Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/4/2018
-
(ACC Blog) Top U.S. Officials in Beijing to Stave off Trade War with China; Back at Home, Businesses Share What’s at Stake for the Global Economy
May 4, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Edward Brzytwa
A team of top U.S. economic advisors is in Beijing to meet with Chinese officials about China’s discriminatory intellectual property and forced technology transfer practices. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt’s Top Communications Official Is Leaving the EPA
May 3, 2018 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Another high-level aide to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt is leaving the agency this week, as federal investigators continue to scrutinize the administrator’s spending and management decisions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bowman Exits EPA PA Post
May 3, 2018 | O'Dwyers PR News
By Kevin McCauley
Liz Bowman, spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency and its embattled leader Scott Pruitt, is exiting her post on May 11. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Endures Extended Exodus
May 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Garrett Ross and David Beavers
he exodus at EPA continues. Administrator Scott Pruitt’s top spokeswoman, Liz Bowman, announced today she will leave her role as associate administrator for public affairs effective May 11, Pro’s Emily Holden reports... -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt a 'Walking Conflict of Interest'| Feedback
May 3, 2018 | NJ.com
By Jeff Tittel
Each time Scott Pruitt is in the news, he's taking a first-class flight on the taxpayers' dime, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a security tail and paying for apartments below market as gifts from pipeline lobbyists. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Link Between Fossil Fuels, Single-Use Plastics and Climate Change
May 3, 2018 | Eco Watch
By Katie Day and Trent Hodges
When we think of plastic pollution, we think of images of plastic bags on the beach, suffering marine life and the almost invisible smog of microplastics in our ocean. -
(ACC Mentioned) Green Up Day Arrives on May 5
May 3, 2018 | Bennington Banner
By Holly Pelczynski
Green Up Day arrives on Saturday, when more than 22,000 volunteers are expected to come together to clear litter from roadsides and public spaces across the state. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainability of Our Industry and Your Business
May 3, 2018 | SprayFoam
You’ve worked hard to grow your spray foam business and we’ve all enjoyed a steadily expanding SPF market. -
Chemical Companies See Auspicious Start to 2018
May 4, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
U.S. chemical companies enjoyed a barn burner of a quarter to begin the year. Earnings increased by double digits for nearly all the 10 major companies to report quarterly results so far. Sales also increased for almost all firms. -
Are Plastic Bag Bans Really Creating Less Pollution?
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Environmentalists want to make the plastic bag a thing of the past. -
EPA's Defense of TSCA Rules Marks Key Legal Test After Early Court Losses
May 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Trump administration's upcoming defense of EPA rules implementing the recently revised toxics law will mark one of the first substantive tests for how well new regulations will withstand legal scrutiny after the agency suffered a series of early court losses... -
(ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Passes Bill to Ban Sun Care Products That Harm Coral
May 3, 2018 | Voice of America
By Caty Weaver
Lawmakers in the American state of Hawaii have passed a bill banning sunscreens that can harm coral reefs. -
Critics Doubt EPA Plan To Redact Confidential Data In Transparency Rule
May 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Critics of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposal to require only publicly available research to justify regulatory decisions say agency plans to protect confidential information, such as personal data or trade secret studies, by redacting it are not adequate... -
Congress to Scott Pruitt: What Do You Have to Say to These Families?
May 3, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
Last week Drew Wynne’s brother Brian and sister-in-law Johanna traveled to Washington, DC to attend a Congressional hearing. Drew, a 31-year-old small business owner, is one of at least four people who have been killed by paint strippers containing methylene chloride... -
Additives’ Use in Candy, Other Foods Opposed in Court
May 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Styrene and six “carcinogenic food additives” in candy, baked goods and other foods shouldn’t be allowed to be used as flavorings, a coalition of health and environmental groups argued in a new lawsuit. -
Industry Criticises 'Misleading' Baby Products Guide
May 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US children's products trade associations have criticised an NGO report that advises parents to avoid buying baby items containing a number of chemicals including certain plastics, flame retardants and solvents. -
Stockholm Convention Factsheet Lists Pops Exemptions
May 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) has published a factsheet on exempted uses for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). -
EPA Narrows Guidelines for Aggregating Sources for Air Permitting
May 4, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA will alter its interpretation of when related facilities are considered a single source for air permitting purposes in a way that could ease their permitting requirements. -
Sunoco’s Mariner 1 East Pipeline Reopens After Sinkhole Shutdown
May 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Energy Transfer Partners’ Mariner East 1 pipeline can restart nearly two months after shutting down because of safety concerns, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission said May 3. -
Enterprise Products Partners Announces Two Pipeline Expansions
May 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners announced two pipeline expansions Thursday that will transport natural gas liquids from Colorado to a storage facility in Texas. -
Absent Federal Action, Communities and Corporations Commit to Renewables
May 3, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
While the Trump administration is promoting coal, a dirty and dangerous fossil fuel headed for the scrap heap of history, a growing number of communities and companies across the nation are embracing a future powered by clean, safe, renewable energy. -
(ACC Mentioned) Big Easy Won’t Face Class Action Over Chemicals in City Hall
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The city of New Orleans won’t face a class action brought by workers exposed to hydrochloric acid fumes in a building that operated as an annex to City Hall. -
Police: Chemical Plant Fire in Louisiana, No Injuries
May 3, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A fire has broken out at a Louisiana chemical plant, sending massive smoke plumes in the air and prompting an evacuation for a mile (1.6 kilometers) all around. -
United Technologies Dodges Hazmat Class Claims
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
United Technologies Corp. won’t face class claims brought by Florida landowners who say the company’s rocket plant leaked hazardous chemicals into their soil, water, and air, a federal court in Florida ruled May 2. -
'No Crew' Trains: Coming Soon to Cowlitz County?
May 4, 2018 | Longview Daily News
By Zack Hale
Could crewless trains carrying hazardous cargo and other commodities eventually come speeding through Kalama and Kelso? -
Trump's NAAQS Overhaul Prompts Questions on Scope of CASAC's Input
May 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
President Donald Trump's directive for EPA to overhaul and streamline the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) review process is prompting questions over how it might affect the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) input on NAAQS... -
Pruitt’s EPA Denies Climate Science. Republicans Can Correct Him. Will They?
May 4, 2018 | Washington Post
By Salil Benegal and Lyle Scruggs
In the past week, Scott Pruitt, embattled chief administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, testified before two House panels about alleged ethics violations and controversial spending decisions. Under this scrutiny, two of his top aides have resigned.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
May 4, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Edward Brzytwa
A team of top U.S. economic advisors is in Beijing to meet with Chinese officials about China’s discriminatory intellectual property and forced technology transfer practices. Looming over these discussions is a possible trade war between the U.S. and China over proposed actions resulting from USTR’s Section 301 investigation of China’s practices.
With $5 billion in U.S. chemicals and plastics trade to China potentially impacted by the retaliatory tariffs that China has proposed, American chemical manufacturers hold a significant stake in the outcome of these negotiations. 40 percent of the products on China’s initial Section 301 list relate to chemicals. These products are largely basic chemicals, plastic resins, and some specialty chemicals as well as some finished forms of plastics (films, sheets, and other plastic products).
China is already one of the U.S. chemical industry’s most important trading partners, importing 11 percent, or $3.2 billion, of all U.S. plastic resins in 2017. And the Chinese market is critical for the continued growth in our sector.
U.S. chemical manufacturers have been particularly successful in the global marketplace when tariffs are low, and near zero when possible. Our sector certainly will be impacted by additional tariffs. But the impacts of additional tariffs would be felt not just by chemical companies, but across the entire economy.
According to a new study by Trade Partnership and sponsored by the National Retail Federation and Consumer Technology Association, the proposed $50 billion of U.S. tariffs would lead to four job losses for every job gained (net loss of 134,000 jobs). Adding an additional $100 billion in tariffs would cost 455,000 jobs and reduce GDP by $49 billion. The ten states that would suffer the highest job losses are California, Texas, Florida, Washington, New York, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio.
ACC and other leading businesses associations weigh in
The Global Business Dialogue, a trade policy association, hosted a dialogue last week at the National Press Club featuring representatives from the US-China Business Council, Information Technology Industry Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The businesses represented by these industries are responsible for billions of dollars in U.S. exports to China and hundreds of thousands of export-dependent jobs.
The threatened tariffs have a significant potential impact on the business of U.S. chemistry. For the first time in decades,the U.S. enjoys a competitive advantage in chemicals and plastic production, made possible by affordable domestic natural gas, the industry’s primary feedstock. Since 2010 the United States has gone from one of the most expensive places to produce chemicals, to one of the world’s lowest cost producers. Today, American chemical manufacturers produce 15 percent of the world’s chemicals, and account for 14 percent of all U.S. exports, amounting to $181 billion in 2017.
Approximately $194 billion in new chemicals and plastics production capacity has been announced in the past eight years, and more than 60 percent of that is foreign direct investment. Much of the new capacity is intended for export, reflecting that the United States is an excellent platform from which to serve the global marketplace.
A shot across the bow
That China has included significant numbers of chemicals products on its retaliation list is a recognition of the competitiveness of the U.S. chemicals industry and the challenge it poses to China’s own fast-growing chemicals industry.
China also knows that these tariffs will hit consumers of chemicals (ag, autos, other manufacturers), which will depress demand for U.S.-made chemicals, leading to less production, less investment, less exports, and less jobs created in the U.S.
Overall, ACC estimates that the proposed 25 percent tariff on U.S. exports would result in a decline in U.S. chemical production of $2.4 billion to $2.8 billion. More than $1.5 billion of this is direct loss of U.S. exports of chemicals (from the tariffs), and the balance is the chemistry embedded in other U.S. exports at risk.
On the path to a resolution
We strongly encourage the Administration to develop a clear plan that delineates the measurable steps that China must take to address problems like intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer, backed by strong and transparent verification and enforcement.
ACC is hopeful that, with support from Congress, the Administration and the Chinese government will recognize that it is in the best interest of both countries to commit to a process that will produce a mutually beneficial agreement before the proposed tariffs go into effect.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/05/top-u-s-officials-in-beijing-to-stave-off-trade-war-with-china-back-at-home-businesses-share-whats-at-stake-for-the-global-economy/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt’s Top Communications Official Is Leaving the EPA
May 3, 2018 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Another high-level aide to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt is leaving the agency this week, as federal investigators continue to scrutinize the administrator’s spending and management decisions.
Liz Bowman, the agency’s top spokesman, is stepping down to become communications director for Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
Her departure follows the exit of two other top Pruitt aides this week. Albert “Kell” Kelly, who was Pruitt’s banker in Oklahoma and hired to revitalize the agency’s Superfund program cleaning up toxic sites nationwide, resigned Tuesday. So did Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta, the head of Pruitt’s personal security team who has come under congressional scrutiny recently for unusual spending on Pruitt’s protective detail.
Other senior EPA officials also could leave in the coming weeks, according to two individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.
“I leave extremely thankful for the opportunity to serve the Trump Administration and Administrator Pruitt,” Bowman wrote in a statement.
Bowman also praised EPA career staff in her departing statement. “Being a member of the EPA team has allowed me to further my skills, learn from my mistakes, and make lifelong friendships. It has also provided me the opportunity to develop a new, and deep, respect for the public servants who serve the American people, day in and day out, to ensure that we all have access to clean air, land, and water.”
Under Bowman, the EPA’s press shop aggressively defended Pruitt’s work, often in news releases calling out media outlets and reporters whose coverage the agency said was misleading or inaccurate.
After Hurricane Harvey hit Houston last year, the agency’s press office charged a D.C.-based journalist at the Associated Press with “reporting from the comfort of Washington,” even though other AP reporters co-wrote the stories from Houston. The AP had reported on the flooding of toxic Superfund sites in the hurricane-hit city that EPA employees had not yet been physically able to visit.
In a statement at the time, Bowman accused the news wire service of “cherry-picking facts” and of practicing “yellow journalism.”
“What Liz brought to the table at EPA was good judgment, good management, good organization,” EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson said in a statement. “She has a great opportunity ahead of her at the Senate. She will work for a great member that has a great future in front of her.”
Before working at the EPA, Bowman directed communications at the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying arm in Washington of the chemicals industry. Her last day at the EPA will be May 11.
The EPA’s press shop has seen a noted degree of turnover apart from Bowman, with Amy Graham and J.P. Freire leaving their roles as spokespeople for Pruitt’s EPA after less than a year on the job each.
Two EPA officials said Thursday that Bowman sought to remove herself from the push to challenge reporting by multiple media outlets about allegations of ethical misconduct by Pruitt, instead leaving that task to spokesman Jahan Wilcox.
Perrotta and Kelly, the other two Pruitt aides who announced their departures in recent days, have become flash points of controversy within the EPA.
Perrotta was scheduled to be interviewed by investigators at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this week to explain his role in adding personnel to Pruitt’s security detail as lawmakers question whether the EPA is spending too much money on the administrator’s security.
Democratic lawmakers are also worried about a $125,000 fine Kelly received from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which later banned him from banking industry altogether.
The FDIC had found reason to believe Kelly “violated a law or regulation, by entering into an agreement pertaining to a loan” without the agency’s approval, according to a consent agreement that Kelly signed in May 2017 and that E&E News obtained. In the agreement, Kelly did not admit or deny wrongdoing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/03/scott-pruitts-top-communications-official-is-leaving-the-epa/?utm_term=.22e1f9336d61
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bowman Exits EPA PA Post
May 3, 2018 | O'Dwyers PR News
By Kevin McCauley
Liz Bowman, spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency and its embattled leader Scott Pruitt, is exiting her post on May 11.
She will join the staff of Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa.
Bowman joined EPA from the American Chemistry Council, where she was director of issues and advocacy communications.
She also was VP at HDMK and senior communications associate at Pew Charitable Trusts.
In leaving the EPA, Bowman expressed thanks for the opportunity to serve President Trump and Pruitt.
“Being a member of the EPA team has allowed me to further my skills, learn from my mistakes, and make lifelong friendships,” she told Politico.
The New York Times reported April 18 that Pruitt faces 11 federal investigations concerning travel expenses, dismissal of EPA scientists, closes ties with industry lobbyists, pay raises for aides, security outlays and office upgrades, including the installation of a $43K secure phone booth.
A Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 53 percent of respondents believe Pruitt should be removed from office,, while 12 percent say he should remain on the job.
Nearly half (48 percent) of the Republicans polled say Pruitt has acted inappropriately as EPA administrator, though only 38 percent agree that he should leave.
http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/10592/2018-05-03/bowman-exits-epa-pa-post.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Endures Extended Exodus
May 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Garrett Ross and David Beavers
EPA EXODUS CONTINUES: The exodus at EPA continues. Administrator Scott Pruitt’s top spokeswoman, Liz Bowman, announced today she will leave her role as associate administrator for public affairs effective May 11, Pro’s Emily Holden reports. Bowman, who was previously director of issue and advocacy communications for the American Chemistry Council, came to EPA shortly after Pruitt was confirmed in early 2017. Her exit follows those of Pruitt’s lead security agent Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta and EPA Superfund chief Albert “Kell” Kelly, both of whom quit earlier this week. Bowman said she will join Sen. Joni Ernst’s (R-Iowa) office. Read more from Emily here.
HOUSE HUNTERS: The New York Times reports that during this stint as an Oklahoma state senator 15 years ago, Pruitt purchased a home in Oklahoma City with a registered lobbyist who pushed for changes to the state’s workers’ compensation rules. And Pruitt went on to make the case for those changes in the Legislature, although he never publicly disclosed the relationship with Justin Whitefield, the lobbyist in question.
Whitefield died in a plane crash in 2006, but his ties to Pruitt and the home were confirmed to the Times by a relative. “Whitefield was a practicing lawyer who had business in Oklahoma City,” EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox told the Times. “Pruitt was a practicing lawyer and a part-time legislator who only stayed in the house when he was in Oklahoma City for business.” The details of the home, which was registered to a shell company, were reported by the Times last month, but his relationship with Whitefield was newly uncovered. Read more here.
SPOTTED: Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke at the White House ceremony for the National Day of Prayer, hosted this morning in the Rose Garden...
With help from Alex Guillén, Anthony Adragna, Kelsey Tamborrino and Daniel Lippman
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletters/afternoon-energy/2018/05/epa-endures-extended-exodus-203339
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt a 'Walking Conflict of Interest'| Feedback
May 3, 2018 | NJ.com
By Jeff Tittel
Scott Pruitt Must Go- Disaster for the EPA and Environment
Each time Scott Pruitt is in the news, he's taking a first-class flight on the taxpayers' dime, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a security tail and paying for apartments below market as gifts from pipeline lobbyists. Under Pruitt, scientists are gagged and governmental agencies can't even say words "climate change."
They are saying that Pruitt is carrying out President Trump's agenda, but that agenda is a war on the environment. Pruitt is a walking scandal. However, the real scandal is that he is poisoning our environment and putting the people of America at risk.
Pruitt's attack on the environment has been reckless. He signed a directive to delay a rule that would mandate chemical plants to warn the public about possible safety issues. He is giving more power to Big Oil by issuing more waivers to small oil refineries that pardon them from requiring blending ethanol with gasoline. He also allowed the dangerous pesticide chlorpyrifos to be used, despite it having harmful effects on children's brain development.
Pruitt's staff is stacked with previous employees from the American Chemistry Council and Dow Chemical. This means polluters are now in charge of enforcing safe drinking water and cleaning up contaminated spills and sites.
As Oklahoma Attorney General, Pruitt sued against regulations that would protect us from harmful chemicals and keep our air and water clean. Now, he is trying to dismantle those regulations. He is a walking conflict of interest. He is hurting the environment and putting the health and safety of the American people at risk and needs to be fired.
Jeff Tittel
Director, New Jersey Sierra Clubhttp://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/05/_letters_2.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Link Between Fossil Fuels, Single-Use Plastics and Climate Change
May 3, 2018 | Eco Watch
By Katie Day and Trent Hodges
When we think of plastic pollution, we think of images of plastic bags on the beach, suffering marine life and the almost invisible smog of microplastics in our ocean. What often gets overlooked is the fact that conventional plastic is made from fossil fuels, and is a product of the oil and gas industry.
Traditionally made from petroleum byproducts, plastic in the U.S. is now most commonly sourced from the nation's production of "abundant and affordable" natural gas. Natural gas liquids (NGLs) ethane and propane get extracted and sent to a "cracking facility" where ethane is made into ethylene (the foundation of polyethylene—the most common plastic in the world, frequently used for packaging, bottles and synthetic clothing), and at a dehydrogenation plant, propane is made into propylene (the foundation of polypropylene—a plastic commonly found in food packaging and vehicle manufacturing).
"The reason is simple: because of shale gas, it is more cost effective to produce ethylene in U.S. than just about anywhere else in the world."
— Excerpt from American Chemistry Council
The U.S. natural gas boom has made plastic feedstocks really cheap and readily available. An estimated $50 billion will be invested into new and expanded U.S. plastic production facilities, increasing production by roughly 50 percent in the next 10 years, and tripling the amount of plastic exports by 2030! That includes 400 new plastic processing facilities, in addition to plastic manufacturing facilities and plastic additive processing facilities, which can produce some significantly harmful chemicals including pthalates and brominated flame retardants.
In fact, in the U.S. alone, producers of polyethylene are expecting to increase production capacity by as much as 75 percent by 2022. Industry explains that this increase of production is fueled by expected increases in demand for disposable plastics, such as soft drinks and packaging, by millennials in developed countries, and growing consumer markets in developing countries. This means that much of the U.S. manufactured plastics are planning to be exported to developing countries, where waste management services may not be properly equipped to handle current, let alone a surge in non-biodegradable solid waste.
This is disheartening news, but just as the proposal for offshore oil drilling off the U.S. ignores the fact that the world is moving towards renewable energy, the plastics industry fails to recognize the proliferation of social and political changes such as bag bans, foam bans and society's refusal to accept an inundation of single-use plastic.
The movement to reduce single-use plastic pollution has gone global. At the local level, cities across the U.S. have banned and restricted the unregulated use of wasteful single-use plastics, fueled by campaigns that Surfrider chapters and passionate communities have fought for. On the international side, in January 2018, the European Commission announced a Europe-wide strategy to reduce plastic pollution and ensure that all plastic in Europe is recyclable by 2030.
Even the UN Environment Program has taken a strong stance against plastic pollution, and started a global campaign to reduce marine debris from microplastics and single use plastics by 2022. Though none of these actions alone signal an end to single-use plastics, they do show the increased resistance among cities, nations and the international community to reject products that are used once and thrown away to the detriment of our waters, land and wildlife.
Plastic pollution is an issue that demands worldwide cooperation, similar to climate change, as they are two sides of the same coin. As a product of extracting and refining fossil fuels for energy, the amount of plastic produced is influenced by the demand for and production of oil and gas. Industry analyses find that the production of plastics from fossil fuel is only cost effective when the components not used for plastics are used for energy production, treating plastic more as a byproduct of the industry. Therefore, if we transition away from fossil fuels, and towards renewable energy and a healthy climate, we also encourage industry to transition away from producing wasteful single-use plastics.
"Plastics manufacturers assume demand for disposable plastics will continue to rise, despite evidence that global awareness of plastic pollution is growing and cultural attitudes are changing. Industry investments reflect a further underlying assumption that supplies of cheap hydrocarbons will remain the norm for decades to come, even as the global community has begun to phase out the very fossil fuels upon which plastics producers depend."
— Excerpt from Center for International and Environmental Law
This makes the fight against single-use plastic pollution more compelling and holistic, realizing that good choices in renewable energy and climate friendly decisions may also help reduce single-use plastic production and pollution, and vice versa.
We need your help to reduce the consumption of single use plastics and fossil fuels!
· Support bans on harmful single-use products through local campaigns.
· Support Ocean Friendly Restaurants and local businesses that avoid plastic waste while spreading awareness of the issue.
· Reduce your reliance on greenhouse gas emissions by driving less, investing in high-efficiency lighting and appliances, and buying locally.
· Adopt a single-use plastic free lifestyle by investing in reusable cups and cutlery, purchasing loose produce instead of packaged produce, and saying no to plastic straws, bags, bottles, and takeaway containers.
· Take action and ask our federal leaders to protect our coasts from new offshore drilling.
Our friends at 5 Gyres are also bringing awareness to the link between climate change and plastic pollution on their new page!
https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuels-single-use-plastics-2565595371.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Green Up Day Arrives on May 5
May 3, 2018 | Bennington Banner
By Holly Pelczynski
Green Up Day arrives on Saturday, when more than 22,000 volunteers are expected to come together to clear litter from roadsides and public spaces across the state.
An annual tradition in Vermont since 1970, Green Up Day is a grassroots event that allows volunteers to concentrate on the areas that concern them the most. Sunny skies are in the forecast for Saturday, with temperatures reaching 70 degrees.
New this year is an app that promises to help volunteers coordinate their efforts. "This is an amazing achievement for an all-volunteer project," said John Need, a Code for BTV volunteer who helped develop the app. "This project team has donated hundreds of hours of coding, designing, marketing, and management skills to produce an awesome mobile app that everyone in Vermont can use." To download the app for Android or iPhone, visit greenupvermont.org.
For Green Up Day information for your town, and the names, phone numbers and email addresses of local organizers, visit the Get Involved page at greenupvermont.org; bags are also available at your local Subaru dealer. Below is information provided to the Banner by organizers in Bennington County:
Arlington: Sign-up begins at 8 a.m. Saturday in the Fisher Elementary School Multipurpose Room. Volunteers should sign up for the area where they will be working. Green Up bags will be available at the time of sign-up. Collection will continue until 11:30 a.m. Collected bags of trash may be returned to Fisher School by 11:30 a.m., or left at roadside to be picked up. Car tires will be accepted at a $3 per tire charge. Refreshments and drawing for prizes will be at 11:30.
Bennington: Bags are available at Bennington Subaru at 527 N. Bennington Road, and can be dropped off there as well. Refreshments will be provided for all volunteers. Filled bags will also be collected on the roadside. Volunteers are asked to contact the Bennington Town Office with information of where they will be working, to facilitate the collection of bags.
Manchester: Report to the Manchester Community Library parking lot at 9 a.m. The town is divided into approximately 15 routes for clean up of roadside litter. In addition, there will be some special projects at the Town Green and Recreation Area and Riverwalk. As an added attraction, the routes will be "salted" with colored blocks, which children can return for prizes. There will also be a sculpture contest, using collected trash, on the theme "Mr. Trump, Please Preserve Our Environment." Old ski poles without baskets make excellent pokers to get debris out of ditches. A noontime hot-dog roast, sponsored by the Spiral Press Cafe, will be held in the library parking lot. Tires will be accepted in the library parking lot between 9 a.m. and noon, at a charge of $3 for passenger car tires, and $5 for truck tires.
Pownal: Meet at the American Legion at 9 a.m. for coffee and donuts, then join a Green-Up work team to clean up one of the town's beautiful roads. Return to Legion between 11:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. for a hot dog lunch. Come have fun and make a difference!
Shaftsbury: Green Up bags and plastic gloves can be picked up at Cole Hall between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. VTrans workers will be responsible for the collection of trash on Route 7A and Route 67. Shaftsbury volunteers should work on town roads and areas of concern. A dumpster provided by TAM Waste Management will be parked that day behind Cole Hall to drop off filled bags. The public works department will collect litter bags left at the roadside.
The 2018 Green Up Day is sponsored by Casella Waste Systems, Nokian Tires, Subaru of New England, Co-operative Insurance Companies, National Life Group Foundation, Eternity, WCAX, American Chemistry Council, Beverage Association of Vermont, Cabot Creamery Cooperative, JaniTech, Union Mutual of Vermont, UVM Health Network, VAST, VELCO, Vermont Gas, People's United Bank, The Burlington Free Press, Concept 2, New Chapter, Rutland Regional Medical Center, Ski Vermont, Skinny Pancake, Swish White River, The Alchemist, Vermont Coffee Company, Vermont Mutual Insurance Group and Washington Electric Co-op.http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/green-up-day-arrives-on-may-5,538719
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainability of Our Industry and Your Business
May 3, 2018 | SprayFoam
You’ve worked hard to grow your spray foam business and we’ve all enjoyed a steadily expanding SPF market. Life’s been pretty good for spray foam, especially when compared to other industries that were more affected than ours by economic pressures of the past decade. Everyone in the spray foam value chain has enjoyed a growing market, but what would happen to your business if the spray foam industry suddenly shrinks? Thankfully, there’s two industry associations working hard to protect our market, but unless we all work responsibly, nothing is guaranteed.
The two organizations focused exclusively on the betterment of everyone in spray foam are the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA) and the Spray Foam Coalition (SFC). Both are focused on building and protecting our spray foam market but from different perspectives. The SPFA focuses on contractor needs that include training, as well as OSHA and EPA requirements. The SFC is organized through the American Chemistry Council’s Center for Polyurethanes Industry and is a manufacturer’s organization with a primary emphasis on expanding the marketplace for all SPF. Both organizations do outstanding work. Both are 100 percent voluntary to join and participate in, and have strict anti-trust guidelines. In accordance with federal statutes, neither allows certain activities which restrict market access and neither governs the way any company goes to market, whether they’re members or not.
Over the years, some have asked why we don’t require more from spray foam applicators and contractors like training and certification. Some have asked that manufacturers be held to different standards, but at the end of the day, we appreciate being able to operate free of burdensome regulation, and with that freedom comes with shared responsibility.
Our manufacturers need to produce great products with support to installers so their materials can be used safely and provide a healthy and comfortable indoor environment for homeowners and building occupants. Our installers need to operate in accordance with best industry practices and run their business in an ethical and honorable manner. Collectively, we need to always manufacture, promote, and install our spray foam in compliance with applicable codes and according to universally accepted standards.
Training to those standards is imperative to making sure everyone understands and applies the right knowledge, skills, and abilities. The SPFA Professional Certification Program has been universally accepted by manufacturers, insurance providers, architects, and government agencies – and certified applicators are respected across the industry.
Manufacturers have a different set of requirements and certifications. In order to be sold as insulation, spray foam manufacturers must test and declare R-value in accordance with FTC rules. There are code-mandated standards for air permeance and vapor diffusion, and there are material specs for flame spread, smoke development, heat release, and a myriad of other fire properties. Manufacturers who list their products with organizations like ICC Evaluation Service, Intertek, IAPMO, and ABAA are required to operate under a quality assurance plan, which includes product consistency, sample retention, and warranty reporting, to name a few.
Building officials trust and rely on these organizations to publish evaluation reports so the individual inspector doesn’t have to do extensive research for products not cited prescriptively in the code but claimed to meet the intent or spirit of the code. Our spray foam industry has benefited greatly by evaluation reports (also known as research reports), which means a third-party reads laboratory test results and other documents submitted by the manufacturer and then writes a report based on a written acceptance criterion. We also have guidelines from EPA and CPI for ventilation of the spray zone, re-entry, and re-occupancy after spraying foam, and since we all use the same MDI for our A side, it seems reasonable that all brands of foam would be about the same.
Each of us must be a good steward of our industry. We need to comply with our long-established standards and operate according to best industry practices. When we do, it benefits everyone in the spray foam value chain from basic chemical suppliers to systems houses, distributors, contractors, and applicators. We can’t afford to take shortcuts or forsake well-established standards, processes, and procedures for short-term profit. In this day and age, it’s reasonable to wonder if our industry is durable enough to continue to grow if a major problem related to spray foam arises.
Ask your customers how they learned about spray foam and most will tell you they researched it on the internet. Both SPF industry associations have excellent websites populated with very positive information, as do all of the spray foam manufacturers and many contractors, and —of course—SprayFoam.com. There are also naysayers who latch onto any negative information, true or not, and often blow it way out of proportion. In our internet-driven economy where anything posted on the web seems to remain there forever, can we really afford to have a high-profile fire or death-related incident to this non-standard fire control protocol?
About 10 years ago, there was a class-action lawsuit lodged in a number of states against a number of manufacturers and contractors. According to public record, multi-district status was never allowed, a class was never formed, and it appears the suit was not successful. That didn’t stop the internet trolls from litigating it in forums and websites dedicated to the destruction of our industry. We survived that dark era, but one has to wonder how much more our industry could have grown had we not had those allegations to defend; those distractions from our common goal of growing our market and our company’s market share.
Most of that is finally behind us so we’re again making good progress with SPF’s market share in the insulation industry, and our contractors are busier and more profitable than ever. We must all do our part in protecting and sustaining our SPF market by sticking to the best practices and using only universally accepted health and safety protocols and fire protection standards.
Sustain our spray foam industry and we will all profit and prosper.
http://sprayfoam.com/foam-news/sustainability-of-our-industry-and-your-business-/3279
-
Chemical Companies See Auspicious Start to 2018
May 4, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
U.S. chemical companies enjoyed a barn burner of a quarter to begin the year. Earnings increased by double digits for nearly all the 10 major companies to report quarterly results so far. Sales also increased for almost all firms.
“We’re off to a compelling start to the year,” Mark Costa, CEO of Eastman Chemical, told analysts in a conference call. His company posted a 20% increase in earnings on a 13% climb in sales versus the year-ago period.
Costa credited what he calls Eastman’s “innovation-driven growth model,” which is focused on new products. He cited his company’s Naia cellulosic yarn, which he said is gaining traction with Asian garment makers looking for environmentally friendly fibers. Another example is Aerafin polyolefin resin. Costa told analysts that he expects shipments to double for the material, used in packaging, this year.
In its second quarter since being formed through the merger of Dow Chemical and DuPont, DowDuPont posted increases in sales and earnings that—at single digits—were more modest than those from the rest of the chemical pack. The company’s materials and specialty products business made up for a cold snap that slowed agricultural shipments.
However, during the quarter, DowDuPont made progress on its long-term project of shedding costs to prepare for splitting into three separate companies next year. The firm cut $300 million in costs during the quarter and is on track to cut $1.2 billion in costs this year. Overall, it is aiming for $3.3 billion in cost savings by the end of next year.
DowDuPont also seeks to generate about $1 billion in additional earnings by cultivating synergies between former Dow and DuPont businesses that overlapped in agriculture, packaging, and electronic materials.
“Our businesses are performing well,” DowDuPont CEO Ed Breen told analysts. “We’re executing against our financial and operational commitments. And we’re pleased with the team’s progress as we move toward the intended separations.”
FMC’s sales doubled and its earnings quadrupled year over year. The company chalked this up to successful integration of the chunk of DuPont’s crop protection business that it purchased last year. In addition, the company got a lift from a lithium hydroxide expansion in China and a 30% rise in lithium hydroxide prices.
Ashland’s quarterly earnings increased 56%, a result that “exceeded our expectations,” CEO William A. Wulfsohn told analysts. The improvement was largely a result of brisk sales of specialty ingredients, notably in Ashland’s excipients business, which experienced 17% growth year over year.
https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/Chemical-companies-see-auspicious-start/96/i19
-
Are Plastic Bag Bans Really Creating Less Pollution?
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Environmentalists want to make the plastic bag a thing of the past.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) recently embraced a proposed ban on single-use plastic grocery bags. If passed, New York would join California, as well more than 300 jurisdictions across 24 states and the District of Columbia, who have passed local bans on thin-film plastic bags.
Despite the benefits of banning what many feel is a blight on the environment, there is evidence that “banning the bag” may not actually produce much in the way of environmental benefits.
“This focus on single-use plastic has literally become a cause célèbre, and we know those don’t last very long,” said Rob Kaplan, managing director of Closed Loop Partners, a New York City-based investment group which funds recycling projects.
Kaplan, speaking at a recent chemical industry conference in Washington, said the focus on banning plastic obscures a much bigger need to invest in waste management infrastructure, which 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,” he said.
Plastic Industry Wants to “Bag the Ban”The plastic industry has lobbied aggressively against both bans and additional fees for grocery bags. A number of states including Arizona, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana have even taken the step to pass preemptive bills to outlaw bag bans. In some cases, overturning city bans already in place.
“Polyethylene film has become the primary bag in service, for a simple reason—it comes down to the fact that they are the cheapest, least resource-intensive product to transport and manufacture,” said Matthew Seaholm, executive director of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which represents the plastic industry.
In addition to higher costs for consumers, Seaholm points to a recent study by the provincial government of Quebec that found the thicker, heavier, alternatives being offered by some merchants would need to be used 3-6 times more to become more environmentally sustainable than the thin ones.
“From a life-cycle analysis, plastic bags are the best option for the environment,” Seaholm, told Bloomberg Environment. “Plastic bags make up only about .5 percent of solid waste in landfills. It takes seven trucks to deliver the same amount of plastic bags that we can fit in one truck.”
Recycling Remains a Mixed BagSome people might get a second use out of a plastic bag by picking up after their dogs, or lining their bathroom garbage can. But most get tossed in the trash, or—even worse—put into the recycling bin where they wreak havoc at recycling centers.
“Generally speaking, the Materials Recovery Facilities can’t stand plastic bags,” said Dylan de Thomas, vice president of industry collaboration for The Recycling Partnership, a national recycling nonprofit in Falls Church, Va.
De Thomas said plastic film can be recycled, but not through the same stream through which other recycling travels. The flimsy plastic bags are notorious for wrapping around and jamming recycling sorting equipment, which adds to costs and lost production time.
Likewise, even in cities that do have bans, he said the hodgepodge effect of individual bans means recycling centers aren’t necessarily seeing less plastic film.
“In Portland, Ore., which has a bag ban, recyclers still see plastic bags coming from other communities around the city,” he said.
“Unfortunately, even in a state like California, which banned bags statewide, one of the unintended consequences is that many stores that used to offer plastic film drop off, [but] don’t do it anymore.”
Without also extending the ban to other kinds of plastic film, such as vegetable bags, newspaper bags, or packaging, de Thomas said the true intent of the plastic bans could be minimized.
Symbol of a Much Larger IssueBut others who follow the issue also point out that profligate use of plastic bags looms much larger than their volume in a landfill.
“If you want to measure the amount of plastic going into our waste stream, it’s not huge,” said Andy Hoffman, a professor of sustainability at the University of Michigan.
“But if you want to measure them in terms of an unsightly mess, it starts to get closer to the reason.”Hoffman said the movement to ban the bag is serving a necessary function to start getting people to question their knee-jerk use of throwaway, single-use plastic on a daily basis.
“I think the bans could be an important step,” he said. “But going forward, people typically don’t react well to bans, so we have to figure out some way to put a price on plastic, and then give people the latitude to make choices.”
Environmental Concerns Focus on WaterStill others others claim that plastic film is actually inflicting a drastic toll on the environment—especially ocean and freshwater ecosystems.
“We know for a fact that plastic bags are ending up in the water column, where they break apart and ultimately end up on the sea floor,” said Carolynn Box, science programs director for 5 Gyres, a Los Angeles–based nonprofit devoted to solving the crisis of plastics pollution.
Gyre points to statistics showing that globally, some 1 million plastic bags are being used every minute, only 1 percent of which are recycled.
“The problem with plastics and micro-plastics is that when they end up in the ocean, they attract other toxins to them. So they act a bit like a sponge, which gets further complicated when animals eat them,” she said.
Box said the local bans are a necessary first step to support movements at the state or national level. And simply focusing on better recycling is missing the facts on the ground, she said.
“Right now less than 10 percent of plastics are recycled, globally. Even in a place like San Francisco, it’s less than 10 percent,” she said. “We’re just not set up to really recycle plastic, even though it’s advertised that we are.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/are-plastic-bag-bans-really-creating-less-pollution
-
EPA's Defense of TSCA Rules Marks Key Legal Test After Early Court Losses
May 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Trump administration's upcoming defense of EPA rules implementing the recently revised toxics law will mark one of the first substantive tests for how well new regulations will withstand legal scrutiny after the agency suffered a series of early court losses as they sought to defend other regulatory delays and officials are scrambling to correct perceived flaws in several draft rules.
Environmentalists are already predicting a victory in their challenge to EPA's first two rules implementing the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), citing the agency's poor record defending its efforts to delay Obama-era rules.
Tom Neltner, of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a litigant in the environmentalist and labor groups' lawsuit challenging the two TSCA rules, argues that EPA's repeated losses in lawsuits challenging delays of Obama-era rules should serve as a “shot across the bow” for officials advancing the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
Although courts' justifications for striking down the delays have largely been based on specific statutes, Neltner argues that, collectively, the decisions show EPA under Administrator Scott Pruitt is falling short of his stated goal of following the rule of law.
“For someone who came in talking about carefully following the law and not doing the over-reaching that he claims the prior administration was doing, the judges clearly disagree with him,” Neltner said.
He noted that in several recent cases “the courts have found [Pruitt's] interpretation of the law is flawed.”
In addition to victories in several suits challenging regulatory delays, environmentalists have also won several significant legal victories in a case challenging EPA's denial of a petition seeking to regulate flouride under TSCA in a case that legal observers have said could prompt a floodgate of new citizen petitions seeking to regulate substances.
Even some industry lawyers have acknowledged that the agency may not have been as legally sound in some of its efforts to delay rules. “If you want durable results, you can’t be sloppy or rushed,” David Rivkin, a former Bush White House lawyer who represented Pruitt when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general, told Politico recently.
Such comments come as environmental groups April 16 filed their opening brief in the case, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families et al. v. U.S. EPA et al., alleging that EPA's final rules for implementing the 2016 TSCA violate the recently revised law by narrowing the scope of chemical uses EPA will consider in reviews.
The rules at issue seek to establish EPA procedures for prioritizing and evaluating risks from existing chemicals under TSCA, though the petitioners argue that Trump administration toxics officials significantly weakened the Obama-era proposed versions of the rules by narrowing the scope of chemical uses that the agency would consider in future reviews.
Environmentalist petitioners, including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the Natural Resources Defense Council and EDF argue that TSCA requires EPA to consider all uses for possible regulation, as the Obama administration had proposed, but that the final rules provide the agency discretion to preclude consideration of certain uses, such as legacy uses or those that are regulated by other agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The lawsuit could pose a significant hurdle to EPA's TSCA implementation, as environmentalists have threatened to ramp up calls for state rules, creating a patchwork of regulation that industry fears, if EPA fails to adequately consider chemical risks.
Court Losses
The agency's defense of the two rules comes as Pruitt's efforts to delay a host of Obama-era rules to allow for future revision have repeatedly been deemed unlawful by federal courts.
For example, judges in recent months have vacated Trump administration delays of Obama-era rules setting standards for formaldehyde emissions from wood products and boosting safety training requirements for applicators of certain pesticides.
A court also rejected EPA's delay in issuing standards for reducing hazards from lead paint dust in residential renovation and repair efforts.
The agency has also suffered a judicial rebuke in a lawsuit challenging its stay of Obama-era new source performance standards (NSPS) for oil and gas facilities' releases of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which a federal appeals court scrapped as unlawful because it lacked an adequate legal basis.
On a more substantive level, a federal judge in California has handed the agency two defeats in litigation challenging its denial of a petition seeking to regulate the use of flouride in drinking water under TSCA.
Late last year, Judge Edward Chen, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected EPA efforts to dismiss the suit, Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, finding that citizens have the right to petition the agency to regulate a single use of a substance, rather than all uses as EPA argued.
Several weeks later, Chen also denied EPA's request to limit the scope of environmentalists' lawsuit, opening the door to the plaintiffs offering a broad range of evidence to bolster their case rather than relying solely on information in EPA's record.
Legal observers have said that if the precedents stand, Chen's two rulings could significantly bolster plaintiffs in future litigation over efforts to regulate chemicals under TSCA.
Similarly, Judge Jeffrey White, also of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, admonished EPA while strongly rejecting the agency's final rule delaying by one-year implementation of an Obama-era measure setting emissions standards for formaldehyde from wood products.
In a Feb. 16 ruling in the case, Sierra Club et al v. Pruitt, White faulted EPA's claim that the plaintiffs had waived their right to seek judicial review because they failed to oppose the extension during the delay rulemaking. White said that EPA should know its authority and not exceed it.
Judicial Basis
Such judicial pushback has stoked environmentalists' claims that EPA is failing Pruitt's stated goal of following the rule of law and may be a driver for steps senior EPA officials are taking to shore up the legal basis for forthcoming proposals to ensure substantive rules seeking to scale back the Obama-era measures.
For example, agency water chief David Ross recently ordered revisions to the proposed repeal of the Obama-era Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule to “fix” legal flaws in an earlier proposal which EPA issued before he joined the agency, according to an agency staffer.
EPA April 11 submitted the new CWA repeal proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget for pre-proposal review.
Similarly sources say the administration's proposal to scrap Obama-era production limits on “glider” trucks that do not meet modern emissions standards has been languishing for months because the agency is trying to shore up the proposal's legal basis before finalizing it.
And agency efforts to roll back Obama-era greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles may face similar problems. Several observers said recently that the agency's heavy reliance on automaker claims to justify weakening Obama-era vehicle standards -- as well as apparent omissions or errors in its recent determination on the issue -- suggest federal officials still have significant work ahead of them to craft a defensible rationale for regulatory changes.
An industry source familiar with EPA's rule setting standards for formaldehyde releases from wood products said that changing compliance dates that resulted from agency delays and subsequent court losses has the potential to cause significant uncertainty for businesses.
While the litigants in Sierra Club were later able to negotiate a new compliance schedule, the source says that was made possible in part by an existing California standard that already provided one possible framework for compliance.
“Would the original time line have been better? Probably. But the agreement allows industry to comply with a standard that's been in place a long time,” the source says. “In other situations, you're probably looking at regulatory uncertainty and even challenges to compliance.”
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/epas-defense-tsca-rules-marks-key-legal-test-after-early-court-losses
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Passes Bill to Ban Sun Care Products That Harm Coral
May 3, 2018 | Voice of America
By Caty Weaver
Lawmakers in the American state of Hawaii have passed a bill banning sunscreens that can harm coral reefs.
If the state’s governor signs the bill, Hawaii would become the first state in the country to pass such a law.
The bill would ban the sale of sun care products that contain the chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate. Scientists say the two substances can harm coral, an important part of the ocean ecosystem and popular with tourists.
The chemicals are found in more than 3,500 sunscreens worldwide, including Coppertone and Banana Boat products.
Senator Mike Gabbard introduced the bill. He told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser newspaper, “Amazingly, this is a first-in-the-world law.”
He added, “Our island paradise, surrounded by coral reefs, is the perfect place to set the gold standard for the world to follow."
Craig Downs is a scientist. His 2015 peer-examined study found that oxybenzone threatened coral reefs. He found that as much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen ends up in coral reefs each year.
He said the Hawaii bill is “the first real chance that local reefs have to recover.”
Opponents of the bill question the science.
Tina Yamaki is the president of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii. She said there are still not enough independent studies on the issue to know whether the chemicals cause harm to coral. And, she said, the ban might keep people from buying sunscreen products from local stores.
The American Chemistry Council also opposed the bill, noting concerns over the risks of sun damage to skin.
Sharon Har was one of four Hawaiian lawmakers who voted against the bill.
She said, “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 major threats to coral.
Many sunscreen manufacturers already sell “reef-friendly” products. And companies still have some time to sell products that contain the two chemicals; the ban would not take effect until January 2021.
And that’s What’s Trending Today.
I’m Caty Weaver.
The Associated Press reported this story. Ashley Thompson adapted it for Learning English, with additional materials. Kelly Jean Kelly was the editor.
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/hawaii-passes-bill-to-ban-sun-care-products-that-harm-coral/4376212.html
-
Critics Doubt EPA Plan To Redact Confidential Data In Transparency Rule
May 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Critics of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposal to require only publicly available research to justify regulatory decisions say agency plans to protect confidential information, such as personal data or trade secret studies, by redacting it are not adequate, will result in a host of adverse effects and will undermine agency decisionmaking.
Much of the criticism comes from environmentalists and public health officials, who charge that redacting personal data is often not adequate to protect subjects' privacy and could discourage their participation in future studies.
“If you're from a small rural town, you can be identified. All of us who've worked on public health care records know that,” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), ranking Democrat on the House appropriations environment subcommittee that funds EPA, told Pruitt during an April 26 hearing.
And by requiring publicly available information, McCollum and others fear EPA will preclude studies that make the case for stricter air quality and other environmental standards.
But even some industry officials say that such redactions are not adequate to protect confidential business information (CBI) that chemical and other businesses submit to EPA for pesticide and chemical approvals.
“For pesticide registrants, the rule poses significant potential issues,” the industry law firm Bergeson & Campbell said in an April 30 analysis, citing, as an example, “registrants spending millions of dollars on studies necessary to register products that are proprietary and protected from release to those who might use them to register their own products without compensating the owners.”
Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry lobbyist who is now the top political appointee in EPA's toxics office, has raised similar concerns and called for an early version of the directive to be “revised” to protect CBI. “Without changes,” the early version of the directive would “jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/re-registration process and likely all TSCA risk evaluations,” Beck said in an internal January email obtained by environmentalists under the Freedom of Information Act.
The draft rule, published in the Federal Register April 30, is based on Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)'s bill, seeking to bar EPA from basing regulatory decisions on any scientific information where the underlying information is not publicly available. EPA is accepting comment on the draft rule through May 30, though environmentalists are seeking a 60-day extension.
Anticipating criticisms, the proposed rule says the agency believes it can protect confidential data by redacting it. “EPA believes that concerns about access to confidential or private information can, in many cases, be addressed through the application of solutions commonly in use across some parts of the Federal government. Nothing in the proposed rule compels the disclosure of any confidential or private information in a manner that violates applicable legal and ethical protections. Other federal agencies have developed tools and methods to de-identify private information for a variety of disciplines.”
But the proposed rule does not offer options for how to do so and asks commenters for input on “methodologies and technologies designed to provide protected access to identifiable and sensitive data, such as individual health data ... Similarly, EPA seeks comment on how to balance appropriate protection for copyrighted or confidential business information, including where protected by law, with requirements for increased transparency of pivotal regulatory science.”
'In The Proposal'
Responding to a question from McCollum at the April 26 hearing, Pruitt said that “confidential business information as well as personal information would be redacted and protected . . . That's actually in the proposal.”
While the proposed rule does not appear to provide details of how this would be implemented, supporters of the approach have suggested some options. For example, Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com and a senior fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, has argued that California already makes some private medical data available in its “Public Use Death Files” without violating patient privacy.
The agency has also sought to justify this approach saying its proposal is “consistent” with data access requirements for major scientific journals, including Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
But the journals' editors pushed back on EPA's claims and strongly criticized the proposed rule. “It does not strengthen policies based on scientific evidence to limit the scientific evidence that can inform them; rather, it is paramount that the full suite of relevant science vetted through peer review, which includes ever more rigorous features, inform the landscape of decision making,” they wrote in an April 30 joint statement.
The editors' statement explains that many peer-reviewed scientific journals have recently adopted policies that support data sharing, consistent with the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) standards. But they noted that these standards “recognize the array of workflows across scientific fields and make the case for data sharing at different levels of stringency; in not every case can all data be fully shared. Exceptional circumstances, where data cannot be shared openly with all, include data sets featuring personal identifiers.”
In addition, environmental health researchers are warning that redacting confidential medical information is not adequate to protect privacy and encourage human subjects to participate in studies.
“Would you be part of a study if all of your private information were shared with the government, or the industry who is opposing limits on pollution?” Tracey Woodruff, a former EPA scientist, and Juleen Lam, who are both with the University of California San Francisco's Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, write in an April 24 blog post.
“Health studies routinely collect data that involves private information that should be protected, and not made publicly available,” they add.
What's more, they say, redacting identifying information, such as home addresses, diseases, household income, and other identifying information is “cumbersome and costly.”
And, they add, “studies involving rare diseases can mean that no matter how much information is redacted, individual participants can still be identified. This places a heavy burden on scientists to protect the personal information of their study participants in order for their data to be used to inform environmental regulations, something that they won’t receive funding or incentives to do.”
By contrast, they say, “chemical companies will be incentivized to redact and provide their [confidential business] data -- the same chemical companies that don’t have studies that demonstrate that exposure levels are safe and that their chemicals don’t pose health risks.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-doubt-epa-plan-redact-confidential-data-transparency-rule
-
Congress to Scott Pruitt: What Do You Have to Say to These Families?
May 3, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
Last week Drew Wynne’s brother Brian and sister-in-law Johanna traveled to Washington, DC to attend a Congressional hearing. Drew, a 31-year-old small business owner, is one of at least four people who have been killed by paint strippers containing methylene chloride since January 2017. That’s when the Environmental Protection Agency proposed banning methylene chloride and another toxic chemical called N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
In questioning EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Representative Frank Pallone spoke passionately about Drew and another man who died recently from methylene chloride exposure, Joshua Atkins.
Mr. Pallone had only a few minutes to ask questions of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt but it was very powerful. He put it well: “Mr. Pruitt, your deregulatory agenda costs lives. Real people with names, with mothers, with brothers. You have the power to finalize the ban on methylene chloride now and prevent more deaths…Do you have anything to say to these families?” Watch the video (cued to Mr. Pallone’s question) here:
Representative Pallone discussed not only Drew’s story but also the story of Joshua Atkins whose mother wrote a letter to the committee that was entered into the record. Joshua was a caring, passionate man who was 31 just like Drew. He had many interests in life, including photography, playing music and participating in a number of sports. His lifelong passion was BMX biking but he also loved snowboarding, rock climbing and yoga. Even though he was the picture of health, in February, a paint stripper containing methylene chloride killed him while he was refinishing his BMX bike. Joshua shouldn’t have been killed by a toxic paint stripper. No one else should.
Mr. Pruitt was also questioned about the delay in banning the chemical by New York Representative Nita Lowey in a meeting of the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. She asked him: “When EPA conducts a cost-benefit analysis of rule promulgation what value does it place on human life? And which is more important to you—the happiness of the industry you regulate or the safety and well being of Americans? And what will it take for you to finalize this rule to save lives?” Watch the video (cued to Ms. Lowey’s question) here:
Administrator Pruitt’s response that the EPA hasn’t had enough time to review all the comments about the proposed ban that were submitted is complete nonsense. The comment period ended almost a year ago—May 19, 2017. The longer the agency waits, the more lives will be lost.
We’re going to keep pushing the EPA to ban methylene chloride and NMP in paint strippers but there’s absolutely no reason for retailers like Lowe’s and The Home Depot to wait for government action. They have the power to take these products off their shelves and save lives!
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/05/03/congress-to-scott-pruitt-what-do-you-have-to-say-to-these-families/
-
Additives’ Use in Candy, Other Foods Opposed in Court
May 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Styrene and six “carcinogenic food additives” in candy, baked goods and other foods shouldn’t be allowed to be used as flavorings, a coalition of health and environmental groups argued in a new lawsuit.
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, joined by seven other nonprofit groups, asked a federal appeals court May 2 to order the Food and Drug Administration to decide whether it will continue to allow the seven chemicals to be used as food flavorings.
The FDA declined to comment on the pending litigation.
The National Toxicology Program and a World Health Organization agency have each determined that all seven chemicals cause cancer in animals and may do so in people, the groups told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.
The case hinges in part on a provision of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that forbids food additives to be used if they “induce cancer in man or animal,” the coalition said, referring to a provision of the law called the Delaney Clause.
The idea that any amount of a chemical could be forbidden is increasingly debated, because chemical detection methods can measure parts-per-trillion and even smaller concentrations.
Widely Used Chemicals
The seven chemicals can be used in foods including baked goods, ice cream, candy, and beverages, according to information from the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association.
At least six of the seven chemicals are high-production volume compounds. That means they are produced at 1 million pounds or more annually and used for different industrial, commercial, and consumer purposes.
Styrene is the most highly produced chemical, with a 2015 production volume ranging between 10 billion and 20 billion pounds, according to company information submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The chemicals’ manufacturers in recent years included BASF Corp.; the Dow Chemical Co.; International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.; Shell Chemical LP; and Sherwin-Williams Co.
The Good Scents Co.—an industry-funded organization providing information about flavor and fragrance chemicals—provides information about the seven chemicals, which are:
· styrene (Chemical Abstract Service No. 100-42-5), which has a “sweet balsam floral plastic” smell,
· benzophenone (CAS No. 119-61-9), which imparts a geranium flavor,
· ethyl acrylate (CAS No. 140-88-5), which has a “harsh plastic” yet fruity odor,
· methyleugenol (CAS No. 93-15-2), which imparts a spicy, peppery, and woody flavor,
· myrcene (CAS No. 123-35-3), which has a fruity flavor with “minty nuances,”
· pulegone (CAS No. 89-82-7), which has a minty, fruity flavor, and
· pyridine (CAS No. 110-86-1), which has a “sickening sour putrid fishy” smell.
The lawsuit follows a petition the groups submitted to FDA in 2016 that also asked the agency to withdraw its decades-old approval of these chemicals for food use.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires the agency to respond by either accepting or denying such petitions within 180 days, the coalition said.
“FDA has failed to decide the petition, unlawfully withholding action in violation of the Food Act,” the coalition told the court.The groups are asking the Ninth Circuit to order FDA to make a final decision within 30 days.
The case is Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. FDA, 9th Cir., No. 18-71260, 5/2/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/additives-use-in-candy-other-foods-opposed-in-court
-
Industry Criticises 'Misleading' Baby Products Guide
May 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US children's products trade associations have criticised an NGO report that advises parents to avoid buying baby items containing a number of chemicals including certain plastics, flame retardants and solvents.
The Getting Ready for Baby coalition’s Safe baby guide gives detailed guidelines for avoiding chemicals in baby products. It also recommends consumers buy items carrying the Made Safe independent labelling certification.
However, Kelly Mariotti, executive director of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), called the guide "misleading", and said children's products are already subject to stringent federal safety requirements.
"Simply put, hazardous substances cannot be accessible to a child so as to present either an acute or chronic hazard," she told Chemical Watch. If that were the case the product would already be banned, she said.
The coalition comprises more than 95 organisations that campaign for retailers to avoid selling baby products containing toxic chemicals. Other recommendations in the guide include avoiding:
· flame retardants, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and microbial substances in mattresses;
· formaldehyde in baby furniture such as cots, changing tables and highchairs;
· bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS) in baby bottles;
· PVC in teethers;
· flame retardants in baby changing mats;
· solvents and PVC in strollers; and
· flame retardants in car seatsToy concern
The guide also provides guidance on purchasing toys and puzzles for babies.
It recommends consumers avoid giving their babies toys made before 2008, when the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act set stricter limits on lead and certain phthalates. And it also advises that:
· clear hard plastic toys may contain bisphenols;
· plastic dolls may be made of PVC; and
· metal products may include cadmium, mercury and antimony.
But Alan Kaufman, senior vice president of technical affairs at the Toy Association, told Chemical Watch the advice was "needlessly frightening to new parents and not based on any credible underlying science".
All toys sold in the US must comply with strict toy safety regulations, tests, and requirements which "make it illegal to sell toys or children’s products containing substances harmful to children and to which they might be exposed," he said.
Responding to the criticisms, Bobbi Wilding, deputy director of the NGO Clean and Healthy New York, which is a partner in the campaign, said: "All of the chemicals we highlight have scientific evidence of contributing to negative health problems. We have released a technical document that provides the rationale for our choices, and parents can, if they're interested, easily access this information on every page of our guide."
https://chemicalwatch.com/66623/industry-criticises-misleading-baby-products-guide
-
Stockholm Convention Factsheet Lists Pops Exemptions
May 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) has published a factsheet on exempted uses for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
The factsheet puts these in three categories:
· acceptable purposes, such as photo-imaging, medical devices, semiconductors and firefighting foam;
· time-limited exempted uses for SCCPs, such as rubber industry transmission belts, lubricant additives and adhesives; and
· time-limited exempted uses for synthetic substance c‐deca-BDE, such as aircraft and vehicle parts, textiles and polyurethane foam.
The convention aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66640/stockholm-convention-factsheet-lists-pops-exemptions
-
EPA Narrows Guidelines for Aggregating Sources for Air Permitting
May 4, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA will alter its interpretation of when related facilities are considered a single source for air permitting purposes in a way that could ease their permitting requirements.
Permitting rules say that plants located near each other should be aggregated for permitting purposes if they are operated by the same entity, known as “common control.” In that case, the facilities‘ emissions can be aggregated and be subject to more stringent permitting requirements than if treated separately.
In an April 30 memo concerning a common control designation for a Pennsylvania landfill and nearby biogas processing facility that are owned by different companies, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum revised the agency's interpretation so that facilities meet the definition if one entity has “the power or authority … to dictate decisions of the other that could affect the applicability of, or compliance with, relevant air pollution regulatory requirements.”
A dependent relationship should not necessarily mean common control, he added. Facilities can be "economically or operationally interconnected" without being able to direct the other.
In the immediate case of the Pennsylvania landfill and processing plant, Wehrum concluded that the two are not commonly controlled because the landfill could otherwise meet methane emissions limits by burning off biogas and because the processing plant hopes to secure other sources of biogas.
WHAT’S NEXT: Ultimately, EPA’s reasoning is only a recommendation. Pennsylvania regulators have the final say on whether these particular facilities fall under “common control.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Sunoco’s Mariner 1 East Pipeline Reopens After Sinkhole Shutdown
May 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Energy Transfer Partners’ Mariner East 1 pipeline can restart nearly two months after shutting down because of safety concerns, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission said May 3.
The May 3 order allowing the pipeline to reopen comes 57 days after the commission’s emergency order March 7 forcing pipeline operator Sunoco Pipeline LP to shut it down due to cave-ins discovered along its route.
The sinkholes ranged in depth from 2 feet to 15 feet and were found in Chester County near residential areas and an Amtrak train line.
An investigation that included geophysical testing determined that the pipeline’s integrity hadn’t been compromised, an April 27 statement from the regulator’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement said.
The order was approved by a 5-0 vote, after an extensive investigation into safety concerns, the commission said. The company on April 27 asked the commission to lift the emergency order.
The May 3 order requires Sunoco to comply with additional conditions and notify state regulators, municipal officials, and property owners if it finds any other problems within a 500-foot radius of the line. They will have 12 hours to make those notifications under the order.
Sunoco Pipeline is an affiliate of Sunoco Logistics Partners LP, which merged with Energy Transfer Partners LP this year. The company didn’t immediately reply to an email May 3 seeking comment.
The docket for the case is P-2018-300281.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/sunocos-mariner-1-east-pipeline-reopens-after-sinkhole-shutdown
-
Enterprise Products Partners Announces Two Pipeline Expansions
May 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners announced two pipeline expansions Thursday that will transport natural gas liquids from Colorado to a storage facility in Texas.
One pipeline will bring natural gas liquids from northeastern Colorado, the heart of the Denver-Julesburg Basin, to Skellytown in North Texas. Enterprise hopes to nearly double the so-called Front Range pipeline by adding a capacity of 100,000 barrels a day and bring the pipeline network to a total capacity of 250,000 barrels. The planned Colorado expansion will stretch for 435 miles and is expected to begin service in mid 2019.
The Front Range pipeline will allow for greater production of natural gas liquids, which Enterprise expects will grow by 40 percent over the next four years in Colorado.
Enterprise's second announced expansion will connect Skellytown to Mont Belvieu with another natural gas liquids pipeline. That extension will add 90,000 barrels a day of capacity to a pipeline that will stretch 583 miles and is also expected to be in service in 2019.
Together, the Colorado pipeline and Skellytown expansion will make up a natural gas liquids network that will stretch from Colorado to the Gulf Coast.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Enterprise-Products-Partners-announces-two-12884850.php
-
Absent Federal Action, Communities and Corporations Commit to Renewables
May 3, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
While the Trump administration is promoting coal, a dirty and dangerous fossil fuel headed for the scrap heap of history, a growing number of communities and companies across the nation are embracing a future powered by clean, safe, renewable energy.
According to the Sierra Club’s “Ready for 100” campaign, 135 cities have adopted resolutions to work toward supplying all of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind power. Almost 200 mayors have pledged to move their cities toward a sustainable, renewable future. These announcements and policies are occurring in cities large and small: Recently, New York City, Los Angeles and Minneapolis joined the ranks of the 100 percent renewables club.
Why? The reasons go beyond the environmental and health benefits of renewables.
In Minneapolis, Twin Cities Business Magazine reported that city council members who backed the renewables pledge pointed to hostility toward sustainable development at the federal level and uncertainty at the state level. They said they believe that going 100 percent renewable will create jobs. They also said it will benefit the low-income communities they fear are being left behind in the renewables revolution.
“An effective way to make sure that energy remains affordable and that our transition to clean energy meets the needs of those most marginalized and historically impacted by pollution is persistent, intentional community engagement from a wide range of people,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told the magazine.
Some communities also want to take control of their energy grids from utilities that often value profit above sustainability. In Decorah, Iowa, citizens pushed for a referendum to have the town investigate taking over the electricity distribution system.
In an interview with Radio Iowa, local activist Emily Neal said the takeover would let the town of about 8,000 “control our energy future . . . [and] save our community millions of dollars every year.”
In the private sector, big corporations and small companies are also hopping on the renewables bandwagon.
The Rocky Mountain Institute reported that in the last five years, corporations purchased more than 10,000 megawatts of wind and solar power to supply their energy needs – enough to power over 1 million average homes. Half of Fortune 500 companies, including a large majority of the 100 largest, have announced renewable energy goals. Most are information technology firms, followed by telecoms companies.
Among the big-name companies that have bought enough renewable energy to meet the majority of their needs are Apple, Google, Microsoft, General Motors, Starbucks, Walmart, Facebook and Budweiser. The biggest buyers this year are AT&T, Walmart, Microsoft, Facebook and Alcoa, according to Bloomberg.
Bloomberg also reported that smaller companies are getting in on the act. Deals for renewable energy are being structured so that smaller companies can buy power from the same renewables project as large corporations. It’s similar to a shopping center including both large anchor tenants and smaller shops.
The World Resources Institute has estimated that corporate purchases will reach 53 million megawatt-hours per year by 2020. This is more electricity than is produced in 19 states and nearly as much as Iowa alone, according to the Energy Information Administration.
We are witnessing a revolt against politicians, regulators and utilities who deny climate change; who deny their constituents the cost and health benefits of renewable energy; and who choose to live in the past rather than work toward the future. Local governments, their citizens and companies are finding ways to out-maneuver these reactionary forces to bring about changes that can foster climate stability, economic opportunity, environmental and public health benefits, and social justice.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/absent-federal-action-communities-and-corporations-commit-renewables#.WuxBRYiFNm8
-
(ACC Mentioned) Big Easy Won’t Face Class Action Over Chemicals in City Hall
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The city of New Orleans won’t face a class action brought by workers exposed to hydrochloric acid fumes in a building that operated as an annex to City Hall.
The workers must instead individually pursue their claims against the city, Pan-American Life Insurance Co. and the NID Corp., a Louisiana appeals court said.
The appeals court reversed a trial court’s class certification order. The individual issues predominate over class issues, the court said.
Class certification is inappropriate because the claims require an examination of each person’s potential rates of exposure based on their location in the building, their personal medical history, habits, and length of time working in the annex, the court said.
The case stems from barrels of chemicals that Pan-American Life Insurance left in the basement of the building when it sold the property in 1982 to a predecessor of the NID Corp.
The city began leasing the property in 1982 and bought it in 1985.
Judges James F. McKay, III, Daniel L. Dysart, and Dennis R. Bagneris issued the per curiam opinion.
Law Offices of Roy F. Amedee, Jr., Murphy Rogers Sloss & Gambel, and Clayton, Fruge & Ward represent the plaintiffs. Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP, represents NID Corp. Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea represents Pan-Am.
The case is Anderson v. City of New Orleans, 2018 BL 155903, La. Ct. App., 4th Cir., No. 2017-CA-0999, 5/2/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/big-easy-wont-face-class-action-over-chemicals-in-city-hall
-
Police: Chemical Plant Fire in Louisiana, No Injuries
May 3, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A fire has broken out at a Louisiana chemical plant, sending massive smoke plumes in the air and prompting an evacuation for a mile (1.6 kilometers) all around.
Louisiana State Police say no injuries have been reported from the fire at FlowChem Technologies in Rayne. There was no immediate report of what caused the fire at the specialty chemical complex, which provides products and services to the oil and gas industry.
Police say Interstate 10 was closed for a stretch between Lafayette and Crowley as a precaution, backing up traffic for miles (kilometers) as drivers sought to detour.
Authorities say those evacuating around the plant were asked to go to a local fire department until further notice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/police-chemical-plant-fire-in-louisiana-no-injuries/2018/05/03/fc96335e-4f33-11e8-85c1-9326c4511033_story.html?utm_term=.743b6f8200c6
-
United Technologies Dodges Hazmat Class Claims
May 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
United Technologies Corp. won’t face class claims brought by Florida landowners who say the company’s rocket plant leaked hazardous chemicals into their soil, water, and air, a federal court in Florida ruled May 2.
The ruling denied class certification to five married couples and two other plaintiffs who claim their Palm Beach County properties are or will be contaminated by cancer-causing chemicals used at UT’s Pratt & Whitney Group plant.
Richard Cotromano and other plaintiffs claimed the plant, now a Superfund site abutting a wildlife management area, “released vast quantities of toxins, contaminants and other hazardous wastes” via an aquifer and tainted soil dumped at a local landfill.
It was undisputed that toxins seeped into the wildlife area, but less clear that hazardous chemicals leeched into the residential community known as the Acreage, according to the decision.
Expert witnesses for the plaintiffs didn’t establish an ascertainable class based on geographical boundaries where dangerous exposure levels allegedly occurred or will occur, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida said.
Cotromano also didn’t satisfy another class certification requirement—that questions of law and fact common to all class members predominate over their individual issues.
Here, each negligence claim “will require distinctly case-by-case inquiries into whether the migration resulted in a contaminant detection causing a dangerous exposure at his or her individual property, as well as an individual assessment in the type and extent of damage caused by any such exposure,” the court said.
Judge Kenneth A. Marra wrote the opinion.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA, as well as Creed & Gowdy, PA, represented the plaintiffs. Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, LLP, and Gunster Yoakley & Stewart represented United Technologies.
The case is Cotromano v. United Techs. Corp., 2018 BL 155200, S.D. Fla., No. 13-cv-80928, 5/2/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/united-technologies-dodges-hazmat-class-claims
-
'No Crew' Trains: Coming Soon to Cowlitz County?
May 4, 2018 | Longview Daily News
By Zack Hale
Could crewless trains carrying hazardous cargo and other commodities eventually come speeding through Kalama and Kelso?
A recent request for information from the Federal Railroad Administration suggests the idea could become reality.
Members of the public have until May 7 to submit comments to the agency regarding the future of automation in the railroad industry.
While the FRA is not proposing specific rules yet, the agency is asking stakeholders for comment as railroad companies continue to invest in autonomous train technology.
However, some railway worker union representatives see the request for information as a dangerous precursor to so-called “no-crew” trains.
“This is the beginning of the process for the federal government to open up the door to autonomous freight train operations,” Herb Krohn, a Union Pacific conductor, said in an interview Thursday. “Right now planes can fly themselves, but I don’t think any of us would get on a plane without a pilot and a copilot.”
The Association of American Railroads — which counts BNSF Railway and Union Pacific among its members — formed a technical advisory group last fall on autonomous train operations.
One of the group’s main goals is to develop autonomous technology so it can be deployed across different railroad companies throughout the country.
Meanwhile, the FRA is seeking comments on all issues related to the development and continued implementation of automated train systems — and “potentially fully autonomous” trains.
The agency is looking for comments on a host of specific questions, such as how increased rail automation would affect rail safety.
For example, two questions ask:
How should railroads plan to ensure the integration of these technologies will not adversely affect, and will instead improve, the safety and/or security of railroad operations?
What are the safety and security issues raised by automation in railroad operations at public and private at-grade highway-rail crossings?
The BNSF mainline tracks through Cowlitz County handle about 60 trains a day, according to BNSF. Trains travel through the hearts of Kelso, Woodland, Kalama and Winlock. They can travel up to 79 miles per hour, though slower speeds are required in populated areas.
While railroad companies are pursuing greater automation, Krohn — who also serves as the Washington state legislative director for the United Transportation Union — is pushing in the opposite direction.
The union has been lobbying for a bipartisan bill that would mandate no less than two people on all freight trains. It would also require additional people placed on the rear of trains carrying high-hazard commodities.
Krohn faulted automation for the 2016 Union Pacific oil train explosion in Mosier, Ore., near the Columbia River Gorge. The train’s emergency brake system engaged through a technical glitch, causing 16 tank cars to derail. Several cars then caught fire and damaged the small town’s water and sewer systems.
Port of Kalama Executive Director Mark Wilson said in a statement Thursday that the port’s primary concern is safety.
“Our primary interest is that the rail industry operate safely and efficiently,” he said. “Features such as Positive Train Control can be very helpful in preventing accidents.”
PTC technology is a satellite-based system that can prevent train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits and the movement of a train through a main line switch in the wrong position, according to the FRA.
Safety experts believe the technology would have prevented the fatal Amtrak derailment on Dec. 18 at the new $181 million Point Defiance bypass near Olympia.
The FRA is also asking for comment on how autonomous trains will affect railroad employment and potential legal or regulatory issues.
Despite increased discussion around automation, both BNSF and Union Pacific are seeking more skilled workers in a tight labor market.
“With 4 percent unemployment nationally and local rates in some locations as low as 2.8 percent, hiring has become more difficult,” BNSF spokeswoman Courtney Wallace said in a statement Thursday.
This year the company expects to fill more than 3,500 hourly positions across its network in areas including transportation, engineering, dispatching and mechanical crafts. Some Class I railroads, including BNSF, are even offering special hiring incentives, she said.
Internationally, the only known fully-autonomous freight railroad system is in Western Australia. The system runs on a 62-mile stretch of track serving the Australia Rio Tinto mining company. The train is equipped with a variety of sensors — including kangaroo collision sensors — and has a switch to toggle between autonomous operation or operation with an operator on board, according the FRA.
https://tdn.com/news/local/no-crew-trains-coming-soon-to-cowlitz-county/article_c29c09c2-e214-5c5e-8b08-f781e8bd0a31.html
-
Trump's NAAQS Overhaul Prompts Questions on Scope of CASAC's Input
May 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
President Donald Trump's directive for EPA to overhaul and streamline the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) review process is prompting questions over how it might affect the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) input on NAAQS, including new consideration of costs and possibly undermining some air science.
CASAC is an independent group of experts that advises EPA on reviews of its six NAAQS for ozone, particulate matter and other criteria pollutants. The group assesses the latest science on criteria pollutants and their health effects, and weighs in on the agency's take on the same data and its options for reviewing the standards. Under Supreme Court precedent, the panel has avoided consideration of economic costs in its advice to the agency.
But Trump's April 12 memo to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt asks him to evaluate whether CASAC is complying with air law mandates on NAAQS reviews “including requirements that the Committee advise the Administrator regarding background concentrations and adverse public health or other effects that may result from implementation of revised air quality standards” -- a possible reference to economic effects.
The Supreme Court's 2001 ruling in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations barred consideration of costs in the setting of NAAQS, but some sources see the memo language as testing this premise. One environmentalist says the memo's language is “flatly contrary” to the Supreme Court's holding in Whitman.
Professor Chris Frey, an air quality expert at North Carolina State University and former chair of CASAC, told Inside EPA in a recent interview that despite the duty to consider implementation impacts, the prohibition on considering costs in setting NAAQS remains, as stated in a letter Frey signed as chair of the panel in 2014, finding that “cost and implementation issues are not relevant or allowable considerations in setting or revising a NAAQS.”
CASAC in that letter acknowledged the separate duty to consider implementation effects, but wrote, “It should be noted, however, that not all of these effects will be 'adverse' and any comprehensive assessment would include both adverse and beneficial effects. For example, positive economic effects accrue from implementation of national ambient air quality standards, such as the economic benefit of avoided morbidity and mortality.” To date, EPA has not produced a charge to CASAC to conduct such a study, Frey said in the interview.
One Northeastern air expert concedes that the “memo is being artful in its phrasing to avoid appearing to directly run afoul of the Supreme Court decision” by pushing CASAC to weigh costs in its advice.
But an industry source says the assertion that the memo requires EPA to act unlawfully in violation of Whitman is “off base.” Instead, the source says, Trump's memo “aims to address CASAC and EPA’s historical failure to comply fully” with the requirement to evaluate adverse effects such as health effects from economic harm.
NAAQS Science
Meanwhile, the memo could also affect the scope of the scientific data that CASAC can review as part of the NAAQS process. It directs Pruitt to “examine the current NAAQS review process and develop criteria to ensure transparency in the evaluation, assessment, and characterization of scientific evidence in such reviews” and to develop guidance “for differentiating the role of science and policy considerations in establishing NAAQS.”
The environmentalist says this is “code for ignoring peer-reviewed, scientific studies during NAAQS health standard reviews if the studies’ underlying, confidential patient data are not publicly available.”
In fact, this “is the first written indication” of Pruitt's intention to restrict EPA to using only scientific data that are publicly available on the internet and “substantially” reproducible, the environmentalist says. The agency recently proposed its rule prohibiting agency rulemakings from relying on “secret science” that is not publicly available.
The environmentalist says, it “would be, and will be, arbitrary and unlawful for EPA to ignore peer-reviewed, relevant science on the grounds that confidential, private patient data underlying a study has not been made public.”
The Northeastern air expert has a similar reading of the language in Trump's memo, saying it contains the “buzz word 'transparency,' which looks like a euphemism for getting rid of studies that can't by law divulge the personal medical histories of the participants.” This would “indicate that EPA will undermine the NAAQS not by attacking the science as wrong per se, but by nullifying its use on 'transparency' grounds.”
Trump's directive appears to be part of a broader administration shift on the type and quality of science used in NAAQS reviews. EPA air chief William Wehrum told a legal conference last month that he plans to accelerate the long-delayed NAAQS review process by reducing some scientific advisory input and accepting data that is “close enough” to justify a review rather than “perfect,” suggesting Supreme Court precedent would allow the changes.
In a keynote address to the American Bar Association's Section of Energy, Environment and Resources spring conference in Orlando, FL, on April 19, Wehrum said he sees a need to revisit EPA's approach to NAAQS reviews given its chronic failure to meet the Clean Air Act's requirement of reviewing each existing standard every five years. He added that the “close enough is good enough” concept could provide a new framework for the process.
Speaking to Inside EPA after his address, Wehrum said he is trying to avoid a situation where EPA's quest for “perfect” understanding of the science on any particular pollutant -- there are six criteria pollutants, such as ozone, regulated by NAAQS -- leads to unreasonable delays on new NAAQS decisions.
But Frey in the interview with Inside EPA defended the integrity of science relied-upon by CASAC in its reviews, saying, “The issue of transparency of the evaluation, assessment, and characterization of scientific evidence is one that has been touched upon numerous times in CASAC review panels and by the statutory CASAC itself. The nationally prominent scientists who provide public service to the Nation by serving on these panels follow rigorous scientific methods and have high standards regarding clarity and transparency of information.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trumps-naaqs-overhaul-prompts-questions-scope-casacs-input
-
Pruitt’s EPA Denies Climate Science. Republicans Can Correct Him. Will They?
May 4, 2018 | Washington Post
By Salil Benegal and Lyle Scruggs
In the past week, Scott Pruitt, embattled chief administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, testified before two House panels about alleged ethics violations and controversial spending decisions. Under this scrutiny, two of his top aides have resigned.
Pruitt’s political support may be ebbing. But prominent Republicans and conservative groups have supported him for his deregulatory fervor and conservative Christian ideology.
Some observers suggest that Pruitt’s deregulatory efforts haven’t been very effective. But the Pruitt-led EPA has supported efforts to publicly question climate science, to undermine its use in regulating air pollution and other environmental contaminants,and to discourage legitimate scientific research. At one point, his EPA suggested a “Red Team/Blue Team”-style debate on climate science, which would publicly attack the scientific consensus on the causes and course of climate change.
American public opinion on climate science is divided by party
Public opinion on climate change has been divided by party for many years; Pruitt’s efforts could accelerate that division. Consider, for instance, a March Gallup pollshowing that fewer Republican voters agree that there is a scientific consensus on climate change or that the climate is changing in large part because of human activity.
Gallup found that 35 percent of Republicans agreed that global warming is caused by human activity, down from 40 percent last year. In contrast, 89 percent of Democrats agreed this was the case, up from 87 percent last year. Furthermore, 42 percent of Republicans agreed that there was a scientific consensus on climate change, down from 53 percent last year.
Pruitt may not be the only cause of that shift, but his efforts have probably influenced it.
Here’s how we did our research
Our research suggests that more Republicans in Congress would need to speak out in support of climate science to narrow this partisan gap and correct these misperceptions. Several have already criticized Pruitt’s spending habits, but few have questioned his rejection of climate science.
We conducted two online survey experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk – a pilot on a sample of 970 respondents and then a larger sample with 1,338 respondents – in which participants read a short article in which a Republican politician challenged or denied the scientific consensus on climate change. The article emphasized falsehoods commonly levied by prominent climate-change skeptics: that the science was unsettled; that human activity may not necessarily contribute to climate change; and that calls for environmental regulation were “alarmist.” In fact, more than 97 percent of climate scientists agree that the atmosphere is warming, in large part because of such human activity as the use of fossil fuels.
However, respondents read different versions of this article. One group received only the misinformation, while other groups received the misinformation followed by a correction that offered the scientific consensus. Of the groups that read the correct information, different groups were told that it came from either climate scientists, Democratic politicians or Republican politicians.
We then measured their opinions on three different points: that there is a scientific consensus on climate change; that climate change is affected by human activity; and that it is a serious issue.
The messenger is as important as the message
Those who read the scientists’ corrections were, on average, moderately more likely to say they believed the climate consensus. But Republicans and independent voters were most likely to be persuaded of climate science when given correct information by a Republican politician. That especially influenced their opinions on whether climate change is serious – by as much as 15 percent more than if they were told the correct information was from a scientist.
The Republican source was far more effective than a Democratic source in almost all cases. Democrats also reported greater agreement with climate science when a correction came from a Republican rather than a Democratic politician.
[How to persuade people that climate change is real]
Respondents who believed the correction was from a Democrat were slightly more likely to say they believed in climate change than those who read only the misinformation – but the change was significantly less than for those who believed the correction was from a Republican.
Independents – real independents, leaving out those who said they leaned toward one political party – were also most likely to say they agreed with the scientific consensus if they read a correction ostensibly from a Republican.
Our study strongly suggests that it’s not enough to correct misinformation about climate change by just providing a corrective statement; the messenger is as important as the medium. These results are consistent with Adam Berinsky’s research on correcting political misinformation. He found that Republicans were especially effective in countering rumors about “death panels” in health-care reform.
Republicans who take a stand favoring the scientific consensus will persuade more Americans than either Democrats or scientists. This may be because such a stance is rare for Republicans – and potentially costly. For instance, in 2010, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) was defeated in a primary for his House seat after advocating for action on climate change. And such a stance may attract additional attention, since it rejects the Republican party line. As a result, Republicans like Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) or Rep. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.) who speak out on climate change may be especially persuasive in increasing concern and knowledge about climate change. And that may be most effective at countering the climate misinformation promoted by such people as Scott Pruitt.
Salil Benegal (@SalilBenegal) is an assistant professor of political science at DePauw University.
Lyle Scruggs (@condorcetsd) is a professor of political science at the University of Connecticut.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/04/pruitts-epa-denies-climate-science-republicans-can-correct-him-will-they/?utm_term=.fc8e06de25fc
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested