS. . . . EPA was nevertheless clear that its CTG RACT recommendations were based on a supporting analysis separate from the one used to develop the NSPS requirements,” the environmentalists say, in a clear bid to distinguish how the Obama administration made similar policy arguments in favor of both the CTG and the 2016 methane and VOC NSPS from the much tighter legal link that the Trump EPA is attempting to make.
“This analysis took into account that the sources covered by the CTG are existing, rather than new, sources, and it estimated the costs of available control approaches accordingly,” the environmentalists say.
The groups also claim that, “The mere fact that EPA is reconsidering [the NSPS] for the oil and gas sector under a different provision of the [Clean Air Act], which covers a different universe of affected sources under a different standard, is a wholly inadequate justification for eliminating the CTG in their entirety.”
'Ignores' Data
The environmental groups also blast what they argue is EPA's failure to justify its about face on the CTG and an extensive public process that informed them. “EPA casts aside this extensive prior process without so much as acknowledging it, let alone analyzing it to a legally satisfactory degree,” the groups write.
The groups along these lines say EPA “utterly ignores” the data and evidence it used for the CTG that came from the “many sources other than the 2016 NSPS” which regulated methane. Those include guidelines from 1983 that apply to natural gas processing, a 2012 NSPS that did not address methane, state and local VOC emissions reduction approaches, comments on the draft CTG and five agency white papers on oil and natural gas industry emissions sources.
EPA also “fails to even identify the specific information” the agency said is shared between the CTG and the 2016 NSPS,” much less explain why that information no longer supports the CTG beyond a vague assertion that EPA is 'currently looking broadly at the 2016 NSPS.'
The groups include in their comments several prior court precedents the groups argue EPA is violating, including a concurring opinion from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in the 2009 Supreme Court case FCC v. Fox, in which Kennedy writes “the agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, anymore than it can ignore inconvenient facts when it writes on a blank slate.”
Others include the landmark climate change case Massachusetts, which instructed EPA that it must “ground its reasons for action or inaction” in the statute.
“Here, the statute requires EPA to work towards” attaining the ozone standard, the groups write, and authorizes EPA to issue CTG for VOC sources while requiring EPA to prioritize source categories that made significant contributions to pollution. But “the proposed withdrawal is not consistent with these purposes -- indeed it makes no reference to them at all.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-faulted-justifying-oil-gas-ctg-repeal-citing-methane-nsps
-
West Virginia Natural Gas Industry Has High Hopes for Speedier Permitting
Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
An executive order signed by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice on Monday to expedite all permitting in the state was welcomed with open arms by the oil and natural gas industry, whose representatives said it’s most likely to benefit the midstream sector and downstream projects.
There are currently five major natural gas pipelines in varying stages of construction in the state, including the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountaineer Xpress project. Like others operating across the Appalachian Basin, producers working in West Virginia’s Marcellus and Utica shales have been awaiting more takeaway capacity as production has increased to surpass 1 Tcf in recent years.
“We hope that this will apply to projects related to the oil and gas industry, both upstream and downstream, so that we can take full advantage of the vast quantities of natural gas we are sitting on in West Virginia,” said Anne Blankenship, executive director of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association (WVONGA). “The executive order signals economic growth to come and a prioritization for job creation in our area, which is certainly consistent with WVONGA’s goals.”
Industry representatives have also discussed the positive impacts Justice’s order could have on downstream projects that utilize natural gas, such as power plants and manufacturers, but are waiting to see how the state’s executive agencies handle the mandate.
The four-page order requires those agencies, such as the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), which oversees the oil and gas industry, to “immediately review all completed permit applications upon receipt.” It also requires agencies to prioritize projects of “critical economic concern.”
Under the order, companies can submit an application to the West Virginia Development Office to be certified as a critical project. The office would then be required to make a decision on that application within 45 days of receiving it.
For projects deemed critical, executive agencies would then be required to provide the applicant with a written report of a permit’s status if it hasn’t been issued within 90 days of receipt. The order also requires the development office to issue an annual report to the governor and lawmakers about the progress of the expedited permitting program.
Blankenship said the move would hopefully attract more companies to West Virginia and help to change its reputation as “an unfriendly business climate.” Industry representatives working in other nearby states, such as Pennsylvania, have been critical of the regulatory environment, especially in the face of permitting backlogs that have at times slowed unconventional development.
For upstream operators in West Virginia, the move could lead to an uptick in permitting, which has started to bounce back from a low point during the commodities downturn two years ago. In 2016, unconventional producers applied for 264 horizontal permits and 223 were issued, according to WVDEP data. That was down from the 638 horizontal permits issued in 2014 and the 582 issued in 2015. Last year, operators applied for 517 horizontal permits and received 509.
Justice, a Republican, said the actions mirror a similar move by President Trump, who signed an order in 2017 to expedite major infrastructure permitting. Earlier this year, the governor signed two other orders establishing a moratorium on new regulations and a regulatory review. He has also signed two bills to address over-regulation.
“This isn’t about cutting corners or having a lack of regulation; it’s about making sure that the processes work,” said West Virginia Chamber of Commerce President Steve Roberts of Justice’s Monday order. “I frequently hear business owners say they can get permits approved more quickly in neighboring states. The delay in getting a permit approved can mean the difference between a company locating here or somewhere else.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114155-west-virginia-natural-gas-industry-has-high-hopes-for-speedier-permitting
-
Ruling Tosses Green Group Claims over N.M. Fracking
Apr 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Proposed fracking wells in New Mexico's San Juan Basin, one the largest oil and gas fields in the U.S., may proceed because the U.S. Bureau of Land Management followed federal requirements in assessing and issuing permits for those wells, a federal court in New Mexico ruled.
The April 23 decision is a win for BP America Co. and other energy companies who said environmental concerns have been addressed in drilling the energy-rich Mancos Shale. It rejected claims by American Indians and green groups who said the new wells pose health and cultural harms.
BLM hadn't properly considered the indirect and cumulative effects of new fracking well permits it approved and failed to involve the public in environmental assessments, particularly Navajos who live near the wells, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment and other plaintiffs said.
But those and other concerns were largely addressed in earlier litigation in which the groups unsuccessfully sought an injunction to stop the new drilling, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico said.
The denial of that injunction was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2016, which noted “the overall amount of drilling and related surface impacts are still within the anticipated level” specified in a 2003 BLM environmental assessment, the court said.
The circumstances haven't significantly changed in the interim because 3,945 wells have been drilled since the assessment, 5,997 fewer than BLM anticipated, the court said in dismissing the case.
Judge James O. Browning wrote the opinion.
The Western Environmental Law Center and WildEarth Guardians represented the plaintiffs.
Holland & Hart represented intervenor defendants WPX Energy Production LLC, Enana Oil & GAs (USA) Inc., BP America Production Co., ConocoPhillips Co., Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. LP, and Anschutz Exploration Corp.
Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall, and Covington & Burling represented the American Petroleum Institute.
The case is Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell, 2018 BL 142694, D.N.M., No. 15-cv-00209, 4/23/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132827981&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132827981&jd=132827981
-
Permian Takeaway Constraints Likely into 2019 for Natural Gas and Oil, Say Analysts
Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
With Permian Basin crude oil basis widening recently to as much as $8.00/bbl off of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), and as Waha natural gas capacity appears to be tapping out, producers working the widest and deepest stretch of land in the U.S. onshore are likely to face a lot of questions during earnings season, according to analysts.
Crude oil pipeline constraints have been at the top of the news lately, and for good reason.
“We currently see only 250,000 b/d of spare refining/takeaway capacity available, and without additional pipes coming until the second half of 2019, we expect basis to remain an issue for the next 12-15 months,” said Jefferies LLC analyst Mark Lear.
“The oil market continues to tighten, with WTI recently trading at the highest level since late 2014,” he said. “We continue to see a deceleration in U.S. shale growth in 2018 vs 2017, which, paired with strong demand growth and inventory levels that have moved near the five-year average, leave us confident in our bullish oil view.”
Many Permian exploration and production (E&P) companies are insulated, but others are not.
For example, leading operator Pioneer Natural Resources Co. is estimated to have 160,000 b/d of firm takeaway, which would cover about 70% of first quarter volumes, while Concho Resources Inc. has about 70% of its 2018 production locked in. Encana Corp. has around 34,000 b/d of basis hedged at 78 cents under WTI, and another 25,000 b/d of firm transport on the Enterprise Product Partners LP system to Houston, which should over all of its Permian output in 2018.
However, pipeline capacity is short and not expected to get much better until the second half of 2019.
East Daley Capital analysts cited the rapid increase in Permian completions that started in January, which they believe may quickly lead to crude oil constraints.
The Midland-to-Houston spread “blew out from $3/bbl to a high of $8.70/bbl,” settling last Friday (April 20) at $5.15/bbl, they noted. “The Midland-to-Houston spread widening to over $8.00/bbl is significant as this spread implies that all the available crude pipeline takeaway was filled at this time…”
If there were available takeaway capacity when the spread reached $8.00/bbl, it would have been expected that shippers would use walk-up capacity to receive a better rate. “A possible exception would be that if shippers were physically constrained in getting their volumes to the takeaway pipelines.”
Many oil and gas pipeline projects are in the works, but few have finished expanding their pipelines. Enterprise recently expanded capacity on the Midland-to-Sealy pipeline to 540,000 b/d from 450,000 b/d, but “there are few pipeline expansion opportunities to offset the growing Permian production in 2018,” East Daley analysts noted.
DrillingInfo took a look at the well completions picture in the Permian. The Texas sample, which accounts for 80% of all completions, was down at 509 in March from 582 in February, implying there were about 636 total for the entire basin (including New Mexico) in March.
The completion rate remains higher than at any point in 2017, but it still falls short of the estimated 705 wells that were drilled in March, according to DrillingInfo data.
“When considering the increased monthly completions occurring in the Permian, it seems highly likely that the Permian crude production growth will continue to outgrow pipeline takeaway capacity for 2018,” the firm said. “With limited pipeline capacity out of the basin, the spread is expected to widen until other takeaway options become viable such as trucking, railing and in-basin storage.”
Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. (TPH) analysts said investors are attempting to decipher the impacts and the timeline of Permian takeaway issues.
“The upstream team has been inundated with phone calls for the last two weeks as clients have worked to understand the ins and outs of our coverage's marketing positions for oil and natural gas as it relates to Permian-exposed E&Ps. Generally, we sense clients are directionally in agreement with our macro view of $10.00/bbl-plus Midland-to-Houston differentials in the first half of 2019 becoming buyside consensus.”
Goldman Sachs analysts, led by Damien Courvalin, noted that North America’s surging oil and gas production repeatedly has run into logistical bottlenecks, with the Permian now the topic de jour.
The basis differential has occurred about four months earlier than analysts had forecast, “but we view it as a warning sign rather than evidence of local saturation, with higher local refinery runs” possibly tightening spot differentials. Nonetheless, we expect that marginal solutions, such as trucking, will be needed to clear the basin in 4Q2018 through the first half of 2019.
“Admittedly, the extent of such trucking volumes and their activation costs remain uncertain, leaving risks skewed to even wider differentials initially, as currently taking place in Canada,” Courvalin said.
Goldman’s forecast already assumed a moderate slowdown in Permian production growth in the second half of this year to account for logistical bottlenecks and pressure pumping shortages. “Acute trucking bottlenecks could lead to well completion deferral and upside risks to Brent prices, benefiting in turn unconstrained basins like the Eagle Ford,” Courvalin said. “Relief will not materialize until the second half of 2019 when new large oil pipes are scheduled to come online.”
Cowan Equity Research analyst Charles Robertson II said the market under-appreciates the extent to which Permian infrastructure constraints may stunt U.S. production growth.
“Becoming an export nation is imperative,” Robertson said, and the center of the universe is the Permian.
“U.S. crude exports have ramped to record highs in excess of 2 million b/d with the help of numerous pipeline projects providing access to the Gulf Coast,” he said. “While some may simply view this as economic upside for E&Ps to obtain premium pricing to WTI, we see it as an imperative transition that will need to continue as refineries' capacity wanes to accommodate lighter crude from the Permian.”
What the market is missing, in the Cowan team’s view, is the extent to which Permian infrastructure constraints will limit total U.S. output growth as actions such as gas flaring “will likely be insufficient to alleviate growing pains.”
The “new” oil cycle is different from ones in the past, Robertson said. “World crude demand will be the long-term factor as always, but this time the U.S. will be a major force in the export market.”
Watching Waha
For Permian natural gas takeaway, the investment community appears to be keeping a close eye on second-half 2019 Waha prices as pipeline capacity taps out, excluding Mexico, and “flaring may accelerate in a meaningful way,” said the TPH team.
“Regulations remain in place to allow for producers to flare production, but the magnitude of industry-wide flaring may draw greater regulatory scrutiny.” TPH estimates more than 1.5 Bcfe/d could be flared in the first half of next year.
“It’s too soon to call, but we would be watchful of producer behavior as a temporary widening in oil basis combined with limited gas takeaway options until the startup of Gulf Coast Express in 4Q2019 may push operators to more closely align completions with infrastructure expansion to maximize cash flow generation.”
Regarding natural gas capacity constraints, there is a “shift in the balance of power in the Permian from the upstream to the midstream sector,” Goldman’s Courvalin said. “While this improvement in midstream’s pricing power may at times slow the Permian’s growth, we do not believe it will sustainably impair it,” given the basin’s appeal to master limited partnerships for volume growth and the competition from private equity capital.
“Nonetheless, we believe that the high fragmentation of Permian operators will start to create differentiation, with size and vertical integration increasingly important in securing new midstream offtake capacity, and ultimately delivering production growth,” he said.
Any rebound in Waha gas prices also may be short-lived, and the long-term outlook remains challenged, according to BMO Capital Markets analysts Danilo Juvane and Phillip Jungwirth.
“We estimate Permian gas capacity at approximately 10 Bcf/d, with an incremental 5 Bcf/d on the come via recently sanctioned and announced growth projects. While existing capacity screens as adequate relative to our estimated 4Q2017 residue gas production of about 7.9 Bcf/d, our production forecasts point to a notable dearth in Permian gas takeaway that we think could markedly drag Waha basis for at least the next four years.”
Implied gas pipeline utilization suggests there is ample takeaway capacity from the Permian, but Waha basis to Henry Hub mostly has traded at a discount since February 2017, averaging about 30 cents/Mcf over the last year, according to the BMO analysts.
Waha basis rebounded to trade at a premium in February, but “the long-term outlook remains rather bleak as our base production forecasts point to significant takeaway shortages over the coming years, even after assuming that all proposed projects such as Permian-to-Katy and Pecos Trail are ultimately commercialized,” said the BMO team.
“To this end, we think that Waha basis discounts could be the new normal over the next few years, especially as producers’ primary focus on crude oil economics lessens the incentive to contract capacity for natural gas, the least valuable commodity in the Permian.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114157-permian-takeaway-constraints-likely-into-2019-for-natural-gas-and-oil-say-analysts
-
Williams Companies to Try Again for New York's Pipeline Approval
Apr 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Williams Companies Inc. will press forward to get New York approval of an expansion of its Transco natural gas pipeline through three states, despite a permitting setback from state environmental regulators.
The company plans to resubmit its application to the Department of Environmental Conservation for a water quality permit after the agency denied its initial permit April 20, according to Christopher Stockton, a spokesman for the Tulsa, Okla.-based company.
The department cited incomplete information as well as potentially significant impacts on water quality.
Williams, which owns Transco, has been working with the department for a year and has been collaborating with local groups to design the project in an environmentally responsible manner, Stockton said.
The 36-mile extension—which is known as the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project—would expand the 1,800-mile Transco pipeline through portions of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. Williams needs water permits from the three states before seeking Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval to proceed.
New York's denial of the permit is the latest setback in the state. The natural gas industry and business groups say improved infrastructure is needed to meet the growing demand for natural gas in the Northeast, while environmental groups and New York regulators have pushed back because of the environmental impact of the projects.
“New York is going to be a tough place to get through for the foreseeable future,” Brandon Barnes, senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, told Bloomberg Environment.
Four Pipelines Blocked
He said the state has already blocked four pipelines in the past few years through a process of delays and broad information requests from applicants, citing Transco, the Constitution Pipeline, Millennium Pipeline, and the Northern Access project.
Electricity costs in the Northeast will remain relatively high if infrastructure is not improved and expanded, Barnes said.
A coalition of business groups, construction unions, and energy companies has been urging New York to improve its natural gas infrastructure to meet new energy demands from businesses, power plants, and others.
“New Yorkers who depend on natural gas to heat their homes will be left out in the cold if the state keeps arbitrarily blocking critical energy infrastructure projects,” the coalition, New Yorkers for Affordable Energy, said in an April 20 statement.
The coalition's members include BlueRock Energy and Dominion Energy in addition to Williams, Constitution Pipeline, and Millennium Pipeline.
Department Says No Stonewalling
The department denied it has been stonewalling pipeline applications.
“DEC subjects all applications for permits to the strictest environmental standards with public input at every step and will deny any permit that negatively impacts the environment,” it said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment.
Roger Downs, conservation director of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, applauded the state for using its authority under the Clean Water Act.
“There is a robust history of catastrophic water quality violations in the past at the hands of pipeline developers,” he told Bloomberg Environment in an email. “I think this is a legacy the DEC does not want to perpetuate and has been acting consistently to uphold water quality standards since 2015.”
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132827964&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132827964&jd=132827964
-
EPA Plan to Limit Science Use May Undercut Air, Climate Programs
Apr 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu and Abby Smith
New EPA plans to limit “secret science” in policy making could unravel the agency's decades-old approach to crafting environmental protections, both supporters and critics of the proposal said.
The Environmental Protection Agency April 24 proposed a rule barring secret science, or what Administrator Scott Pruitt described as scientific research including data that isn't or can't be made public. This includes epidemiological studies, which use private medical information that researchers are required to keep confidential.
The proposed rule focused on data used in “pivotal regulatory science,” which the EPA defines as studies that drive cost-benefit calculations and air quality standards. The rule would allow the administrator to exempt specific policy efforts from these restrictions.
“This could affect virtually every risk assessment or regulatory action based on science that EPA takes. The impact could be huge. I hope that it is huge,” Steven Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com, told Bloomberg Environment April 24.
“Air quality standards are going to be frozen,” Milloy, a conservative advocate who was on the Trump administration's transition team, added.
Justifying Regulations
Secret science opponents have long attacked two studies known as the Harvard Six Cities study and the American Cancer Society study, both of which showed that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter—a widespread air pollutant emitted from fossil-fuel combustion—causes increased mortality and other negative health impacts.
The studies use individual medical data that can't be made public, and that would be prohibited from agency use under the EPA's new plans.
Excluding such studies paves the way for rolling back standards for fine particulate matter, as well as other air quality and climate regulations—especially ones that build on the public health dangers of breathing fine particle pollution.
“Particulate matter drives us to control other things,” John Bachmann, former EPA director for science policy in North Carolina, told Bloomberg Environment.
“EPA has been justifying the cost-benefit of a lot of their standards with studies like this that have been analyzed and replicated,” he said. “And the benefits are way bigger than the costs.”EPA initiatives that consider the public health benefits of controlling fine particle pollution include the air toxics program, regulations on oil and gas operations, and carbon controls for existing power plants known as the Clean Power Plan.
“Every time the EPA does a significant air pollution rule, it has to do a cost-benefit analysis,” Janet McCabe, former acting EPA air office chief in the Obama administration, told Bloomberg Environment.
If these studies are off limits, she said, it could significantly alter the monetized benefit that EPA looks at in any air quality or climate proposal.
Studies’ Validity
Industry groups have long challenged the validity of the Harvard Six Cities and the American Cancer Society studies, even though an independent third-party study, conducted by the Health Effects Institute—which is co-funded by EPA and industry—successfully reproduced results from the two studies from scratch.
Other research groups also have confirmed those results. Most recently, a 2017 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study based on data from more than 60 million Medicare recipients showed that long-term particulate matter exposure, even at levels below current EPA standards, strongly increased the likelihood of premature mortality.
Even though Medicare data is confidential and protected, however, any reputable scientist in academia or industry can request that data from the government to conduct their own independent analyses, Bachmann said.
Potential Pushback
Outside groups and lawmakers are warning that the EPA's proposal is based on shaky legal ground.
It could be difficult “to argue that it is not arbitrary and capricious to exclude studies which are informative and carried out under the standards of the scientific discipline from use in rulemaking,” Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the nonprofit Niskanen Center, told Bloomberg Environment April 24.
Senate Democrats also are questioning the legality of the EPA's proposal.
“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,” seven Democratic senators, including environment committee ranking member Tom Carper (Del.) wrote in an April 24 letter to Pruitt.
Pruitt did not ask the agency's Science Advisory Board for input on whether it's appropriate to redact confidential patient information from epidemiological studies, much less for input about the proposed rule, Christopher Frey, SAB member and professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, told Bloomberg Environment.“This is exactly the kind of thing where, if you want to find out how science is done, you get input from the science advisers,” Frey said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132827959&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132827959&jd=132827959
-
Climate Activists Are Lousy Salesmen
Apr 25, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Stewart Easterby
Politicians, bureaucrats, activists, scientists and the media have warned Americans for decades that the Earth is headed toward climate catastrophe. Yet surveys consistently show that less than half of U.S. adults are “deeply concerned” or “very worried” about climate issues. If, as Leonardo DiCaprio insists, climate change is the “most urgent threat facing our entire species,” why do a large percentage of Americans not share his fear? Climate crusaders tend to lay fault with nonbelievers’ intransigence. But this is its own form of denial and masks the real reason: poor salesmanship.
The promotional efforts of the climate catastrophists have lacked clarity, credibility, and empathy. These are the cornerstones of effective persuasion. Successful advocacy campaigns use lucid names to frame and sell their issues—“living wage,” “welfare queen” or “death tax.” Climate can be confounding; it is long-term weather, but environmentalists chide anyone who dares call it that. Since Earth’s climate is always fluctuating, the word “change” muddles it with redundancy. Swapping between “climate change” and “global warming” confuses the public.
A good battle cry can rally the troops, but the Paris Agreement’s aim is “to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.” That is a far cry from “Remember the Alamo!” And Americans are always turned off by the use of metric units. In the U.S., Toyota wisely markets the 2018 Prius’s fuel economy as 52 miles a gallon, not 22 kilometers a liter.
American TV audiences bought Carl Sagan’s explanations of how the universe works because of his obvious scientific expertise. Bold statements about complex systems are always more plausible when they are made by people with impeccable credentials. As a Harvard sophomore, Al Gore received a D in a natural=sciences course. Mr. DiCaprio dropped out of high school in 11th grade.
The rank hypocrisy of many of the environmental movement’s superstars also alienates potential followers. Messrs. Gore and DiCaprio lead lavish, jet-setting lives. It is hard to heed Tom Steyer’s demand to ban offshore oil and gas drilling when Farallon, his hedge fund, invested hundreds of millions of dollars in coal mining. Climate change activists tend to be aggressive advocates, but over-the-top selling doesn’t sway people who are undecided. This is as true for political surrogates attributing society’s ills to the other party’s candidate as it is for green activists linking all manner of extreme weather to climate change.
Scientific impropriety has triggered a popular backlash against the climate change activists. The hockey stick chart, Climategate and questions about the integrity of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate data have all fueled public suspicion. Only 39% of Americans believe climate scientists can be trusted a lot to give full and accurate information on causes of climate change according to Pew.
Failed forecasts diminish believability. A Wall Street firm with multiple wrong market calls would lose clients. The actual rate of warming has come in below what climate models projected, casting doubt on future calculations. Likewise, claims that anyone can precisely estimate what global average temperatures will be decades from now don’t pass muster with the average person. There are currently no betting odds for Super Bowl CX in 2076 or S&P 500 futures with December 2099 expiration dates.
The burden of proof in the climate debate lies with those claiming rising temperatures stem primarily from human activity and not other factors. While the prosecution may feel it has a winning case, the jury’s verdict is what counts. Labeling dissenting jurors “deniers”—an insidious association with Holocaust denial—is a losing courtroom strategy. Most people are naturally disinclined to obsess daily about a phenomenon that started long before they were born and won’t reach fruition until long after they die.
It’s true that almost all climate scientists believe human-caused global warming is real. Similarly, American adults understand that expert opinions can change or turn out to be spectacularly wrong. Think of the recently overturned consensus on the link between egg consumption and coronary heart disease, or the reports during the 1970s that a new ice age was imminent. Against this backdrop, calling skeptics “anti-science” is counterproductive, especially since skepticism is the essence of the scientific method.
From 2006 to 2016, China increased its annual carbon dioxide emissions 37% while America’s yearly output decreased far more than any other country. In the Paris Agreement, China pledged to begin reducing emissions around 2030, meaning it can spew even more greenhouse gas for years to come. The U.S. vowed to reduce its 2025 emissions by 28% from 2005 levels. Yet questioning if the accord is fair to America or will forestall global warming is reliably met with sanctimonious scorn.
My advice to the activists is this: you will attract more supporters to your cause if you can pick a name and stick with it, create a clear call to action, enlist a convincing spokesman with a small carbon footprint, tone down the alarmism, and fix the computer models. Most important, listen to the doubters, don’t lambaste them.
Mr. Easterby has worked as a sales executive for three publicly traded technology companies.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-activists-are-lousy-salesmen-1524695895
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested