Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/3
-
(ACC Blog) An Open Letter to E&E News
May 2, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) Formaldehyde Panel (the Panel) believes increasing transparency and public confidence in government regulations, while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights, is of utmost importance. https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/05/an-open-letter-to-ee-news/ -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chemical ‘Rule’ Flouts Law, Ignores Risks, Critics Tell Court (1)
May 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA approach to approving new chemicals for commerce ignores risks and violates the nation’s primary chemicals law, environmental health advocates are arguing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical and Plastics Lobby Chief To Step Down, Just as Girard’s API Replacement Is Named
May 3, 2018 | The Texas Energy Report
Major chemical and plastics manufacturer lobbyists the American Chemistry Council‘s CEO is stepping down later this year, just as news that a former chief of staff for US House Speaker John Boehner is the new president of the American Petroleum Institute. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Gasification Yields Improve with Plastic Feedstock
May 2, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Adding recovered plastics to biomass in a gasification process can increase the quality and volume of the end product, according to an industry-funded study. -
Environmentalists Seek More Time for Science Rule Comments
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging EPA to extend by 60 days its deadline for public comments on Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial proposed rule requiring use of only public information in regulatory decisions, saying the 30 days EPA has offered is not adequate to address a rule of such magnitude. -
More Congressional Panels Digging Through Pruitt Records
May 2, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Scrutiny into Scott Pruitt’s ethics woes intensified Wednesday as a growing group of lawmakers' staff dug through reams of documents connected to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator's pricey travel and extensive security team. -
NRDC Files Opening Brief in TSCA New Chemicals Litigation
May 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US NGO the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has filed its opening brief in its legal challenge to the EPA's framework document on the TSCA new chemicals programme. -
Chemical-Use Delay at EPA May Portend Future Disputes
May 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The internal wrangling delaying risk analysis plans for 10 chemicals may foreshadow challenges the EPA faces in applying new legal requirements to products long in commerce. -
(ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Poised to Ban Sale of Some Sunscreens That Harm Coral
May 2, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Many sunscreen makers could soon be forced to change their formulas or be banned from selling the lotions in Hawaii. -
Hawaii Lawmakers Approve Ban on Sunscreens with Chemicals Harmful to Coral Reefs
May 2, 2018 | The Hill
By Aris Folley
Hawaii lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that prohibits the sale of sunscreens believed to be harmful to ocean ecosystems, including coral reefs. -
Hawaii Might Be About to Ban Your Favorite Sunscreen to Protect Its Coral Reefs
May 2, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Lindsey Bever
From Banana Boat to Coppertone, major sunscreen brands may soon have to revamp their products or stop selling them in Hawaii. -
Home Depot to Exclude Nine Chemicals from Cleaning Products
May 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US home improvement retailer Home Depot asked its suppliers to exclude nine chemicals from residential household cleaning chemical products by the end of 2022. -
Austrian EU Presidency Urged to Act on Chemicals Controls
May 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Austria must seize "significant opportunities" to improve chemicals regulations and push for better controls of hazardous substances during its presidency of the Council of the EU, an NGO has urged. -
News Top Oil Industry Trade Group Hires New CEO from Financial Sector
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The American Petroleum Institute is hiring a Capitol Hill veteran and private investment industry advocate to lead the oil trade group as it pushes for expanded energy infrastructure and braces for big policy fights in states. -
Former Boehner Chief Named Head of American Petroleum Institute
May 2, 2018 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Mike Sommers, who currently helms a private equity industry group, will become the new chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the group announced on Wednesday. -
Former Boehner Staffer Tapped to Lead API
May 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The American Petroleum Institute has chosen Mike Sommers, a longtime staffer for former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), as its next president and CEO. -
Study: Fracking Chemicals Alter Immune System in Mice
May 2, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Lorraine Chow
Researchers from the University of Rochester have found the first evidence that early life exposure to groundwater contaminated by fracking chemicals "alters" the immune system in mice. -
North Dakota Drops High Court Test On Standing In 'Sue-And-Settle' Suits
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
North Dakota has dropped its planned Supreme Court appeal seeking to intervene in EPA's settlement with environmentalists setting a deadline for the agency to reconsider waste rules for the oil and gas sector, ending a case that would have tested states and other third-parties' rights to intervene in so-called sue-and-settle cases. -
US Energy and Security Hinge on NAFTA Safeguards
May 2, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Mark Green
U.S., Canadian, and Mexican representatives are in the middle of negotiations to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement — an agreement that over the years has been very good for American energy. -
Mayors Ask Refinery to End Use of Toxic Chemical
May 2, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The mayors of the Lake Superior twin port cities near last week’s oil refinery explosion and fire are calling on its owners to stop using a toxic chemical compound at the site. -
Explosion Puts Trump Administration's Feet to the Fire on Safety, Energy
May 2, 2018 | Business Insurance
By Gloria Gonzalez
An explosion and fire at a Wisconsin oil refinery are shining a light on several proposed or pending U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that have stalled under the Trump administration. -
Plastic Bag Bans’ Effectiveness • Cosmetics’ Animal-Test Ban • Coal-Country Politics
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By CHuck McCutcheon
Plastic bag bans are all the rage these days. But do they provide much in the way of environmental benefits? -
EPA Cites Studies That Might Run Afoul of Pruitt’s Proposed Rule
May 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Roston
It’s Air Quality Awareness Week and the Environmental Protection Agency is taking the opportunity to share some important medical advice. -
EPA Partly Sides with Enviros in Challenge to Texas Refinery
May 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of environmental groups has won a split decision from EPA on its challenge to the operating permit for a Brazilian-owned oil refinery near Houston. -
Study Finds Slowdown in NOx Reductions Due to Trucks, Boilers
May 2, 2018 | InsideEPA
A new study is finding significantly slower reductions in two key pollutants that contribute to smog than EPA had previously projected, with researchers saying the higher levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) are due to heavy-duty diesel trucks, off-road vehicles and industrial, residential and commercial boilers. -
Clean Air Regulations Protect Health and Benefit the Economy
May 2, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
The Trump administration is waging war on the laws meant to protect Americans from air pollution, arguing that rolling back regulations on coal-fired power plants, cars and trucks, and other sources of fossil fuel emissions is necessary to ensure a healthy economy.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) An Open Letter to E&E News
May 2, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) Formaldehyde Panel (the Panel) believes increasing transparency and public confidence in government regulations, while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights, is of utmost importance. Although some have argued this opens the door for industry to go after important studies that underpin public health protections, the Panel begs to differ. Changes happening at the EPA are bolstering this concept, ensuring independent experts can have access to the science supporting regulatory initiatives.
Predictably, we’ve seen an onslaught of various degrees from those that oppose Administrator Pruitt’s initiative. Scott Waldman of E&E News recently interpreted industry’s desire for open and transparent data—in his article “How Pruitt’s Science Plans Might Help Industry Fight Rules”—as an effort to discredit science that underlies regulations that protect public health. This is untrue. Industry does not seek access to research to discredit it nor to limit regulation; rather Americans deserve to know that high quality science is the foundation of government regulations.
Take for example the case of formaldehyde. There have been claims over the years that formaldehyde causes leukemia. However, the weight of scientific evidence does not support a causal association between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia. Yet since 2010, several government agencies, including the EPA, have used a study known as the Zhang Study, to support incorrect conclusions that formaldehyde causes leukemia.
The Zhang Study failed to meet its own data quality standards and the scientific standard of reproducibility. For these very reasons, Dr. Goldstein and other scientists have repeatedly called for researchers to attempt to replicate the Zhang Study. Following these findings, industry took multiple steps to advocate redoing the Zhang Study in a different group of workers exposed to formaldehyde, however no such occupational settings with exposures as high as the original Zhang Study exist. Even if such an occupational setting was found, the same cross-sectional approach that was used for the Zhang Study would not be recommended. Instead a study which includes validated outcomes more predictive of leukemia than less specific-specific blood measures would be of a higher standard. In addition, industry has sent multiple letters to both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and EPA to suggest partnering to replicate the Zhang Study, with no response to our proposals.
Notably, in order to access data from the study to conduct a reanalysis, it took multiple years of requests to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for the release of relevant data. Once the data were made available and reanalysis conducted, the data were found to have significant scientific shortcomings that called into question the original findings—a fact that regulators today would not have known if it weren’t for the analysis of the raw data that pointed out the significant flaws of the study.
But Zhang is not the only example. There have been several examples in recent years where publicly-funded research data were not provided in a transparent or timely manner and erroneous evaluations and interpretations persisted. In one such instance, again after years of requests and negotiations, the underlying data from another NCI study were obtained and reanalyzed. In a publication by Checkoway et al. 2015, a fuller analysis and interpretations of the data determined that some of the original study conclusions were not supported and, most notable, that the study did not demonstrate a link between occupational formaldehyde exposure at any level and risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The scientific quality of the Checkoway et al.reanalysis was acknowledged when the publication received the 2017 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM’s) Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM) Kammer Merit in Authorship Award.
In another call for data transparency and availability, it took nearly two years and multiple requests to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the release of a full study report on a key government-conducted rodent study finding no association with leukemia. The delay in revealing and communicating accurate analyses and interpretations of these three studies materially contributed to the growing but erroneous belief that formaldehyde causes leukemia.
Dr. Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh claims in Waldman’s article that industry does not fund “new science to see whether this thing is right or wrong.” He accuses industry of “waging a political and legal war, rather than focusing on research.” Contrary to this claim, industry has diligently worked to support research that improves the understanding of formaldehyde; adds to the scientific evidence demonstrating that formaldehyde does not cause leukemia; and supports that there are clearly defined safe thresholds for formaldehyde exposure. Using state-of-the-art technologies, it is clear that inhaled formaldehyde does not reach the bone marrow (nor does it move beyond the nose). In fact, formaldehyde is naturally occurring. All of this information has been shared with EPA and made available in dozens of peer reviewed scientific publications. Formaldehyde is one of the most-well studied substances, thanks, in part to industry’s commitment to generating new science.
Data availability and transparency are key components to ensuring that the best available and most relevant science underlies regulatory decision-making and protects public health. Yet many policymakers—not to mention the public at large—are left in the dark as to whether the science they are charged with interpreting to form public health regulations is sound.
Relying on the misleading findings as reported in the original Zhang Study for example has consequently led to flawed chemical assessment conclusions. Formaldehyde technologies however have broad roles in the economy, from the automotive to aerospace industries, providing thousands of jobs. The impact of poor science as the foundation for government regulation can be felt across the entire value chain, from manufacturer, to workers and finally the consumer.
In order to help improve public confidence in the decision-making process, it is critical data be made available in a timely and transparent way to ensure decisions are based on scientifically defensible information.
Sincerely,
The ACC Formaldehyde Panel
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/05/an-open-letter-to-ee-news/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chemical ‘Rule’ Flouts Law, Ignores Risks, Critics Tell Court (1)
May 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA approach to approving new chemicals for commerce ignores risks and violates the nation’s primary chemicals law, environmental health advocates are arguing.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s approach glosses over the different ways companies make and use the same chemical, even though the differences may alter the chemical’s health effects, the Natural Resources Defense Council alleged in an opening brief filed May 1 in a federal appeals court.
In January, the NRDC filed its challenge to EPA’s framework in a lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City.
The council’s opening brief argues that the approach the EPA is using under its New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework violates core requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016.
The NRDC also argues that what EPA calls a framework is actually a rule, a classification that may be critical to the case.
The framework violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency posted the document and began to apply it without providing the public an opportunity to comment, the NRDC said.
The American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers have intervened to support the EPA, because the agency’s approach to new chemicals affects their members’ ability to bring new products to market.
‘Illegally Narrows’The framework allows a new chemical to be made and sold even if the agency finds some reasonably foreseen uses of the chemical could pose health or environmental risks.
The agency’s rationale is that the company that wants to make the new chemical has agreed to do so safely based on information it filed in its new chemicals request, called a pre-manufacture notice.
The potential of other manufacturing methods or chemical uses to pose risks could be controlled through future rulemaking, the framework says.
The TSCA amendments don’t allow a new chemical to enter the marketplace unless the agency either determines it wouldn’t pose an unreasonable risk or has made sure potential risks are controlled, NRDC’s brief said.
“This rule illegally narrows the risk assessments that EPA conducts for pre-manufacture notices and eliminates environmental and health protections that Congress required EPA to put in place,” the NRDC said.
Cogent Procedural ArgumentThe NRDC’s brief did a good job buttressing its argument that the EPA’s framework warranted public notice and comment, Lynn L. Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., said
“Not every such procedural challenge is a winner, but this one at least should be taken seriously,” said Bergeson, whose Washington law firm manages the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition, a consortium of chemical manufacturers.
NRDC’s assertion that the agency violated the law’s requirements for new chemicals was less persuasive, she said.
The case is Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 2d Cir., No. 18-25, brief filed 5/1/18.
(Updates with additional reporting )
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-chemical-rule-flouts-law-ignores-risks-critics-tell-court-1
-
May 3, 2018 | The Texas Energy Report
Major chemical and plastics manufacturer lobbyists the American Chemistry Council‘s CEO is stepping down later this year, just as news that a former chief of staff for US House Speaker John Boehner is the new president of the American Petroleum Institute.
Former Congressman Cal Dooley has had the American Chemistry Council (ACC) job since 2008, during which time the council has become one of the biggest-spending trade groups at the federal level.
His contract is up at the end of the year.
Dooley said in a statement Tuesday that he’s “extremely proud of what ACC has accomplished over the past 10 years, especially the passage of bipartisan chemical regulatory reform legislation.”
Previous to his ACC work, the Democrat was a California US Representative for 14 years.
He was preceded as CEO of the ACC by Jack Gerard, who’s retiring later this year as president of the American Petroleum Institute.
There were reports this week that Mike Sommers, former Boeher staffer, has been selected to replace Gerard at API, who leaves at the end of August.
The biggest trade association in America in fact hired him as president and chief executive in a board meeting Wednesday.
The API said Sommers is known for his “skills at bipartisan collaboration and strategic planning, the group said in an announcement after a board vote Wednesday.
The API and ACC top jobs are among the most coveted in Washington.
Sommers is earning about $1.5 million as CEO of the American Investment Council, or at least he did in 2016.
The API leadership position has paid considerably more than that during Gerard’s tenure.
https://texasenergyreport.com/blog/2018/05/02/chemical-and-plastics-lobby-chief-to-step-down-just-as-girards-apparent-api-replacement-emerges/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Gasification Yields Improve with Plastic Feedstock
May 2, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Adding recovered plastics to biomass in a gasification process can increase the quality and volume of the end product, according to an industry-funded study.
Gasification is a waste-to-energy process by which materials such as municipal solid waste are converted to synthetic gas, methanol or other fuel products. According to the study, titled “The Effects of Non-recycled Plastic (NRP) on Gasification: A Quantitative Assessment,” non-recycled plastics are a valuable feedstock for gasification.
“This study demonstrates that because carbon and hydrogen rich plastics have high energy content, there is tremendous potential to use technologies like gasification to convert these materials into fuels, chemicals, and other products,” researcher Marco Castaldi stated in a press release.
The research was funded by the American Chemistry Council, Plastics Industry Association and Canadian Plastics Industry Association. It was completed by the Earth Engineering Center at The City College of New York. The trials took place at a gasification facility in Edmonton.
The researchers focused on often-landfilled plastics. “Since there are practical limits on mechanical recycling, it is important to understand the environmental impacts of alternatives to landfill, such as gasification to methanol,” the report states.
For the trials, researchers used feedstock blends that included a range of plastic content, from 0 percent to 50 percent, mixed in with wood chips. The plastics came from residue from Edmonton’s materials recovery facility (MRF). They examined how increasing the percentage of plastics in the gasification feedstock mix would impact end-product yield, thermal efficiency of the process, and the volume of unuseable byproduct.
The study found positive results from adding plastics, with the results improving based on higher plastics content. With a 50 percent plastics mix, 80 percent more synthetic gas was produced than with a mix that didn’t include plastic, and only marginally more energy was required to process the mix. A mix with 50 percent plastics also produced up to 42 percent more methanol, the researchers found.
“The road to producing greater quantities of liquid fuels and chemicals from gasification is still evolving,” the researchers concluded. “Companies will need to optimize feed handling and process efficiencies. However, this study indicates that [non-recycled plastic] is a material stream that should be diverted from landfill because it offers significant benefits to the overall performance and product yield of gasification technologies.”
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/05/02/report-gasification-yields-improve-with-plastic-feedstock/
-
Environmentalists Seek More Time for Science Rule Comments
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging EPA to extend by 60 days its deadline for public comments on Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial proposed rule requiring use of only public information in regulatory decisions, saying the 30 days EPA has offered is not adequate to address a rule of such magnitude.
In April 30 comments, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) urged EPA to allow for a total of 90 days of public comments -- until July 30 -- and include multiple public meetings to further generate public input on it.
“Arbitrarily limiting the science used in major regulatory decisions thoroughly compromises EPA’s ability to manage contaminants in the air, water, and land or limit human exposure to harmful chemicals. The seriousness and breadth of adverse outcomes warrants extensive analysis and comment,” NRDC said.
“The 30-day comment period proposed by EPA is entirely insufficient to accommodate a discussion of this importance. Because of the sprawling implications, we ask that the 30-day comment period be extended to at least 90 days. Additionally, we request that you hold public hearings to gather extensive public input, given the proposal’s risks to public health.”
EPA's proposed rule, which appeared in the April 30 Federal Register, bars the agency from using scientific information in its decisions where the underlying data cannot be publicly released. The notice gives commenters 30 days -- until May 30 -- to comment.
The proposal has drawn significant concerns from environmentalists, who charge that it violates statutory requirements that the agency use best available data. They also say it will prevent the use of studies justifying strict air standards and other measures which rely on private medical data.
Industry officials are similarly concerned that it will prevent the use of studies needed to approve pesticide and chemical uses that are based on confidential business information.
In separate April 30 comments, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) also called for additional time, adding that EPA should “schedule at least three public hearings in various locations across the country to encourage additional public input. The current timeframe and lack of opportunities for engagement are wholly inadequate and will not allow for thorough public input of this proposed rule and its impact on science-based health and environmental safeguards.”
UCS compares the breadth and potential impact of EPA's proposed rule to the ultimately unsuccessful 2006 effort by George W. Bush's regulatory chief, John Graham, to craft guidance on federal agencies' risk assessment practices. Critics argued the controversial proposal could undermine existing regulatory approaches at EPA and elsewhere.
In that instance, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “invited comment for six months and asked for review of the proposal by the National Academy of Sciences [NAS],” UCS writes.
The draft guidance, crafted in part by then-OMB toxicologist Nancy Beck -- now the top Trump appointee in EPA's toxics office -- was heavily critiqued by NAS, which called for it to be withdrawn. OMB replaced the bulletin in September 2007 with a scaled-back memorandum that generally reiterated Clinton administration risk assessment principles.
UCS notes that EPA's notice on the proposed rule “solicits comments on a wide variety of complex scientific and technical issues that require careful and in-depth analysis by many public stakeholders. In addition, as EPA provided no analysis of the potential impacts of its proposal, the public will need to have additional time to consider what kinds of research could be excluded from the rulemaking process and what consequences this would have for public health and environmental protection.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-seek-more-time-science-rule-comments
-
More Congressional Panels Digging Through Pruitt Records
May 2, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Scrutiny into Scott Pruitt’s ethics woes intensified Wednesday as a growing group of lawmakers' staff dug through reams of documents connected to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator's pricey travel and extensive security team.
Staff of the House Oversight Committee met for several hours with Pruitt’s former security chief, Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta, who oversaw much of EPA’s spending on perks such as first-class flights, a $43,000 soundproof booth and round-the-clock bodyguards. Democratic staffers took part in the transcribed session and have access to the documents EPA has shared with the committee led by Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a Democratic aide said.
Staffers declined to comment on the substance of the interview with Perrotta, who has cited personal reasons for resigning from the agency Monday. Sources told POLITICO last month that Perrotta, a former Secret Service agent who worked in various capacities at EPA since 2004, was a willing partner in Pruitt’s lavish spending on travel and security.
Separately, staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over EPA, have begun receiving new paperwork from the agency this week. This came after Pruitt promised Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) last week that the agency would provide the panel with “all the documents and information EPA produces” for a host of ongoing inquiries into his conduct.
“I can confirm that EPA has begun to share additional documents with the committee,” a spokesman for the panel said.
Pruitt, meanwhile, has kept a low public profile since testifying Thursday before two House subcommittees — even as more questions emerged this week about his dealings with lobbyists. He did not attend Wednesday's swearing-in of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, which several of Pruitt’s fellow Cabinet members attended.
The New York Times and The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a former lobbyist for foreign governments had helped arrange a planned trip by Pruitt last year to Australia — a trek that EPA spent $45,000 planning before he canceled it to deal with Hurricane Harvey relief efforts in Texas. The ex-lobbyist, Matthew Freedman, is a former Donald Trump transition team member who worked in the 1980s for Paul Manafort, who was briefly Trump’s campaign manager in 2016.
A Republican aide to the House Oversight panel said EPA continues to cooperate with their information requests, offering five document productions to date. That includes more than 1,000 pages of records the agency turned over last week.
Separately Wednesday, two Senate Environment and Public Works Committee members — ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) — sent a letter to Pruitt and federal ethics officials alerting them to about 3,100 pages of unreleased communications between Pruitt and groups with business before EPA while he served as Oklahoma attorney general.
The senators said the records, disclosed in state court proceedings, include 1,122 pages of “emails containing documents, amicus briefs, and legal strategy which are part of litigation files,” 1,754 pages of “emails containing documents, drafts of proposed rules, pleadings and drafts, legal strategy and data from investigations for cases in litigation,” and 196 pages of “emails regarding personal matters not related to the transaction of public business.”
"Each of these categories of documents may contain information directly relevant to your ability to do your job impartially,” Carper and Whitehouse wrote. They did not release copies of the documents in question.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/05/more-congressional-panels-digging-through-pruitt-records-515462
-
NRDC Files Opening Brief in TSCA New Chemicals Litigation
May 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US NGO the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has filed its opening brief in its legal challenge to the EPA's framework document on the TSCA new chemicals programme.
The NGO's case centres around the agency's draft New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework. Issued last November, this outlines the EPA's approach to making decisions on new chemical notices submitted under TSCA section 5, and presents the agency's "general decision framework for new chemicals".
But in its brief, the NRDC argues that this document is in fact a final rule and that the EPA violated administrative procedure requirements issuing it without a formal consultation process.
Additionally, it says the approach outlined in it "illegally narrows" risk assessments conducted for new chemicals, in violation of the amended TSCA. And it "eliminates environmental and health protections that Congress required EPA to put in place when a new chemical substance presents risk concerns under its intended, known, or reasonably foreseen conditions of use".
Each of these concerns, says the brief, provides grounds for annulling the policy. The NRDC is requesting the court review and set aside the framework document.Core arguments
The brief's substantive concerns about the EPA's framework document are largely in line with those expressed by NGOs earlier this year.
The framework document – in a shift from how the agency was evaluating pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) prior to the administration change – says the EPA will allow submitters to revise a PMN if the originally submitted intended condition of use raises concern.
And it says that where the agency has concerns only with "reasonably foreseen" conditions of use, but not with the intended uses, it will assess those via a significant new use rule (Snur).
But according to the NGO brief, this so-called no-order policy "contradicts the express requirements of section 5 of TSCA".
The law requires that the agency evaluate all conditions of use – including those that are intended, known, or reasonably foreseen.
And the statute provides for Snurs as a follow-up to an enforceable order, not a substitute, it says.Grounds for dismissal?
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner at law firm Bergeson & Campbell, wrote in Chemical Watch's Global Business Briefing earlier this year that NRDC's legal challenge may well be dismissed on procedural grounds.
"The draft framework document is just that – a draft, conceptual framework outlining the EPA's approach to new chemical review – not a rule amenable to appeal of final agency action," Ms Bergeson wrote.
But the brief argues that it "makes no difference that EPA has described the framework [document] as a 'working approach' that it 'expects to evolve'".
The NRDC brief argues that the approach "is a substantive rule that directs the scope of EPA's review of pre-manufacture notices and the circumstances under which the agency will take regulatory actions". As such, it says, it is suitable for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
The case is being heard in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following the NRDCs filing of the suit on 5 January, NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families intervened in its support. The AmericanChemistry Council (ACC) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) have intervened on behalf of the EPA.
The NRDC is also a petitioner in a legal challenge to the TSCA 'framework rules' for the prioritisation and risk evaluation of existing chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com//66627/nrdc-files-opening-brief-in-tsca-new-chemicals-litigation?q=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
Chemical-Use Delay at EPA May Portend Future Disputes
May 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The internal wrangling delaying risk analysis plans for 10 chemicals may foreshadow challenges the EPA faces in applying new legal requirements to products long in commerce.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s updated plans to examine the risks of six of the 10 chemicals—asbestos, carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and 1,4-dioxane—remain under interagency review, according to people at the Department of Defense, trade associations, and environmental organizations with whom Bloomberg Environment has spoken.
The agency originally planned to release all 10 plans to the public by December 2017, but none have been released as of May 2.
“I think what is holding up the 10 problem formulations is whether EPA can eliminate certain conditions of use from the risk evaluations going forward,” Martha Marrapese, an attorney with Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment. She works with companies on issues involving the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The risk analysis plans are called problem formulations because they lay out potential health, environmental, and chemical use concerns the agency will examine. The more potential uses of a chemical the EPA reviews, the more day-to-day business practices of companies—their disposal of a particular chemical, for example—could be examined by the agency.
The EPA declined to comment May 2 except to say the agency is still developing the 10 risk analysis plans.
Application of Science Terms ComingThe debate on chemical uses signals that the EPA may face more challenges as it interprets other requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act that was amended in 2016, Lorenz R. Rhomberg, a risk analyst and consultant with Gradient Corp. in Cambridge, Mass., told Bloomberg Environment.
None of those Bloomberg Environment spoke with were privy to details of the debates happening among the federal agencies or within EPA. But nearly all speculated that the amended TSCA’s requirement that the agency examine the risks of the chemicals’ “conditions of use” is the fundamental sticking point.
“It is the central issue in the 9th Circuit litigation and the plaintiffs have stated a compelling case in their opening brief,” Marrapese said in an email.
She was referring to a lawsuit a coalition of environmental, health, and labor groups filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging two EPA rules and the opening brief they filed April 16. The rules they are challenging describe the agency’s process for deciding which chemicals will be evaluated and how it will conduct risk evaluations.
The EPA has yet to decide how to carry out other statutory requirements that likely will also cause extensive debate, Rhomberg said.
These include requirements that the agency use the best available science in its analyses and evaluate the wide range of information it collects using a weight-of-evidence approach, he said.
Statutory DeadlineThe agency faces a conundrum as it debates the application of such ambiguous terms and how much of its thinking it will reveal in these problem formulations, Rhomberg said.
The EPA needs to have flexibility to learn, because it is “flying the plane while building it,” he said.
Yet the longer internal debates go on, the less time the public has to weigh in and offer insights and, potentially, information that could help the agency’s analyses, Rhomberg said.
The other four compounds the EPA is evaluating are two solvents, 1-bromopropane and n-methylpyrrolidone; one dye called pigment violet 29; and a cluster of three flame retardants called hexabromocyclododecane.
TSCA requires the agency to have completed its risk analyses by December 2019.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-use-delay-at-epa-may-portend-future-disputes
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Poised to Ban Sale of Some Sunscreens That Harm Coral
May 2, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Many sunscreen makers could soon be forced to change their formulas or be banned from selling the lotions in Hawaii.
State lawmakers passed a measure this week that would ban the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate by 2021 in an effort to protect coral reefs. Scientists have found the two substances can be toxic to coral, which are a vital part of the ocean ecosystem and a popular draw for tourists.
Consumers would only be allowed to buy sunscreen with the chemicals if prescribed by a health care provider, though the measure itself doesn't ban online purchases or tourists from bringing their own to Hawaii.
It would become the first state to enact a ban on the chemicals if Democratic Gov. David Ige signs the bill; he has not indicated whether he will.
Similar legislation failed last year, after it pitted environmental scientists against businesses and trade groups that benefit from the $2 billion market for sun care products in the U.S.
This is "a first step to help our reef and protect it from deterioration," said Hawaii state senator Donna Mercado Kim, a fellow Democrat who introduced the measure. Although other factors contribute to reef degradation, "hopefully, other jurisdictions will look at this legislation and follow suit."
"This is the first real chance that local reefs have to recover," said Craig Downs, a scientist whose 2015 peer-reviewed study found oxybenzone was a threat to coral reefs. "Lots of things kill coral reefs, but we know oxybenzone prevents them from coming back." It also affects sea urchins and kills algae, a source of food for sea turtles, he said.
He found as much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotion ends up in coral reefs annually.
Opponents are skeptical of the science.
"What we're really concerned with is that there aren't very many independent studies out there that have gone for peer review," said Tina Yamaki, president of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii. She said the ban might discourage people from buying sunscreen products from local brick-and-mortar stores. The American Chemistry Council also opposed the bill, citing concerns over the dangers of sun exposure.
"It's a feel good measure," said Democrat Sharon Har, one of four lawmakers who voted against the bill. "Yes, we must protect the environment -- it is our number one resource -- but at the end of the day, studies have pointed to global warming, human contact, coastal development" as other significant threats to coral.
Many manufacturers already sell "reef-friendly" sunscreens, and companies can deplete current inventory ahead of the ban in 2021, Downs said.
Edgewell Personal Care, which makes Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreen lotions, said it makes products free of the two chemicals. The company "will continue to ensure we comply with all relevant regulations concerning oxybenzone and octinoxate."
"We have so many problems with coral bleaching, and there is already so much contamination," said Dr. Yuanan Lu, a professor and director of the environmental health laboratory at the University of Hawaii, who applauded the passage. "We have so many people who come to Hawaii, and some of the sunscreen ingredients can be toxic, harmful to marine systems."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/02/us/ap-us-hawaii-sunscreen-ban.html
-
Hawaii Lawmakers Approve Ban on Sunscreens with Chemicals Harmful to Coral Reefs
May 2, 2018 | The Hill
By Aris Folley
Hawaii lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that prohibits the sale of sunscreens believed to be harmful to ocean ecosystems, including coral reefs.
The bill, if signed into law by Gov. David Ige (D), will make Hawaii the first U.S. state to enact such a ban, which would take effect on Jan. 1, 2021.
"These chemicals have also been shown to degrade corals' resiliency and ability to adjust to climate change factors and inhibit recruitment of new corals," the text of the bill explains.
The measure, introduced by state Sen. Mike Gabbard (D), bans the sale and distribution of any sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate; however, prescription sunscreens containing those chemicals will not be affected by the ban.
“Amazingly, this is a first-in-the-world law,” Gabbard told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “So, Hawaii is definitely on the cutting edge by banning these dangerous chemicals in sunscreens.”
“When you think about it, our island paradise, surrounded by coral reefs, is the perfect place to set the gold standard for the world to follow,” Gabbard, whose daughter is U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), added. “This will make a huge difference in protecting our coral reefs, marine life, and human health.”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/385823-hawaii-lawmakers-pass-bill-banning-sunscreens-with-chemicals-harmful-to
-
Hawaii Might Be About to Ban Your Favorite Sunscreen to Protect Its Coral Reefs
May 2, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Lindsey Bever
From Banana Boat to Coppertone, major sunscreen brands may soon have to revamp their products or stop selling them in Hawaii.
State lawmakers passed legislation Tuesday that would ban skin-care companies from selling and distributing sunscreens on the islands that contain two chemicals deemed damaging to coral reefs.
If Gov. David Ige (D) signs the bill, it would make Hawaii the first state to enact legislation designed to protect marine ecosystems by banning such sunscreens.
A spokeswoman for Ige said the governor will address the news media later in the day. She did not indicate whether he plans to sign the bill, which is opposed by various companies and business associations.
[Dear Science: What does sunscreen SPF mean, and what happens if you mix them?]
SB 2571 states that the chemicals, oxybenzone and octinoxate, “have significant harmful impacts on Hawaii’s marine environment and residing ecosystems”; the bill aims to keep sunscreens that contain the chemicals off store shelves. The products would still be available to those who have a prescription from a licensed health-care provider, the legislation states.
State Sen. Mike Gabbard, the Democrat who introduced the bill, told the Star Advertiser that it would be “a first-in-the-world law.”
“So, Hawaii is definitely on the cutting edge by banning these dangerous chemicals in sunscreens,” Gabbard said in an email to the newspaper. “When you think about it, our island paradise, surrounded by coral reefs, is the perfect place to set the gold standard for the world to follow. This will make a huge difference in protecting our coral reefs, marine life, and human health.”
Gabbard could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
According to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, coral reefs are crucial to marine and human life.
In addition to protecting sea creatures, the Smithsonian said, the reefs provide food, medication and tourism jobs, among other things — at a value of $30 billion to $172 billion per year.
“Unfortunately, people also pose the greatest threat to coral reefs,” according to the Smithsonian. “Overfishing and destructive fishing, pollution, warming, changing ocean chemistry, and invasive species are all taking a huge toll. In some places, reefs have been entirely destroyed, and in many places reefs today are a pale shadow of what they once were.”
Environmental organizations argue that certain sunscreens — which research has shown can wash into the water while swimming or bathing — can be toxic to the coral reefs.
SB 2471 states:
Oxybenzone and octinoxate cause mortality in developing coral; increase coral bleaching that indicates extreme stress, even at temperatures below 87.8 degrees Fahrenheit; and cause genetic damage to coral and other marine organisms. These chemicals have also been shown to degrade corals’ resiliency and ability to adjust to climate change factors and inhibit recruitment of new corals. Furthermore, oxybenzone and octinoxate appear to increase the probability of endocrine disruption.
“The legislature further finds that environmental contamination of oxybenzone and octinoxate persists in Hawaii’s coastal waters, as the contamination is constantly refreshed and renewed every day by swimmers and beachgoers,” according to the bill.
The Star Advertiser reported that the proposed law, which would go into effect in 2021, was opposed by ABC Stores, the Hawaii Medical Association, the Hawaii Food Industry Association, Chamber of Commerce Hawaii, the Personal Care Products Council and Bayer, which manufactures sunscreens by Coppertone.
Bayer said in a statement that the company intends to comply with the legislation but that “eliminating the use of sunscreen ingredients considered to be safe and effective by the FDA with a long history of use not only restricts consumer choice, but is also at odds with skin cancer prevention efforts. What has been scientifically proven is that exposure to UV radiation from the sun causes skin cancer. And sunscreen is one of the most effective ways to protect yourself from UV exposure, in addition to wearing protective clothing, sunglasses and staying in the shade.”
Edgewell Personal Care, which manufactures Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreens, said some of its products are already available without oxybenzone and octinoxate.
“Some of our products contain FDA-approved amounts of oxybenzone and octinoxate, active ingredients that are designed to protect skin against the damaging effects of ultraviolet light and provide critical broad-spectrum protection from both UVA and UVB rays,” the company said. “The ingredients within our products are clearly listed in the active ingredients on the label so that consumers can make informed purchasing decisions. As always, we will continue to ensure we comply with all relevant regulations concerning oxybenzone and octinoxate.”
Johnson & Johnson, which owns Neutrogena, said it agreed with the position taken by its trade organization, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. The association said “the health, safety and welfare of millions of Hawaii residents and tourists has been severely compromised” by SB 2571, which aims to ban “at least 70 percent of the sunscreens on the market today, based on weak science blaming sunscreens for damage to coral reefs.”
“Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that excess sun exposure without effective sunscreen increases the risk of developing skin cancer in both adults and children,” the association said in a statement. “Banning oxybenzone and octinoxate — key ingredients in effective sunscreens on the market — will drastically and unnecessarily reduce the selection of safe and effective sunscreen products available to residents and visitors. Oxybenzone and octinoxate, found in the majority of sunscreens, are safe and effective over-the-counter (OTC) active ingredients recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as important aides in decreasing the risk of developing skin cancer, the most common cancer in the U.S.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/02/hawaii-might-be-about-to-ban-your-favorite-sunscreen-to-protect-its-coral-reefs/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.117983b54683
-
Home Depot to Exclude Nine Chemicals from Cleaning Products
May 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US home improvement retailer Home Depot asked its suppliers to exclude nine chemicals from residential household cleaning chemical products by the end of 2022.
The effort builds on the company's chemical management strategy, which was announced in October last year.
Home Depot's website says the retailer is committed to working with suppliers to improve products that impact indoor air quality.
The nine chemicals to be phased out are: propyl-paraben;butyl-paraben;diethyl phthalates;dibutyl phthalates;formaldehyde;nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs);triclosan;toluene; and trichloroethylene (TCE)
The website adds that Home Depot's Eco Options programme identifies environmentally preferred products, including cleaners that have obtained third party certifications such as the EPA's Safer Choice and Cradle to Cradle Certified.
"Excluding certain chemicals from cleaning products is another example of our shared commitment to building a better future for our customers and the planet," said Ron Jarvis, vice president of environmental innovation at Home Depot.Ranking
In last year's the Mind the Store retailer 'report card' which grades the largest retailers in the US on their chemicals management efforts – Home Depot ranked eighth out of 31 retailers, earning a C+ grade. Mind the Store is a campaign run by the NGO, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.
"Home Depot's expanded policy shows the power retailers have to transform the market away from toxic chemicals and toward safer solutions," said Mind the Store campaign director Mike Schade.
Other home improvement retailers should follow Home Depot's lead and develop safer chemicals policies to protect their customers from dangerous chemicals, he added.
Mr Schade also called on Home Depot to expand its policy to eliminate methylene chloride (DCM) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) from paint stripping products it sells.
"Home Depot can set an industry-wide standard by taking a bold stand and banning both of these dangerous chemicals from its store shelves," he said.
Mind the Store is focusing its efforts on encouraging retailers to phase out DCM. Plans to ban the substance in paint strippers under a section 6 TSCA rule, were apparently shelved last year. However, speaking at a hearing on Capitol Hill this week, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the proposal has not been dropped, but rather is under review.
Home improvement retailers have been under increasing pressure from an NGO campaign to stop selling products containing DCM following the death of a man last autumn after using paint stripper purchased at rival hardware chain Lowe's.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66268/home-depot-to-exclude-nine-chemicals-from-cleaning-products
-
Austrian EU Presidency Urged to Act on Chemicals Controls
May 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Austria must seize "significant opportunities" to improve chemicals regulations and push for better controls of hazardous substances during its presidency of the Council of the EU, an NGO has urged.
Council presidency rotates among Union member states every six months. Austria will take over from Bulgaria on 1 July.
In an open letter to Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz, the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said some individual and groups of chemicals are "overlooked" by European regulatory frameworks, and existing rules do not address the "real-life effects" of the cocktail of chemicals in daily life.
The letter was also sent to European Council president Donald Tusk and other ministers and commissioners, including Environment Commissioner of environment, maritime affairs and fisheries Karmenu Vella.
Only a "fraction" of over 100,000 chemicals sold in Europe are thoroughly evaluated, and "even fewer" are regulated, the letter said.
"We count on your government to play a steering role", it added, in European Commission and member states actions "to deliver the promised strategy with an adequate level of ambition in time".
Additionally it said that the October 2017 declaration from France, Italy and Luxembourg on a more transparent, more effective and safer assessment of chemicals substances "could form the basis of such discussion and be followed up on at the Council".
The Austrian presidency coincides with a deadline at the end of 2018 for the EU's non-toxic strategy. The European Parliament and citizens expect "ambitious" commitments that should also boost industrial innovation through safer substitution, HEAL said.
The Commission's recently completed REACH review and the ongoing fitness check of the non-REACHchemicals regulations provide "important building blocks" towards the phasing out of toxic substances, it added.
In January, NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) called on the presidency of Bulgaria "to fill the regulatory gaps" in chemicals, including on nanomaterials and the mixture effects of chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66641/austrian-eu-presidency-urged-to-act-on-chemicals-controls
-
News Top Oil Industry Trade Group Hires New CEO from Financial Sector
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The American Petroleum Institute is hiring a Capitol Hill veteran and private investment industry advocate to lead the oil trade group as it pushes for expanded energy infrastructure and braces for big policy fights in states.
API’s board of directors on May 2 elected Mike Sommers—a longtime Republican House staffer who for two years has represented private equity firms—putting him in line to succeed current CEO Jack Gerard, who is leaving after a decade leading the group.
The hiring decision comes as API confronts a changing political landscape, with more energy policy fights happening at the state level, and as the trade group looks to smooth relations with the Trump administration. API also is slated to move its headquarters closer to Capitol Hill later this year.
Sommers has scant oil and gas experience, but he is wise in the ways of Washington—after nearly two decades working for former House Speaker John Boehner and a brief stint advising former President George W. Bush on agriculture, trade and food policy. Sommers is set to take over API after two years leading the Washington-based American Investment Council, which represents private equity and growth capital funds.
Energy to BurnSommers said the job gave him a deeper understanding of specialized energy investments, which will aid him in the new API role.
“While the learning curve is going to be real,” he said in an interview, “I’ve had a lot of experience in this space as well.”
Some of the oil industry’s biggest challenges are materializing far from Washington—including in places where lawmakers have sought to subsidize nuclear and coal power plants, buttressing them amid competition from natural gas. Under President Donald Trump, the Energy Department also is looking for ways to help struggling nuclear and coal plants some see as essential to delivering reliable, always-on power.
State regulators also are emerging as a key choke point in permitting oil and gas pipelines.
“A lot of the big challenges we’re going to have are going to be coming from the state and local level. API is going to stand at the ready to fight those battles as they come,” Sommers said. “This is an incredible organization with a very large footprint, not just in Washington but throughout the country.”
Hedging and Spending FightsSommers is a veteran of major policy fights. Under Boehner, he helped negotiate the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program during the 2008 financial crisis. And as the top Republican staff member in the House of Representatives, he was involved in bruising congressional fights with the Obama administration over spending. At the American Investment Council, Sommers successfully fought to preserve the carried-interest tax rule that benefits some hedge fund managers.
“Mike is a very experienced manager and strategist with a strong track record of working collaboratively to resolve challenging issues,” Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer and API board chairman Darren Woods said in a news release.
Sommers’ shift will put him at the helm of a prestigious trade association with more than 600 members and some $8.5 million devoted to lobbying last year.
The American Petroleum Institute is one of the top business advocacy groups in Washington, alongside other heavyweights such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
And it comes with a salary to match; Gerard took in some $6.8 million in compensation last year, according to API’s most recent tax filing.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/top-oil-industry-trade-group-hires-new-ceo-from-financial-sector
-
Former Boehner Chief Named Head of American Petroleum Institute
May 2, 2018 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Mike Sommers, who currently helms a private equity industry group, will become the new chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the group announced on Wednesday.
The approval from API’s board of directors comes two days after reports surfaced that Sommers, who also served as a top aide to former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), had been selected by the industry group’s leadership to replace outgoing President and CEO Jack Gerard.
Gerard will be stepping down at the end of August, and the new leader will assume the role on Sept. 1.
“Mike is a very experienced manager and strategist with a strong track record of working collaboratively to resolve challenging issues,” said Darren Woods, the chairman of API’s board of directors and CEO of ExxonMobil. “He is a model of leadership and brings tremendous energy to API at an important time for the organization and our industry.”
The association is drawing near its 100th year in Washington and looking to capitalize on some of the gains it has made, including during the Trump administration. Still, the group has butted heads with the White House on trade issues, including tariffs and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
“At a time of transformational progress when natural gas and oil are pioneering groundbreaking innovation, delivering tremendous environmental benefits, and leading long-term economic solutions, I look forward to continuing the work of API’s talented team and representing an industry that is directly enhancing the lives and improving opportunities for Americans and people around the world,” Sommers said in a statement.
Nels Olson and executive search firm Korn Ferry carried out the search. Olson had also placed Gerard at API a decade ago.
Sommers is getting a large pay raise by taking the position, considered to be one of the most prestigious on K Street.
Gerard earned nearly $6.8 million in total compensation in 2016, according to the most recent IRS records available. Sommers received about $1.5 million that same year at the American Investment Council, an organization with $7 million in revenue.
API, which represents a large swath of the oil and gas industry, takes in $229.7 million in revenue, making it a powerhouse. Last year, it spent about $7.5 million on lobbying, making it one of the top 50 spenders on advocacy in Washington.
Under Gerard, API doubled its membership and increased its clout in Washington. He fought off numerous attempts at enacting climate change policies by the federal government and pushed back against some offshore drilling standards that the industry saw as unnecessary. In 2015, API merged with America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA).
“Mike is equipped to build on the industry’s successes and help guide our future. We have great confidence in him and are excited for the future of our industry and the next chapter at API,” said Woods.
The choice won praise from other areas of the energy industry, with the U.S. Energy Association (USEA) saying that Sommers had the "drive" to notch more victories at API.
“American Petroleum Institute is a long-time member of the USEA Board of Directors, and Jack Gerard has been a great friend. While succeeding him will be a challenge, I believe Mike Sommers is a great choice to lead the industry at such a critical time," said Barry Worthington, the USEA's executive director.
“Between our continued reliance on oil and natural gas, which powers and propels our economy, to our country’s movement toward more innovative ways to produce energy, API requires the experience and drive of someone like Mike Sommers," he continued in a statement, offering USEA as a "resource" for Sommers.
“Mike has been at the epicenter of politics, business, industry and economic development. He appears perfectly positioned to advance the goals and work of the oil and gas industry," Worthington said.
Before heading to K Street, Sommers spent nearly his entire 20-year career in Boehner's office, starting as an intern and eventually rising to be the Ohio lawmaker’s chief of staff. Sommers also had a one-year stint in the George W. Bush White House in 2005.
His current employer, the American Investment Council, played a key role during tax reform, fighting to preserve the “carried interest” tax break, a provision that lawmakers of both parties have railed against. It enables some private equity and hedge fund executives to pocket profits at the lower capital gains rate.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/385915-former-boehner-chief-named-head-of-american-petroleum
-
Former Boehner Staffer Tapped to Lead API
May 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The American Petroleum Institute has chosen Mike Sommers, a longtime staffer for former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), as its next president and CEO.
The industry group's board of directors this afternoon voted to approve Sommers, a 43-year-old father of three from Naperville, Ill., who most recently served as the president and CEO of the American Investment Council, an advocacy group for the private equity industry.
Sommers will begin serving as API's leader in August, replacing Jack Gerard — the group's longest-serving president and CEO — who is returning to Salt Lake City to take a leadership position with the Mormon church.
When asked today about his energy background, Sommers said in an interview he's been at the American Investment Council for more than two years, where a number of members solely invest in energy.
"I do have a background in the issues they're facing on a daily basis, but it's no secret I'm not an energy guy," he said. "I think the search committee was looking for somebody that would have a fresh view of the association and the industry."
As for priorities, Sommers outlined four main issues for API to focus on: access to energy, infrastructure and oil and gas transportation, challenges at the state and local level that in many cases are more significant than what the industry faces on the federal level, and regulatory issues.
Gerard in a note to staff applauded Sommers' reputation for bipartisan collaboration and respect on both sides of the aisle.
Before leading the American Investment Council, Sommers served as Boehner's chief of staff for six years and was at the center of major policy, trade and appropriations, according to his online biography. He also served as Boehner's deputy chief of staff, policy director, legislative director and press secretary.
"Throughout his two decades of political service, Mike has successfully negotiated bipartisan achievements on landmark legislation, including the [Troubled] Asset Relief Program in 2008, the resolution of the fiscal cliff in 2013, the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015 and trade promotion authority in 2015," Gerard wrote.
Sommers also served in the White House as a special assistant to President George W. Bush on the National Economic Council in 2005, advising the president on agriculture, trade and food policy. He has a bachelor's degree from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and is married to Jill Sommers, a former member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Mike Sommers has been profiled in various political publications, often as a savvy Hill operator who got his start interning for then-Rep. Harris Fawell (R-Ill.) before moving on to work for Boehner's office while at Miami University.
"I came to Washington without knowing a soul 21 years ago," Sommers told Politico earlier this year. "The rest was a mix of a little hard work and a lot of serendipity."
As the head of API, Sommers will be responsible for maneuvering the industry group through policy issues such as President Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum, public perception of pipeline construction, and how the industry is tackling climate change.
Sommers said he has a "very strong" relationship with the Trump White House, noting many of his friends and colleagues have joined the administration, while adding that challenges facing API will require bipartisan cooperation.
As for climate change, Sommers said the oil and gas industry has a good story to tell.
"We're leading the world in reducing carbon emissions right now. We've reached 25-year lows, and I think this industry has a really great story to tell about climate change," said Sommers. "I'll be encouraging the industry to continue to make progress in that regard and tell the great story we have over the course of my tenure at API."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/02/stories/1060080683
-
Study: Fracking Chemicals Alter Immune System in Mice
May 2, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Lorraine Chow
Researchers from the University of Rochester have found the first evidence that early life exposure to groundwater contaminated by fracking chemicals "alters" the immune system in mice.
The paper, published Tuesday in Toxicological Sciences, could imply potential health dangers for the roughly 17.6 million Americans living within a mile of least one active oil or gas well.
For the study, researchers exposed pregnant mice to a mixture of 23 chemicals found in fracking groundwater that are known endocrine disruptors.
The researchers then observed that the mouse pups, particularly females, exposed to the 23 chemicals in the womb had "abnormal immune responses" in fighting off several types of diseases, including an allergic disease, a type of flu and a disease similar to multiple sclerosis, according to a press release of the analysis.
"The mice whose moms drank water containing the mixture had faster disease onset and more severe disease," lead author Paige Lawrence, the chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center, explained to Environmental Health News.
Human and mice immune systems are "more similar than they are different," Lawrence added to the news site. "This provides information as to what to look for in people."
The authors of the current study suggest more research is needed to understand how fracking chemicals impact the human immune system.
Fracking, aka hydraulic fracturing or unconventional oil and gas extraction, is a drilling technique that shoots high volumes of water, sand and a stew of chemicals into Earth to fracture rock and release oil and gas. Hundreds of unique chemicals are used during the process, including ones that can contaminate drinking water, air and soil and to harm human health, previous studies have found.
"This discovery opens up new avenues of research to identify, and someday prevent, possible adverse health effects in people living near fracking sites," Lawrence said in a statement.
"Our goal is to figure out if these chemicals in our water impact human health," she continued, "but we first need to know what specific aspects of health to look at, so this was a good place to start."
The paper is titled "Developmental Exposure to a Mixture of 23 Chemicals Associated With Unconventional Oil and Gas Operations Alters the Immune System of Mice."
https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-chemicals-immune-system-2565235854.html
-
North Dakota Drops High Court Test On Standing In 'Sue-And-Settle' Suits
May 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
North Dakota has dropped its planned Supreme Court appeal seeking to intervene in EPA's settlement with environmentalists setting a deadline for the agency to reconsider waste rules for the oil and gas sector, ending a case that would have tested states and other third-parties' rights to intervene in so-called sue-and-settle cases.
The state earlier this year had signaled interest in having the high court review the issue, one of the drivers for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's policy aimed at limiting the agency from settling environmentalists' deadline suits.
Had the case advanced, it would have put EPA in the unusual position of defending a deadline settlement despite Pruitt's opposition to such settlements.
But the state missed an April 27 deadline to petition the justices for a writ of certiorari in North Dakota v. Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), et al.
A Supreme Court spokesman says the court did not receive a petition from the state.
A spokeswoman for North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (R) declined comment, referring questions to the Supreme Court docket.
North Dakota was seeking to intervene in an Obama-era settlement between EPA and EIP that set a deadline for the agency to review, and if needed, revise, Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) solid waste rules for wastewater and other residual waste associated with oil and gas exploration and production.
The group's underlying suit sought to enforce EPA's discretionary authority under RCRA to reconsider its rules.
As part of the settlement, EPA committed to deadlines for determining if revisions to the rules are needed and finalizing any updates.
But Pruitt, many GOP lawmakers and third parties have long criticized such settlements, charging they drive the agency's regulatory agenda and unfairly exclude states, industry and other stakeholders from the negotiating process because courts usually find they lack standing to intervene.
Pruitt last October signed a directive pledging to end sue-and-settle practices and impose new third-party consultation requirements before the agency settles suits over missed statutory deadlines. His directive, however, did not apply retroactively to North Dakota's pending suit.
In a two-page judgment issued Nov. 28, the D.C. Circuit rejected the state's argument that it has Article III standing to intervene in the settlement between EPA and environmentalists.
“In this case, even with the 'special solicitude' North Dakota is entitled to as a state,” given the high court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, “North Dakota has alleged an injury that amounts to nothing more than 'the possibility of potentially adverse regulation,'" the court said, citing its 2013 ruling in Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe.
"Under our precedents, North Dakota therefore plainly lacks standing to intervene as of right."
Court precedents like those in the D.C. Circuit have long prevented state and industry parties from intervening in settlements in deadline cases brought by environmentalists as courts find they are not injured, and therefore lack standing.
But North Dakota in an application to the high court to extend the deadline for filing a certiorari petition, argued that Supreme Court review was warranted “because the lower court's decision to apply contradictory and unequal standards to North Dakota and the Plaintiffs implicates an important constitutional issue: Article III standing.”
The application went on to say that the state was authorized by Congress to implement the RCRA program, “and certainly has standing to intervene in a case requiring the reconsideration of the regulations and guidelines that govern that program."
The court's denial of the state's motion to intervene barred it from participating in the negotiations over the settlement EPA and the environmental groups entered, the state says. It argued that the resulting consent decree fails to meet RCRA requirements.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/north-dakota-drops-high-court-test-standing-sue-and-settle-suits
-
US Energy and Security Hinge on NAFTA Safeguards
May 2, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Mark Green
U.S., Canadian, and Mexican representatives are in the middle of negotiations to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement — an agreement that over the years has been very good for American energy. Yet, there’s uncertainty over whether a key NAFTA provision that safeguards U.S. investments in those countries will survive. Such an outcome would be a significant blow to U.S. energy and national security.
The uncertainty stems from the administration’s signals that NAFTA’s investor-state dispute settlement provision should not be included in a new agreement. ISDS protects American interests and property from unfair treatment by host nation governments. But in remarks last fall, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was dismissive of this idea:
It’s always odd to me when the business people come around and say, “Oh, we just want our investments protected.” I mean, don’t we all? I would love to have my investments guaranteed. But unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way in the market.
The USTR continued:
I’ve had people come in and say, literally, to me: “Oh, but you can’t do this: you can’t change ISDS. … You can’t do that because we wouldn’t have made the investment otherwise.” I’m thinking, “Well, then why is it a good policy of the United States government to encourage investment in Mexico?” … The bottom line is, business says: “We want to make decisions and have markets decide. But! We would like to have political risk insurance paid for by the United States’ government.” And to me that’s absurd. You either are in the market, or you’re not in the market.
There are a couple of problems with this analysis. First, the natural gas and oil industry isn’t seeking investment “guarantees,” nor is that what ISDS does. What ISDS does is ensure that if an American company has a dispute with a host government, its claim will be heard in neutral, international arbitration setting. In that way, ISDS strengthens respect for contracts, which is fundamental to markets. Second, advancing U.S. energy security through smart, strategic development of natural gas and oil around the world is very good policy for the United States. Even more than that: Secure energy is a critical U.S. national interest.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Antonio Ortiz-Mena of the Albright Stonebridge Group consultancy said the administration shouldn’t look at energy as it does other sectors. “When the USTR thinks about this, it’s thinking about the auto industry, and `why should the auto industry get special protection to invest in Mexico when they should invest in the U.S.?’” Ortiz-Mena said. “But in the case of energy, you invest where the oil is. If there’s oil in the Gulf of Mexico and you want to invest in deep sea drilling, it’s not as if you could do that in Detroit.”
Writing in Forbes, Phil Levy, senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, sees the administration caught between two purposes. “Lighthizer seems to be saying: If you want to invest in Mexico, pay the risk insurance!” Levy continues:
Logically, he might follow up: If you want to export to Mexico, pay their tariffs! Of course, he doesn’t say the latter because the administration views investment in Mexico as bad but exports to Mexico as good and tariffs impede those exports. There is a reason that trade and investment go together.
Indeed, NAFTA’s zero tariffs on exchanged goods, market access, and trade liberalization has helped created an integrated North American energy zone, with U.S. energy trade with Canada and Mexico flourishing. Canada was the number one export market for U.S. crude oil and kerosene-type jet fuel in 2016; Mexico was our number one export market for total refined products, finished motor gasoline, and other products. According to the Wall Street Journal, foreign investment has surged since Mexico announced reforms opening new access to its energy sector. U.S. access to heavy Mexican crudes — used by a significant portion of our refinery sector — is key to growing our exports of refined products.
NAFTA has been good for U.S. energy — very good — making our nation economically stronger and more energy secure. ISDS ensures that American energy companies have recourse if and when they are subject to unfair treatment, which is critically important to investment decisions. This provision must be retained in any revision of NAFTA.
Mark Green is the Editor of Energy Tomorrow, a project of the American Petroleum Institute.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/05/02/us_energy_security_hinge_on_nafta_safeguards_110289.html
-
Mayors Ask Refinery to End Use of Toxic Chemical
May 2, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The mayors of the Lake Superior twin port cities near last week’s oil refinery explosion and fire are calling on its owners to stop using a toxic chemical compound at the site.
Husky Energy in Superior is one of about 50 refineries in the country that still uses hydrogen fluoride to process high-octane gasoline, according to a 2013 report from the United Steelworkers Union. The refinery explosion last Thursday injured at least 13 people, caused the evacuation of nearby homes and sent billowing plumes of black smoke into the air.
Hydrogen fluoride is a highly corrosive chemical that can produce toxic vapor clouds. The substance can eat into tissues such as the skin, the eyes and the respiratory tract, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Exposure above safe workplace levels could be fatal.
Superior Mayor Jim Paine and Mayor Emily Larson of the adjacent city of Duluth, Minnesota, have asked Husky Energy to use a safer alternative to the chemical.
“There are other means to enable refining, and Husky has the capacity to choose new systems that maintain product integrity while protecting the health of their workers and decreasing risk to the families and loved ones in the Twin Ports,” Larson said.
Paine also requested information about safety procedures meant to stop the chemical’s release.
Officials are exploring different options for the refinery’s configuration and may consider removing hydrogen fluoride from the plant’s operations, said Kollin Schade, the refinery’s manager.
The tank containing hydrogen fluoride was not damaged by the explosion or fire and none of the chemical leaked, company officials said.
The company is cooperating with government investigations and has launched its own internal investigation, said Rob Peabody, CEO of Husky.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/mayors-ask-refinery-to-end-use-of-toxic-chemical/2018/05/02/9cb64114-4e2e-11e8-85c1-9326c4511033_story.html?utm_term=.f15610856c67
-
Explosion Puts Trump Administration's Feet to the Fire on Safety, Energy
May 2, 2018 | Business Insurance
By Gloria Gonzalez
An explosion and fire at a Wisconsin oil refinery are shining a light on several proposed or pending U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that have stalled under the Trump administration.
These workplace safety and risk management regulations were being pursued in response to several incidents at oil and gas refineries and the West, Texas, fertilizer explosion that killed 15 people in 2013, including 12 emergency responders, and caused millions of dollars in mostly uninsured damage.
“Most of the really important rules have helped a great deal, but there are gaps and there are holes in coverage,” said Margaret Seminario, director of safety and health at the AFL-CIO union in Washington. “Following the West, Texas, disaster … President (Barack) Obama signed an executive order that directed the agencies to take a range of actions to strengthen protections on chemical risks because the risks are not only to workers, they’re clearly to communities themselves as well, as we saw in West, Texas, and as we saw in Superior, Wisconsin.”
A fire occurred at the Superior Refinery owned by Calgary, Alberta-based Husky Energy Inc. on April 26, causing injuries to workers and the evacuation of area residents due to safety concerns, according to a statement on the Husky Energy website.
“There is considerable work to be done to understand the cause of this incident and to ensure it does not happen again,” the company, which could not be reached for additional comment, said in the statement.
The Chemical Safety Board has deployed a four-person investigative team to the scene, according to a board statement.
OSHA cited the refinery for four workplace safety violations when it was owned by Calumet Specialty Products Partners L.P., which sold the refinery and related assets to Husky Energy for $492 million in November. The Indianapolis-based independent producer of specialty hydrocarbon and fuels products was assessed $16,800 in total penalties, according to OSHA records. A Calumet spokesperson could not be reached for comment.
In December 2016, the EPA under the Obama administration issued a rule amending its risk management program regulations that aimed to prevent accidental releases at chemical facilities and improve emergency response activities when those releases occur. The rule was scheduled to take effect in March 2017, but was delayed until June 2017 by the Trump administration, which eventually issued a new regulation further delaying the effective date to Feb. 19, 2019, so it could consider petitions to reconsider the program amendments.
The EPA’s decision to delay the RMP amendments resulted in a lawsuit filed in July 2017 by a group of 11 state attorneys general in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lawsuit accused the Trump administration of implementing an illegal two-year delay and asked the court to vacate the delay rule.
“Unfortunately, this is another case where the Trump administration is moving to either stop or roll back rules,” Ms. Seminario said.
OSHA had a process safety management regulation in the works that had considerable overlap with the EPA’s RMP rule-making, but the OSHA proposal — which would have modernized the agency’s PSM and related standards to prevent major chemical accidents — was moved off the active rule-making list to the long-term list.
“With that, it’s anybody’s guess,” said Micah Smith, of counsel with Conn Maciel Carey L.L.P.’s OSHA workplace safety practice group in Washington. “It could live on the long-term agenda for years or if (Scott) Mugno gets confirmed and decides that is something (OSHA) wants to look at, it could come right off of it the next go around. I don’t think anyone is actually anticipating that that’s going to happen, particularly given where the RMP rule is. They’re trying to keep that in a holding pattern as well.”
Ms. Seminario also cited an emergency preparedness draft rule that was developed by a subcommittee of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health for OSHA consideration. It would require emergency service organizations to write and implement a comprehensive risk management plan covering risks associated with administration, facilities, training, vehicle operations, protective clothing and equipment, emergency and nonemergency incidents and related activities.
“There was broad agreement that that rule should move forward and that rule has also been put on hold,” she said. “The strengthening regulations at OSHA have been put on the back burner and, worse than that, at EPA they’re moving to roll back and weaken protections when it comes to chemical safety.”
“The OSHA rules on emergency planning are very, very limited,” she continued. “We’ve seen over the years that firefighters, emergency responders and others are at high risk, but the other problem is the people that work in the facilities are at risk if there are no emergency plans.”
OSHA “seems to be in a little bit of a holding pattern” as it awaits Senate confirmation of Mr. Mugno, the nominee to head the agency, Mr. Smith said. “In the absence of the political leadership, there’s not as much drive to change things or push things forward.”
These types of incidents have some potential to spur action by federal regulators and legislators, experts say. For example, OSHA, the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security are working on new protocols for communicating and training with local governments and first responders when a company in their area is hit with a serious citation. This effort was spurred on by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who lobbied for the protocols in the wake of a fatal chemical explosion and fire at a New Windsor, New York, cosmetics factory in November.
Whether the Superior incident has such impact “will really depend on what the cause was,” Mr. Smith said.
But the lack of movement on federal regulations doesn’t mean the agencies aren’t enforcing their current regulations related to chemical facilities, he said.
Mr. Smith cited an OSHA national emphasis program focused on PSM covered chemical facilities that started in 2017. Initial inspections implied that the agency would have “a little bit of a lighter touch,” but more recent inspections indicated that inspectors will take “a fairly deep dive” when conducting inspections at refineries, he said.
“It could turn into a major enforcement effort even without a new rule,” Mr. Smith said.
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20180502/NEWS08/912320997/Explosion-puts-Trump-administration-feet-to-the-fire-on-safety-energy-OSHA-EPA
-
Plastic Bag Bans’ Effectiveness • Cosmetics’ Animal-Test Ban • Coal-Country Politics
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By CHuck McCutcheon
Plastic bag bans are all the rage these days. But do they provide much in the way of environmental benefits?
To many tracking bag banishments, the focus among cities, states, and countries on banning plastic obscures a much bigger need to invest in waste management infrastructure, Adam Allington writes in a story being published today.
Addressing waste management, they note, keeps plastic out of the environment in the first place.
“The challenge is when you focus on really easy things like straws and bags, people just ‘check the box’ and don’t focus on things which are less sexy, like waste management in Indonesia,” says Rob Kaplan, managing director of Closed Loop Partners, a New York City-based investment group which funds recycling projects.COSMETICS-TEST ANIMALS BAN: The European Parliament will call for the European Union to push for a global ban within the United Nations framework on the use of rabbits, mice, and other critters in cosmetics testing.
The resolution to be voted on is nonbinding—but many European lawmakers, along with companies, believe the time is right to move to a worldwide prohibition. The sale of all animal-tested cosmetics has been banned within the EU itself since 2013.
The main obstacle—rules requiring animal tests in some countries, particularly China. It’s the last major country to require animal testing on many beauty goods, a mandate that puts off some consumers and can harm even non-Chinese sales. Stephen Gardner is covering.
COAL COUNTRY POLITICS: One of the most interesting political primary elections—for West Virginia GOP Senate—is approaching next week, Stephen Lee writes in a story being published today.
The race remains fluid, with polls split for a lead between West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Rep. Evan Jenkins. Coal baron-turned-convict Don Blankenship—who’s drawn the most publicity for his reference to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as “Cocaine Mitch"—is in third.
The three had difficulty separating themselves on coal policy during a nationally televised May 1 debate. One exception was a minor disagreement over Morrisey’s idea to eliminate the Department of Energy; Jenkins blasted the idea as out of touch.
Other Stories We’re Covering
· Germany’s recycling system may be one of the best in the world, but the country still fails to recycle thousands of tons of packaging every year—and an upcoming law tweaking the system won’t change that, Jabeen Bhatti writes in a story published earlier this morning.
· The California Public Utilities Commission is releasing its draft “Green Book,” an overview of risks and opportunities for moving the state toward policies allowing more choices for electric service customers. Bloomberg News is covering.
· The EPA Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee meets again in Arlington, Va., to discuss such issues as updates on industry fees and rare species consultations. Ayanna Alexander is tracking.
· The National Renewable Energy Laboratory holds its Industry Growth Forum in Denver featuring presentations from 30 emerging clean-energy companies. Tripp Baltz is on the ground.
Quote of the Day
“Blockchain technology could be an incredibly useful tool as the number of electric vehicles grows 10 times over the next decade.”
—Lydia Krefta, PG&E principal product manager for blockchain and electric vehicle and grid integration, discussing the secure digital ledger used for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.Around the Web
· Winter sea ice cover in the Bering Sea didn’t just hit a record low in 2018—it was half that of the previous low winter on record.
· A Kenner, La.-based oil exploration company tentatively agreed to pay the Justice Department $55,000 to resolve Clean Water Act violations. WCC Energy Group was accused of spilling oil from its Frog Lake Facility into the Atchafalaya River Basin in August 2017.
· The EPA awards $30 million to improve air quality in some of the nation’s most polluted areas, including more than $10 million to upgrade old wood-burning appliances in Alaska and Utah.
· Ten states and the District of Columbia asked a federal judge for a summary judgment in their lawsuit over the Trump administration’s decision to postpone the effective date of the Obama-era rule to define the geographic scope of Clean Water Act.
Today’s Events
· All Day • Offshore Technology • Offshore Technology Conference in Houston features energy industry discussions about offshore resources and environmental matters.
· 8:30 a.m. • Climate Change/Public Lands • Wilderness Society holds discussionwith journalists and academics on the impact that public lands have on climate change.
· 12 p.m. • Nuclear Accident Response • Virginia Tech Research Center in Arlington, Va., holds discussion on nuclear accident emergency response in Germany and Europe.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/plastic-bag-bans-effectiveness-cosmetics-animal-test-ban-coal-country-politics-13
-
EPA Cites Studies That Might Run Afoul of Pruitt’s Proposed Rule
May 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Roston
It’s Air Quality Awareness Week and the Environmental Protection Agency is taking the opportunity to share some important medical advice.
In a series of tweets and elsewhere online, the agency is drawing attention to the impact of air pollution on health by citing scientific studies and other material.
But critics were quick to point out that some of the very studies being highlighted might not be allowed under proposed guidelines to restrict studies used in policy making.
On April 24, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule that would break with decades of federal practice by limiting the science available to regulators. Pruitt said the proposal was designed to enhance transparency in rulemaking, but critics say it could preclude the use of studies that rely on data that has been anonymized, with information that could identify the participants removed.
That’s why otherwise innocuous Twitter posts from several EPA accounts—including the EPA Office of Research and Development; EPA Region 6, which covers the south-central U.S.; and EPA Indoor Air Plus—on air quality have become noteworthy.
Air Pollution and Lead ExposureThe posts link to a range of materials, from news articles, such as an April 17 Reuters story about links between heart disease and air pollution, to a peer-reviewed article about child lead exposure science and policy making. The latter study was published in the September issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal supported by the National Institute of Environmental Heath Sciences.
John Walke, a senior attorney and clean-air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said some of those studies wouldn’t pass muster under Pruitt’s proposal.
“If enacted, Pruitt’s plan could bar the agency from relying on important studies like these when setting health standards,” Walke said by email.
The administration and conservative activists commonly label the practice of granting confidentiality to people included in some of those studies “secret science.” Environmentalists say Pruitt’s move is censoring science.
“The administrator is absolutely right to want to make sure the basis for federal policy is strong and relies on research that is reproducible,” said Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman professor of economics at the University of Chicago. “Where I find it difficult to follow the logic is assigning zero weight to research that has been peer-reviewed and complies with the disclosure regulations of federal agencies that have collected the data,“
The EPA press office did not respond to emails requesting comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-cites-studies-that-might-run-afoul-of-pruitts-proposed-rule
-
EPA Partly Sides with Enviros in Challenge to Texas Refinery
May 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of environmental groups has won a split decision from EPA on its challenge to the operating permit for a Brazilian-owned oil refinery near Houston.
In an order posted online today, EPA officials agreed with the Environmental Integrity Project and three other organizations that the Texas-issued permit for the Pasadena facility was lacking in part because it did not ensure compliance with the emissions limits for some of the plant's boilers and other equipment.
The agency denied most of the remaining claims raised in the coalition's 2016 administrative petition, including an allegation the permit failed to require monitoring that would ensure compliance with emission limits for flaring.
While the environmental groups argued in that instance that the permit unjustifiably presumed a continuous 98 percent destruction efficiency, EPA said greens failed to back up that argument.
EPA also said the refinery was already working with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to deal with some of the concerns successfully raised by the coalition.
The Pasadena site, capable of processing 110,000 barrels of crude oil per day, is owned by Petróleo Brasileiro SA, often known simply as Petrobras.
Along with the Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services and Air Alliance Houston brought the administrative challenge to the plant's Title V operating permit in late 2016 as part of a broader campaign targeting allegedly weak state permits issued by Texas regulators to large industrial polluters.
After EPA failed to reply to that petition and four others by the Clean Act Act's 60-day deadline, the groups sued last year to force decisions.
The response to the Pasadena refinery petition, signed yesterday by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, followed a court-ordered schedule that requires the petitions to be decided at the rate of one a month through July (E&E News PM, March 22).
Under that timetable, EPA officials must still address petitions faulting various aspects of the permits for the Welsh power plant, located in northeast Texas and owned by Southwestern Electric Power Co., a subsidiary of American Electric Power Co. Inc.; and Motiva Enterprises LLC's Port Arthur Refinery.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/02/stories/1060080681
-
Study Finds Slowdown in NOx Reductions Due to Trucks, Boilers
May 2, 2018 | InsideEPA
A new study is finding significantly slower reductions in two key pollutants that contribute to smog than EPA had previously projected, with researchers saying the higher levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) are due to heavy-duty diesel trucks, off-road vehicles and industrial, residential and commercial boilers.
Slated to be published next week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the report was authored by staff with NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Colorado-Boulder and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), according to an NCAR press release.
Using satellite measuring data, the report compared those findings with EPA inventories, which are based on monitored readings and engineering calculations of pollutants emitted by various sources.
The study found that between 2005 and 2009, NOx concentrations dropped by 7 percent but such emissions only fell by 1.7 percent from 2011-2015.
That represents a 76 percent slowdown in reductions, even though EPA had only estimated a 16 percent slowdown.
Similar results were found for CO emissions.
The data did not support emissions from Asia being the cause of a slowdown, an argument that industry groups have long claimed. Researchers also said that gasoline-powered passenger cars are a relatively smaller factor because they have been equipped with up-to-date catalytic converters.
However, the NCAR release says there are “increasing relative emissions” from industrial, residential and commercial boilers, as well as off-road vehicles.
And it adds that heavy-duty trucks are seeing slower-than-expected NOx cuts because they have “newer (and still maturing) catalytic converter technologies.”
The findings could add fuel to the concerns by states and others about the Trump EPA's proposal to scrap production limits on so-called “glider” trucks that do not meet modern emission standards.
Critics of that plan have argued that rescinding the 2016 limits could result in a huge spike in the use of gliders that combine new chassis with used engines that were made before EPA required more stringent pollution control technology.
That could in turn lead to a massive increase in NOx emissions from the heavy-duty sector, exacerbating the trend outlined in the recent scientific study.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/study-finds-slowdown-nox-reductions-due-trucks-boilers
-
Clean Air Regulations Protect Health and Benefit the Economy
May 2, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
The Trump administration is waging war on the laws meant to protect Americans from air pollution, arguing that rolling back regulations on coal-fired power plants, cars and trucks, and other sources of fossil fuel emissions is necessary to ensure a healthy economy.
But the evidence is clear that environmental and public health protections actually strengthen the economy, by encouraging entrepreneurship, stimulating new industries and improving worker health, which leads to greater productivity.
A recent American Lung Association report found that 40 percent of Americans breathe unhealthy air. The primary culprits are electricity plants, which emit microscopic particles of soot that penetrate deep into our lungs, and automobiles, whose emissions produce ozone. This pollutant can cause or worsen asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
The health impacts are alarming. A new study in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society estimates that asthma costs the nation almost $82 billion per year in medical costs and missed school and work days. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 million Americans have asthma, including more than 8 percent of children and more than 7 percent of adults. The numbers have steadily increased since the 1980s and will get worse. The American Lung Association says warmer weather caused by climate change will drive more ozone formation, resulting in poorer respiratory health.
In the midst of this epidemic of lung disease, the Trump administration has proposed one rollback of clean air rules after another. A major Trump initiative is to rescind Obama-era fuel efficiency standards. Under the Obama standards, by 2025, cars and light trucks are supposed to average nearly 55 miles per gallon. The Obama administration estimated that by that date, consumers would save $1.7 trillion on fuel. Every dollar spent to comply with the standards would return $13 in health benefits. The additional cost to the price of a car would be just $72.
Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has worked systematically to derail air and water regulations for coal-fired power plants. These include making it easier for plants to increase their air emissions through upgrades and eliminating carbon dioxide emission standards.
The benefits of environmental regulations far outweigh the costs. YaleEnvironment360reported that a Harvard University study found the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 delivered $30 in health benefits for every dollar of investment. A 2010 study by the Office of Management and Budget found the EPA was consistently the top federal agency in terms of costs of regulations versus benefits.
What’s more, technological advances allow us to systematically replace polluting coal and natural gas plants, and the internal combustion engine. Bloomberg reports that 80 percent of the global auto market is moving toward electric vehicles and it expects electric vehicle sales to exceed those of cars with internal combustion engines within 20 years. From 2010 to 2017, 60,000 megawatts of coal-fired units were closed – enough to power 40 million homes. Wind, solar, natural gas and air regulations have been the driving forces. Renewables and energy storage are now rivaling natural gas plants on cost.
Rather than controlling pollution with retrofits such as scrubbers on coal plants or catalytic converters on cars, we can invest in technology that doesn’t pollute, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in health costs.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/clean-air-regulations-protect-health-and-benefit-economy#.WurnjW1uaUk
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested