Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/9/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Sought Tight Control of Events Even on Friendly Turf
May 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Emily Holden
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his staff went to great lengths to avoid unscripted questions when he toured the country speaking to industry groups, and even a seemingly friendly ice breaker can be deemed unacceptable. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt's Embattled Science
May 8, 2018 | Truthout
By Mike Ludwig
A controversial rule proposed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt would not apply to pesticide companies seeking permission from the EPA to introduce or keep potentially dangerous chemicals on the market... -
(ACC Mentioned) Returning to the Battlefield over California Car Rules
May 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Newsletter
By Kelsey Tamborrino
...Andrew Fasoli of the American Chemistry Council was the first to correctly guess that former President Ronald Reagan was first to watch a major league baseball game from the dugout, at a Baltimore Orioles game... -
New 'Secret Science' Rule Makes Sense from a Risk-Assessment Perspective
May 6, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Michael Dourson
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s recent announcement that EPA will not use “secret science” — that is science for which the underlying data is not available — is challenging. -
Stakeholders Demand US EPA Extend 'Secret Science' Consultation
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is hearing a chorus of requests to extend the comment period on its proposed science transparency rule. -
Trump Exits Iran Deal, Enters 'Uncharted Territory'
May 8, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Geof Koss
President Trump announced today he's withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposing sanctions on the country's energy sector, a move that could roil global oil markets. -
(ACC Mentioned) Animal Tests Surge Under New U.S. Chemical Safety Law
May 8, 2018 | Science Magazine
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Two years ago, when the U.S. Congress approved a major rewrite of the nation’s chemical safety law, lawmakers ordered federal regulators to take steps to reduce the number of animals that companies use to test compounds for safety. -
Our View: It’s Not Just Genx, and It’s Massive
May 9, 2018 | Fayetteville Observer
By Editorial Board
It isn’t just a little bit of pollution. And it isn’t under control — not even close. Its scope is stunning. -
(ACC Mentioned) Iarc Says Plastics Component Styrene Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic’
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Styrene, a key component for many plastics, is "probably carcinogenic to humans", according to the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc). -
New York State Sets Procurement Rule on PFASs in Food Containers
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The State of New York has placed restrictions on state agency purchasing of food containers containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) or polystyrene. -
Walmart Backs States’ Effort to Centralize Chemical Reporting
May 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Walmart is working with a group to make it easier for companies to comply with state laws requiring businesses to report chemicals in children’s products. -
Hawaii Set to Ban Two Sunscreen Ingredients
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Hawaii’s legislature has approved a measure to prohibit sunscreens containing two key ingredients. -
Hawaii Lawmakers Pass Ban on Sunscreen Chemicals Oxybenzone and Octinoxate
May 8, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Hawaii is on the verge of banning two chemicals used in sunscreens, oxybenzone and octinoxate, to protect its coral reefs. The compounds absorb ultraviolet light. -
(ACC Mentioned) Letter: Natural Gas Growth Wonderful News for West Virginia (Daily Mail)
May 9, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Chris Ventura
Recent one-sided Gazette-Mail articles, written in partnership with the advocacy publication ProPublica, mislead readers by failing to emphasize how the region’s flourishing natural gas market benefits West Virginia: It has put thousands of local workers back to work... -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Gasification Yields Improve with Plastic Feedstock
May 9, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
Adding recovered plastics to biomass in a gasification process can increase the quality and volume of the end product, according to an industry-funded study. -
SAB Panel Seeks Rare Review Of Three Trump EPA Climate Rule Rollbacks
May 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A workgroup of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is recommending that the full board review the science underlying three planned rollbacks of Obama-era climate rules -- for new and existing power plants, as well as new and modified oil and gas sources... -
Majority of Voters Oppose Trump Offshore Drilling Plan: Poll
May 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
More than half of voters oppose proposed plans by the Trump administration to expand oil and gas drilling off coastal states, according to a poll out Tuesday. -
April’s U.S. Natural Gas Injections Lowest in 35 Years, Says EIA
May 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
April natural gas storage injections could prove to be the lowest for the fourth month of the year since 1983, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said Tuesday. -
Massachusetts Rules to Curb Emissions Are Illegal, Power Plants Say
May 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Massachusetts requirements to drive down greenhouse-gas emissions by power plants are illegal and need to be voided, companies argued in a state court May 8. -
E.P.A. Emails Shed Light on Pruitt’s Plan to Debate Climate Change
May 8, 2018 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport
A new trove of documents sheds light on one of the most controversial proposals of Scott Pruitt’s first year as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: the plan to stage public debates on the veracity of climate change, an idea that was ultimately blocked by the White House. -
N.Y. Attorney General Exit Won’t Stall Rollbacks Fight: Democrats
May 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman and Abby Smith
Democrats lost a chief crusader against Trump administration environmental rollbacks when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) abruptly resigned his post, but other state litigators and environmentalists are downplaying the impact of his exit. -
'Early Notice' of DOJ Referrals May Weaken Regions' Enforcement Leverage
May 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine's mandate that headquarters receive “early notice” of regions' civil cases slated for referral to the Justice Department (DOJ) could weaken regions' leverage in settlement talks, an industry source says...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Sought Tight Control of Events Even on Friendly Turf
May 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Emily Holden
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his staff went to great lengths to avoid unscripted questions when he toured the country speaking to industry groups, and even a seemingly friendly ice breaker can be deemed unacceptable.
“How often do you get back to Oklahoma?” the top official from the Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives planned to ask Pruitt when he addressed the group last December, according to internal emails that were recently made public.
That question was crossed out when an EPA staff member sent back a proposed list of questions for Pruitt's "fireside chat" with Chuck Soderberg, the association's executive vice president. Tate Bennett, EPA's associate administrator of public engagement, did not explain why that and another question had been removed, but at the time of his Nov. 29 email the administrator was already facing questions over his travel practices. A few months earlier, EPA's inspector general had launched an investigation into whether the agency had sufficient policies in place to "prevent fraud, waste and abuse with the Administrator’s travel that included trips to Oklahoma."
The emails among Bennett, other EPA staffers and representatives of the Iowa cooperatives were included in the thousands of documents obtained by the Sierra Club through a public records lawsuit. They reveal a pattern of Pruitt and his staff working to limit access by independent journalists, pre-screen questions from friendly interviewers and coordinate his message with lobbyists ahead of gatherings with conservative or industry groups.
Ahead of the Iowa event, the co-op association's director of government relations, Kevin Condon, confirmed that neither his group nor EPA would issue a media advisory, and they would cancel a press gaggle but still host an interview with the group’s internal Living with Energy in Iowa magazine.
That publication also got questions pre-approved by EPA staff.
“Let me know if any of these give you heartburn,” said Erin Campbell, the co-op group’s director of communications. “This would be a friendly interview environment and we’re keeping the conversation focused on Iowa consumers."
In another instance, before Pruitt spoke at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event in June, EPA received a list of 10 proposed questions from the head of the group’s energy institute, Karen Harbert. They touched on his regulatory philosophy, his efforts to rollback rules, and whether co-owning a minor league baseball team taught him lessons useful for running a federal agency. EPA staff did not appear to object to Harbert's proposed list.
When Pruitt was slotted to speak at a Texas Oil and Gas Association conference in October, EPA staff asked for a Q&A format with a representative of the group, rather than have the administrator take three pre-screened questions from the crowd.
EPA aides asked for the change in plans after being made aware that four reporters would be attending from the Houston Chronicle, Bloomberg BNA and Reuters.
Bennett wrote that after updating Pruitt that the media would attend, “he’d like to respectfully request that the entire format now be Q&A with two chairs on stage.” She also shared a list of questions the moderator could ask, including on regulatory rollbacks, on what Pruitt would consider “true environmentalism” and on what his relationship was like with the president.
“What has it been like to run such a newsworthy agency? More difficult than you imagined?” the last question read.
And in at least one instance, a lobbyist for a group Pruitt was set to address offered to help write his speech for him. Before Pruitt and an entourage of eight staffers and security agents traveled in November to Kiawah Island, South Carolina, for a speaking engagement with the American Chemistry Council, the group’s lobbyist Bryan Zumwalt asked a scheduler who to contact to help write Pruitt’s speech.
“Who in your sop (sic) should I be working with to help prepare Administrator Pruitt’s talking points/speech? Figure someone there might like the help on key areas to discuss,” he said.
The scheduler, deputy White House liaison Hayley Ford, replied that Millan Hupp, director of scheduling and advance, and Bennett could assist.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/05/pruitt-sought-tight-control-of-events-even-on-friendly-turf-522914
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt's Embattled Science
May 8, 2018 | Truthout
By Mike Ludwig
A controversial rule proposed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt would not apply to pesticide companies seeking permission from the EPA to introduce or keep potentially dangerous chemicals on the market, according to new analysis by environmental watchdog groups.
The proposed science "transparency" rule, first announced on April 24, would prevent the EPA from using scientific studies to protect air and water quality unless data behind the research is made available to the public. The proposal faced immediate pushback from scientists and environmental groups who call it a political giveaway to polluting industries that would place unnecessary burdens on researchers and severely limit the science available to regulators crafting policies for protecting public health.
However, the rule would not apply to pesticide companies seeking to register new chemicals, extend federal registrations for pesticides already on the market, change a warning label, or establish a product's effectiveness, according to joint analysis by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and Beyond Pesticides.
"[Pruitt's EPA is] saying we need all this data for regulating industry, but for things the pesticide industry is trying to get approved that may damage public health and the environment, it doesn't apply to that," said PEER attorney Paula Dinerstein in an interview.
The proposed EPA rule is modeled off legislation introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican backed by the oil and gas industry, who is notorious for using his position as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to undermine mainstream climate science. Polluters and anti-regulation conservatives have long complained that they do not have access to raw toxicological data linking air and water pollution to health problems that the EPA has used to expand pollution programs -- which often require industries to spend more money on prevention and cleanup.
Scientists say such data is often linked to personal information from participants that can often be shared among researchers but not publicly released. They say requiring such disclosure would prevent the EPA from using landmark environmental health studies when establishing pollution protections, or at least make the process for using such data prohibitively expensive for researchers and regulators alike.
Smith's legislation has failed to find support in Congress, but the industries that support the bill also have a friend in Pruitt, who promoted his political career by challenging EPA regulations on behalf of polluters and is under mounting scrutiny for various ethics scandals.
"The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end," Pruitt said in a statement announcing the proposed rule last month.
Internal EPA emails released to the Union of Concerned Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act show that Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator of the EPA's chemical safety and pollution prevention office, warned her colleagues that an early draft of the rule should be revised to avoid imposing new costs and red tape on companies seeking approval of chemicals and pesticides. Beck worked for the American Chemistry Council, a powerful industry group, before the Trump administration appointed her to the EPA last year.
As currently written, the rule would apply to research from any source, whether that be independent environmental health researchers or studies conducted by regulated industries. But the rule would only apply to "dose response and data models" used to justify "significant regulatory decisions" meant to protect public health.
This means the rule would only limit research on the health impacts of pollutants that is used to justify regulations with a large economic impact, which is typically considered $100 million or more, according to Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.
Examples include Obama-era rules limiting the amount of climate-warming gases and dangerous toxics that power plants can spew into the air, both of which have been challenged in court and in Congress by conservatives and the energy industry.
Despite their widespread use, courts have repeatedly ruled that EPA decisions on the availability and use of individual pesticides do not appear to fall into this "significant regulatory decisions" category, according to Feldman.
"But there is still tremendous secrecy around these regulatory decisions and in bringing pesticides to the market," Feldman told Truthout in an interview.
Pesticides are registered for sale with the EPA based on studies provided by the companies that make them, not based on science conducted or commissioned by the EPA, according to the groups' analysis. The EPA uses this data to assess the environmental effects of pesticides, their impact on farmworkers, and allowable levels of human exposure via pest control products and food, but the public does not have access to this data until after a pesticide is registered and allowed on the market.
Even after a pesticide is registered, Feldman said watchdogs must request data backing the EPA's decision under the Freedom of Information Act, which can be a lengthy process. If problems are discovered that suggest the pesticide could be hazardous to environmental or public health, then watchdogs must petition the EPA to cancel its registration.
"A cancellation proceeding is a very long process, it can take up to a decade," Feldman said.
There are other deficiencies in the EPA pesticide program that Pruitt's "transparency" efforts would not address. Currently, "conditional registrations" allow widespread use of potentially toxic pesticides that have not been fully tested. Rules protecting proprietary business information prevent the public from knowing how well pesticides actually work and what other chemicals are added to individual pesticide formulas, even if those chemicals are considered hazardous under federal law.
There would also be problems if Pruitt's transparency rule were applied to pesticides. Feldman said studies on the human health impacts of pesticides already in use would suddenly be off-limits because much of the toxicological data from such studies cannot easily be scrubbed of personal information.
In fact, last year Pruitt denied a decade-old petition to keep the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos out of the food supply after the agrichemical industry complained about the EPA's use of data from independent studies linking the chemical to brain damage in children. The EPA made plans to ban chlorpyrifos from food production under the Obama administration, but Pruitt reversed course, saying more research is needed, even after years of scientific debate.
If Pruitt's proposed "science transparency" rule were in place years ago, the EPA may have never considered a trio of studies released in 2011 that found a connection between prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos and diminished IQs in children during its scientific review of the chemical. That's because the raw data in those studies is attached to personal information that cannot be released to the public.
"We don't think this proposed rule is a good proposal for anybody, but what we are really trying to point out here is the hypocrisy of it," Dinerstein said.
A spokesperson for the EPA told Truthout that the agency is currently evaluating the specific impacts the proposed rule could have on the agency's pesticide program and welcomes public comment.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/44410-scott-pruitt-s-embattled-science-transparency-rule-does-not-apply-to-pesticides
-
(ACC Mentioned) Returning to the Battlefield over California Car Rules
May 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Newsletter
By Kelsey Tamborrino
With help from Anthony Adragna
IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED: The looming fight between the Trump administration and the state of California over climate change rules for cars will cover some familiar terrain — where the liberal state and its environmentalist allies have won major legal battles in the past, Pro's Alex Guillén reports. The White House strategy appears to mirror the approach that automakers and dealers unsuccessfully pursued more than a decade ago in an attempt to reverse California's strict limits on vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions.
This again? California — which has a waiver under the Clean Air Act to enact stricter standards — is hoping things play out the same way it did the last time around, when two federal district courts upheld its rules, which other states also can choose to follow. “It’s sort of déjà vu because it’s going to be basically round two,” said Kevin Leske, who was an assistant attorney general in Vermont in 2007 when the state fought off an industry lawsuit seeking to block the greenhouse gas rules for cars.
The details: At issue is the interplay between the long-standing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that were established under the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and the relatively new emissions standards enforced nationally for the first time under the Obama administration. The Trump administration is expected to nullify the waiver granted to California and then try to circumvent any questions by arguing that EPCA preempts California from enforcing its auto emissions standards — essentially the same argument automakers and dealers deployed in multiple lawsuits over a decade ago.
But keep in mind: That strategy fell short the first time around. A U.S. district court judge in California concluded that greenhouse gas standards are too different from fuel economy regulations to fall under EPCA’s “related to” preemption language. However, the cases were never appealed after a larger political deal was reached on the car rules, but advocates of the Trump administration's approach say they hope to take the issue to a higher court this time around. Read more.
GOOD WEDNESDAY MORNING! I'm your host Kelsey Tamborrino. Andrew Fasoli of the American Chemistry Council was the first to correctly guess that former President Ronald Reagan was first to watch a major league baseball game from the dugout, at a Baltimore Orioles game. For today: In what city did the nation’s first paved roadway appear? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/05/returning-to-the-battlefield-over-california-car-rules-207821
-
New 'Secret Science' Rule Makes Sense from a Risk-Assessment Perspective
May 6, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Michael Dourson
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s recent announcement that EPA will not use “secret science” — that is science for which the underlying data is not available — is challenging. Whereas EPA is routinely in receipt of unpublished toxicity studies for chemicals designed for commerce, not all important scientific findings are publishable. Nor do scientific journals generally have sufficient space to include all data.
Much has been made in recent weeks of this new EPA policy, including an op-ed opposing it by former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and former acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe.
The media coverage has focused attention on how science is considered acceptable and useful in EPA’s rulemaking. But missing from this is the perspective of risk scientists charged with protecting public health. In the case of EPA, it is often not enough for any one positive study to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Such work often needs replication because a positive finding occurs, on average, in one out of every 20 studies due to chance.
If a study cannot be replicated, then it at least needs to make sense within the pattern of available data. For pesticides regulated by EPA, these data are often from hundreds of studies done according to federal guidelines.
Studies that are not replicated or that do not make sense in an overall pattern are still considered, however. Risk scientists will often contact the authors to obtain additional information in order to conduct their own analysis, a common practice within EPA.
When such data are forthcoming, without the need to break confidentiality or disclose confidential business information, independent analyses can be conducted and the public health is better served. But when such information is withheld by the authors, government risk scientists are often left with a dilemma.
For example, imagine that a series of studies come out on a single human group that is exposed to a commonly used insecticide, and they show an unexpected effect at extremely low exposures. This finding has not been replicated and clashes with multiple animal and human studies that point to danger only at much higher exposures.
In this case, EPA scientists would ask the authors for the underlying data to confirm this unexpected low-dose effect. But let's say they can't get it. EPA is then left with neither confirmatory studies, nor information that makes sense in light of other studies, nor the ability to conduct its own analysis. Understandably, Pruitt has chosen a policy of not using such studies.
There is one sense in which McCarthy and McCabe are spot on. The judgment over which epidemiology and/or toxicology data to use for risk or safety assessment purposes should be left to risk scientists. But from my perspective as a risk scientist, Pruitt’s decision is still correct. The public’s interest is best served when science is replicable and consistent with other information. When studies cannot be replicated or are inconsistent with other information, access to their underlying data is vital to independent analysis. When the underlying data are not provided to a risk scientist, it is difficult to use this study to make a credible risk judgment, much less national rulemaking.
In short, the public is often worried about chemical exposure, as they should be when such exposure exceeds a safety level. But the public’s interest is best served by trusting in experts dedicated to public health protection, not by withholding scientific data from independent analysis.
Michael L. Dourson, formerly Trump's nominee as Assistant EPA Administrator, is a board-certified toxicologist serving as director of science at the 501(c)3 environmental science NGO Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment. Prior to this, he was a senior adviser in the Office of the Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-epas-new-secret-science-rule-makes-sense-from-a-risk-assessment-perspective?source=acsh,org
-
Stakeholders Demand US EPA Extend 'Secret Science' Consultation
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is hearing a chorus of requests to extend the comment period on its proposed science transparency rule.
Issued late last month, the proposal seeks to ensure that the data, models and science underpinning agency regulatory decisions are "transparent" and "available to the public for validation".
But more than a dozen NGOs have individually and jointly written to the agency to protest against the "entirely insufficient" 30-day comment period. And many have requested the EPA hold at least one public hearing to discuss the proposed rule.
Representatives from academia also voiced concern over the current timeframe. The University of California’s office of research and graduate studies, for example, said: "The investigators and academic institutions directly affected by the proposed changes deserve a reasonable and fair opportunity to evaluate how the proposed rule would impact their contributions to the scientific community, and the contributions of their science to decision making that affects the American people."
And at least two organisations representing the pesticides industry requested extra time, to review the potentially "far-reaching implications" of the policy on businesses regulated under the pesticides programme.
The comment period is currently set to expire on 30 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66687/stakeholders-demand-us-epa-extend-secret-science-consultation
-
Trump Exits Iran Deal, Enters 'Uncharted Territory'
May 8, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Geof Koss
President Trump announced today he's withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposing sanctions on the country's energy sector, a move that could roil global oil markets.
Trump called the deal — also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — "horrible," "one-sided" and a "lie" that never should have been brokered in 2015 under the Obama administration. Under the deal — of which the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China and Germany are still partners — Iran agreed to limits its nuclear enrichment in exchange for relief from international sanctions.
The administration will now institute the "highest level of economic sanctions" on Iran, the president said, and any nation helping Iran could face secondary sanctions.
"America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail," Trump said, touting the decision as a campaign promise fulfilled.
Trump then added that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is arriving in North Korea within hours to prepare for a presidential summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The White House released a fact sheet, which clarified sanctions will target "critical sectors of Iran's economy, such as its energy, petrochemical, and financial sector," and that "those doing business in Iran will be provided a period of time to allow them to wind down operations in or business involving Iran."
While the U.S. doesn't import oil from Iran directly, analysts have said sanctions could decrease the amount of Iranian oil flowing to global supplies and possibly raise prices.
But the impact of Trump's decision on global energy markets could hinge on Iran's ongoing negotiations with countries still in the nuclear deal, as well as the extent to which the United States sanctions its allies, analysts said.
Shortly after Trump's announcement, the Associated Press reported Iranian President Hassan Rouhani ordered his foreign minister to negotiate with other countries that are still part of the deal.
Former President Obama issued a statement saying Trump's decision "turns our back on America's closest allies, and an agreement that our country's leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated."
"In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next," Obama said. "But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America's credibility, and puts us at odds with the world's major powers."
Trump's decision drew support from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho but only opposition from Democrats in both chambers who accused the president of manufacturing an international crisis.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Capitol Hill earlier today that there are no signs Iran has not complied with the deal, which he originally opposed in 2015. Schumer also said the "right thing to do" would have been for the U.S. to work with its allies on deciding the fate of the Iran deal and questioned how the administration would impose secondary sanctions.
Senators from energy-rich states said they would closely watch the international community's response.
"I don't know what the long-term ramifications are because it will depend on how the world market stabilizes after any initial reaction," Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said before the announcement.
Heinrich said that in the long term, prices would probably moderate if Europe and Asia continued to honor the deal. "I think short term you'll see an increase," he said. "But if long term some of our other allies then start to change their mind, then you'll see higher prices overall."
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) echoed the point.
"We're kind of in uncharted territory because the president has indicated that he would wish that Europe would continue to engage in the JCPOA, but the U.S. would not," he told E&E News before Trump's announcement. "But that is kind of betwixt and between in the sense that the U.S. banking system, if we restore our sanctions, then the Europeans would not participate because they can't afford to be outside the U.S. banking system."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/08/stories/1060081151
-
(ACC Mentioned) Animal Tests Surge Under New U.S. Chemical Safety Law
May 8, 2018 | Science Magazine
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Two years ago, when the U.S. Congress approved a major rewrite of the nation’s chemical safety law, lawmakers ordered federal regulators to take steps to reduce the number of animals that companies use to test compounds for safety. But a recent analysis by two animal welfare groupsfound that the number of animal tests requested or required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jumped dramatically last year, from just a few dozen tests involving fewer than 7000 animals in 2016, to more than 300 tests involving some 75,000 rats, rabbits, and other vertebrates.
The cause of the increase isn’t clear. But the new law imposes stricter requirements on a broader array of chemicals than its predecessor, including both new products and ones already on the market, and experts say EPA staff may be trying to comply by gathering more test data from companies. Both industry and animal welfare groups are alarmed by the trend, and are asking agency officials to clarify why they are requesting the tests—and how they plan to reduce the number in the future.
In a 27 March letter to EPA officials, the two Washington, D.C.–based groups that produced the analysis—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)—wrote that the “appalling” number of animals being used in tests “indicates EPA is failing to balance” its responsibility to evaluate chemicals’ risks against its obligation to pursue alternatives to animal testing.
In 2016, many animal welfare activists applauded lawmakers for including a provision in a major rewrite of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requiring EPA to develop a plan to “reduce, refine or replace” the use of vertebrate animals in testing. Lawmakers suggested the agency could save time and money by harnessing advances in computer modeling, biochemistry, and cell-based testing methods to replace test animals. They ordered EPA to finalize a long-term strategy for increasing the use of such alternatives by this year.
EPA released a draft of that strategy for public comment in March. In preparing a response, PETA and PCRM used a government database to tally the agency’s TSCA-related animal tests over the past 3 years. In 2015, EPA required or requested 21 tests involving 8881 animals, the groups found; in 2016, it asked for 37 tests involving 6539 animals. In 2017, the first full year that the new law was in force, the numbers jumped to 331 tests and 76,523 animals. Some tests involve rats inhaling substances, whereas others call for placing chemicals into the eyes of rabbits.
The two groups argue that the agency hasn’t adequately explained why it can’t obtain the needed data from nonanimal tests. A major chemical industry advocacy group, the Washington, D.C.–based American Chemistry Council (ACC), echoes that concern. EPA sometimes appears “unwilling” to rely on data from computational modeling, for example, “even when it is generated from agency-recommended programs,” says Jon Corley, an ACC spokesperson.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment on the surge in testing or what might be driving it. One factor might be that EPA staff are not yet fully aware of proven alternatives to animal tests, says Kristie Sullivan, PCRM’s vice president of research policy. They might need more training and funding “to stay abreast of new developments in toxicology, so that they can quickly incorporate new methods and kinds of data into their decision-making process,” she says.
Other groups, however, are urging patience in allowing EPA to pursue alternatives to animal testing while adapting to the new law. “We need to ensure that the alternative testing methods that are implemented are able to actually identify toxicity, exposure and potential adverse effects of chemicals,” says Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. “That’s not something that was ever going to happen overnight. We need to bend the curve slowly over time as science evolves.”
EPA’s views on the matter could become clearer soon. The comment period on its draft strategy for reducing animal tests closes Friday, and the agency is required to issue a final plan by 22 June.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/animal-tests-surge-under-new-us-chemical-safety-law
-
Our View: It’s Not Just Genx, and It’s Massive
May 9, 2018 | Fayetteville Observer
By Editorial Board
It isn’t just a little bit of pollution. And it isn’t under control — not even close. Its scope is stunning.
Legal documents filed this week put an entirely new light on the levels of pollution pouring out of the chemical plant just south of Fayetteville, on the Cumberland-Bladen county line. It is massive.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, acting on behalf of the Cape Fear River Watch, this week filed a request for a declaratory ruling by the state Department of Environmental Quality that will immediately halt all emissions of GenX and related compounds into the air, land and water. The law center also filed notice that it intends to sue Chemours, the DuPont spinoff company that operates the Fayetteville Works, for violations of the federal Clean Water Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The legal filings present lengthy evidence of the extent of the pollution coming from the property that sits between N.C. 87 and the Cape Fear River. They make it clear that we’re not just looking at a GenX problem, but rather at a broad array of chemicals within the GenX family of perfluorinated compounds that are used or created at the Fayetteville Works. The DEQ, according to the legal papers, has found at least 33 perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — collectively referred to as PFAS — emitted or discharged from the plant.
The request for declaratory ruling observes that, “DEQ was alarmed to discover that GenX compounds are emitted at a rate of over 2,000 pounds a year, but other PFAS compounds are emitted at severely higher rates.” The emissions of 2015 are cited as the highest so far, when “Chemours emitted over 125,000 pounds of PFAS compounds into the air.” That’s nearly 63 tons of PFAS chemicals — all likely harmful to human health — pumped into the air and distributed for miles around the plant by the winds.
Through spills, atmospheric dispersion and dumping of effluent, the stuff has worked its way into the water table. And again, the public attention on GenX has missed the point. Some related compounds are present in the water table at far greater concentrations. The request for declaratory ruling notes that the DEQ’s complaint against Chemours, filed in Bladen County Superior Court, “expresses deep concern that GenX has been found in private wells at levels of 4,000 ppt, yet some PFAS compounds have been found in concentrations of several million parts per trillion — one of which has been found at levels of up to 8,174,250 ppt.”
The request concludes that, “The actions of DuPont and Chemours over the last four decades have put the health of hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians at risk. Chemours continues to emit hundreds of pounds of contaminating chemicals into the environment each day. Even if DEQ’s enforcement actions are successful, important sources of air and water pollution would go unaddressed.”
So far, most of the public discussion has been about GenX, but in reality, we should be talking about all the “emerging contaminants” in the PFAS family that are being emitted from the Fayetteville Works. These substances are in the air, in groundwater, in the Cape Fear River, and in the water supply of hundreds of thousands of North Carolina residents. Most of the chemicals haven’t been tested to determine their impact on human health, but those that have been tested on animals have been found to cause cancer and other serious health disruptions. Ingesting them over a prolonged period of time is likely to be dangerous and the state has a legal and moral obligation to protect the health and safety of its residents.
No matter how badly the General Assembly has gutted the DEQ’s funding and authority — and it surely has — the agency must act promptly to stop the ongoing emissions from the Fayetteville Works. Anything less is unacceptable and should be unthinkable.
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/20180508/our-view-its-not-just-genx-and-its-massive
-
(ACC Mentioned) Iarc Says Plastics Component Styrene Is ‘Probably Carcinogenic’
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Styrene, a key component for many plastics, is "probably carcinogenic to humans", according to the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc).
The conclusion corresponds to group 2A of the agency's classification scheme and could have immediate implications, wherever local chemicals legislation incorporates Iarc classifications as regulatory 'triggers', for example in California.
Styrene previously had group 2B classification ("possibly carcinogenic to humans"), based on a 2002 monograph.
Globally, manufacturers produce about 20m tonnes of styrene a year, according to the International Styrene Industry Forum (ISIF). This is used primarily as a monomer in the production of plastics, particularly polystyrene, which accounts for about half of global production.
Other materials incorporating the substance include:
· acrylonitrile-butadiene styrene (ABS);
· styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN);
· styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR);
· unsaturated polyester resin (UPR), more commonly known as fibreglass; and
· polystyrene foam, which comes in two types, extruded and expanded.
The evidence from human studies – which focused on workers making reinforced plastics – was "limited", says Iarc's monograph working group, in a summary paper published in The Lancet Oncology. The studies did provide "credible evidence that exposure to styrene causes lymphohaematopoietic malignancies", but there was no way to rule out "confounding, bias or chance".
In contrast, the evidence from animal studies was "sufficient", and there was strong evidence of a mechanism that operates in humans and that it is genotoxic.
The same working group also reviewed the evidence for quinoline, a high production volume chemical used to make drugs and dyes; and styrene-6,8-oxide, which is primarily used to make epoxy resins. It concluded that both were also group 2A substances ("probably carcinogenic to humans").
Upcoming meetings
Iarc monograph working groups will meet on:
· 5-12 June, to review "isobutyl nitrite, β-picoline and some acrylates"; and
· 9-16 October, to review "some nitro-benzenes and other industrial chemicals".
And a Iarc advisory group will meet on 12-13 November to recommend an update to the Monographs Preamble. This describes evidence that should be evaluated under the monographs programme.
However, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) says the meeting should be delayed until January 2019, when current Iarc director Christopher Wild completes his term and the role is handed over. The ACC expects the agency's governing council to appoint a new director "within weeks".
https://chemicalwatch.com/66688/iarc-says-plastics-component-styrene-is-probably-carcinogenic
-
New York State Sets Procurement Rule on PFASs in Food Containers
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The State of New York has placed restrictions on state agency purchasing of food containers containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) or polystyrene.
The action was agreed at a meeting of the interagency committee on sustainability and green procurement on 20 April.
Committee members gave final approval to a green specification on food service containers and wrappers, which also makes significant changes to the executive order on state green procurement and agency sustainability (EO4).
In response, the NGO, Clean and Healthy New York issued a statement saying there is "mounting evidence of the presence of PFAS in food service products" and increasing purchaser demand for healthier food ware products.
"New York's leadership will help propel efforts by leading manufacturers to find less-toxic alternatives, shift the market to those better alternatives and accelerate the broader national market change we need," it said.
'Thoroughly regulated'
But the chemical industry trade association, FlouroCouncil, objected to the move, saying the use of PFASs is already "thoroughly regulated" by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency has determined that those currently used in food packaging are safe for their intended use.
"This specification is unnecessary, contrary to sound science, and will provide no further benefits to public health or the environment," FlouroCouncil spokesperson, Jon Corley, told Chemical Watch.
PFAS provide oil and grease repellent properties that help protect the quality and integrity of food, extend shelf life and help in the safe transport and storage of food, he said.
Clean and Healthy New York says on its website that although the long-chain perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) have been largely phased out in the US, they have often been replaced by less well-known short-chain fluorinated chemicals that have similar environmental and health impacts.
There are "data gaps and credibility gaps to claims that these substitutes are not harmful", it says.
Also, it notes that PFOS and PFOA long-chain compounds are also still being used in products made in other countries that may be imported into the US.
Washington state became the first to ban PFASs in food packaging earlier this year.
State policy experts have predicted addressing PFOA, PFOS and related substances will be the biggest emerging chemical regulation issue at state level this year.
In December 2017, the US EPA announced a cross-agency effort to address PFASs. However, the agency has not promised regulatory action.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66665/new-york-state-sets-procurement-rule-on-pfass-in-food-containers
-
Walmart Backs States’ Effort to Centralize Chemical Reporting
May 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Walmart is working with a group to make it easier for companies to comply with state laws requiring businesses to report chemicals in children’s products.
“We’re very supportive of the work the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse is doing,” Drew Sadler, director for global public policy at Walmart Inc., told Bloomberg Environment.
States have passed various laws to help consumers make purchasing decisions, he said. But when different types of information is in too many different places, the customer gets frustrated, Sadler said.
Walmart is backing a database the clearinghouse—an association of state, local, and tribal governments—is developing for release in 2019.
Initially, the database will serve Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, which already passed laws requiring manufacturers to report the presence of certain chemicals in children’s products, Topher Buck, a project manager at the clearinghouse, told Bloomberg Environment.
The clearinghouse intends for the database, however, to be able to serve other states—such as Minnesota and New York—that are considering enacting similar laws, Buck said.
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc.; Buy Buy Baby, Inc.; the Disney Store USA, LLC; IKEA North American Services LLC; Target; and Walmart are among the approximately 300 companies that already have submitted reports to Washington, the first state to enact a reporting law to secure information on chemicals in children’s products.
Bloomberg Environment contacted each of the named stores, but only Walmart agreed to be interviewed.
Chemicals and products these companies have reported making or selling include 4-nonylphenol in dolls’ clothing; 2-ethylhexanoic acid in dolls’ furniture; methylparaben and propylparaben in baby wipes; and antimony and antimony compounds in goods including high chairs, baby changing tables, puppets, and blankets.
Companies’ ChallengeThe challenge companies face is that each state’s requirements are different, Kimberly Horne, Walmart’s director for regulatory change management, told Bloomberg Environment.
Each state defines the party responsible for filing reports somewhat differently, and each requires somewhat different information, she said. Even when the same information has to be reported, it must be submitted separately to each state, Horne added. That increases not only Walmart’s workload, but that of its suppliers, she said.
The clearinghouse database “would be a one stop shop,” Horne said. Having a single reporting site is the “big benefit for companies,” Buck said. “They don’t have to report multiple places,” he added.
State, Public Database UsersA single database would save states time and money, because individual states wouldn’t have to maintain separate records, Buck said.
The information also could help state risk assessors investigating ways chemicals get into the environment or people’s bodies, Nancy Rice, an environmental research scientist with the Minnesota Department of Health, told Bloomberg Environment. “It’s helpful to know if a chemical is in products,” especially since many products are sold across the country, she said.
Buck said a single database also would help the public. “People wouldn’t have to go to different agency websites to pull down the information they want,” he said.
Mark S. Rossi, executive director of Clean Production Action, agreed it can take a while to sort through different databases and find the information being sought.
A single state database also could help environmental health advocates, such as Clean Production, identify trends, he told Bloomberg Environment.
Next StepsThe clearinghouse will select a company to develop the database after May 11 when proposals are due. The clearinghouse, its work group, and the database developer will then discuss what information would be reported, Buck said.
In some cases, Buck envisions the reported information will be consistent. Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have “relatively similar” requirements, he said.
In other cases, the single database will allow particular details—required by only one state—to be reported only by companies selling in that state, Buck said.
For example, only Vermont requires information on the specific brand name and models of baby strollers that contain a chemical which must be reported, Buck said. In contrast, Oregon and Washington allow companies to provide the information about strollers in general without model numbers and names.
Sadler said Walmart understands not every piece of required information can be consistent.
“They can only do what their legislature says they can or can’t do,” he said. But finding alignment where possible and making reporting more efficient should help improve the information, Sadler said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/walmart-backs-states-effort-to-centralize-chemical-reporting
-
Hawaii Set to Ban Two Sunscreen Ingredients
May 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Hawaii’s legislature has approved a measure to prohibit sunscreens containing two key ingredients.
If signed into law by the governor, SB 2571 will ban the sale or distribution in the state of any sunscreen containing oxybenzone or octinoxate from 2021. There is an exemption for consumers with a prescription issued by a licensed healthcare provider.
According to the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the move will ban "at least 70% of the sunscreens on the market today".
The bill cites the "significant harmful impacts" the substances have had on Hawaii’s coral reefs and marine organisms. And it notes that they "appear to increase the probability of endocrine disruption".
But the Personal Care Products Council, the main industry body, said in a statement the bill is "based on a limited body of scientific research from which concrete conclusions cannot be drawn".
And the CHPA said the measure relies on "weak science". The "real causes" of coral decline are global warming, agricultural runoff, sewage and overfishing, it said.
The healthcare products group called the legislature’s move an "irresponsible action [that] will make it more difficult for families to protect themselves against the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays".
"Banning oxybenzone and octinoxate – key ingredients in effective sunscreens on the market – will drastically and unnecessarily reduce the selection of safe and effective sunscreen products available," it added.
FDA backlog
Oxybenzone and octinoxate have remained prominent in the US, even while in other countries alternative substances have gained more widened use. This is due to a decades-long backlog for new ingredient approvals at the Food and Drug Administration.
In 2014, Congress passed the Sunscreen Innovation Act, which sought to expedite the agency’s approval process and allow ingredients long used in Europe and Canada to enter the US market.
In keeping with the law, the FDA finalised new sunscreen ingredient guidance in 2016 which outlines how it determines whether a nonprescription sunscreen active ingredient is generally recognised as safe and effective (Grase). This designation is needed to bring a new product to market.
But a coalition of NGOs and industry groups protested against the FDA’s approach. And the ingredient approval backlog remains.
US agency watchdog the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report in November, reviewing the status of the applications. It found that the FDA was waiting for additional data it had concluded were needed to make the Grase determinations.
But Ken Cook, president of NGO Environmental Working Group (EWG), said Hawaii’s ban could spur action from both the sunscreen industry and the FDA.
"After decades of inadequate safety testing of current ingredients such as oxybenzone, the FDA is looking for safety data before approving new chemicals, but the industry has not yet stepped up to the plate," said Mr Cook. "Now consumers are forcing change."
In Europe, octinoxate may be used in sunscreen at up to 10% concentration. Last year, the European Commission lowered the maximum concentration for oxybenzone from 10% to 6%.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66685/hawaii-set-to-ban-two-sunscreen-ingredients
-
Hawaii Lawmakers Pass Ban on Sunscreen Chemicals Oxybenzone and Octinoxate
May 8, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Hawaii is on the verge of banning two chemicals used in sunscreens, oxybenzone and octinoxate, to protect its coral reefs. The compounds absorb ultraviolet light.
The Hawaii State Legislature earlier this month passed a bill that would prohibit the sale of sunscreens containing either of the two compounds as of Jan. 1, 2021. According to the measure, octinoxate, which is also known as octyl methoxycinnamate, and oxybenzone “have significant harmful impacts on Hawaii’s marine environment and residing ecosystems, including coral reefs.”
Some published studies have linked oxybenzone to deformities in coral larvae and both sunscreen chemicals to coral bleaching, a condition in which stressed coral lose symbiotic algae. Hawaii’s government in 2016 began asking swimmers, surfers, and divers to avoid using sunscreens with oxybenzone.
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which represents sunscreen makers, opposes the bill. “While we applaud attempts to limit coral decline in Hawaii, we have strong reservations of doing so by limiting access to an ingredient which has proven benefits against deadly skin cancers,” the group told Hawaiian lawmakers last year. “There is no scientific evidence that under naturally-occurring environmental conditions, sunscreen ingredients are contributing to coral degradation.”
Gov. David Ige (D) has not indicated whether he would sign the legislation, which would exempt prescription sunscreens.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/legislation-/Hawaii-lawmakers-pass-ban-sunscreen/96/web/2018/05
-
(ACC Mentioned) Letter: Natural Gas Growth Wonderful News for West Virginia (Daily Mail)
May 9, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Chris Ventura
Recent one-sided Gazette-Mail articles, written in partnership with the advocacy publication ProPublica, mislead readers by failing to emphasize how the region’s flourishing natural gas market benefits West Virginia: It has put thousands of local workers back to work, saved families and provided a paycheck where there wasn’t one.
Regional production of cleaner-burning natural gas has also improved the environment; generated record quantities of affordable, reliable fuel and electricity; mass-produced jobs in energy and non-energy fields; and helped businesses of varying sectors, from grocery stores to hotels — all while providing family-supporting wages that pay down mortgages, buy food and fill prescriptions.
The availability of low-cost natural gas for use in the manufacturing process or as a feedstock has also made West Virginia a go-to location for traditional and advanced industries to set up shop and expand their businesses.
Shale Crescent USA recently reported that the Utica and Marcellus shales will provide 37 percent of the country’s natural gas production by 2040, and an analysis last year by the American Chemistry Council said the Appalachian region was slated to become the next epicenter of petrochemical and plastic resin manufacturing.
This is wonderfully positive news for West Virginia.
But to sustain these jobs — and to keep collecting the millions in state and local revenue for public services, schools and infrastructure that industry provides — policymakers must maintain a regulatory climate that ensures producers keep producing in West Virginia.
The state’s best hope for the future leans on being competitive with other producing regions, domestically and internationally, when it comes to taxes and regulations, not weakening its attractiveness as a hotbed to invest in with unnecessary red tape — and state lawmakers should be commended for doing just that so far.
Ventura is midwest director of the Consumer Energy Alliance.
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/daily_mail_opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-natural-gas-growth-wonderful-news-for-west-virginia-daily/article_05d5e5ba-6478-50d9-bdce-3cd8624e3565.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Gasification Yields Improve with Plastic Feedstock
May 9, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
Adding recovered plastics to biomass in a gasification process can increase the quality and volume of the end product, according to an industry-funded study.
Gasification is a waste-to-energy process by which materials such as municipal solid waste are converted to synthetic gas, methanol or other fuel products. According to the study, titled “The Effects of Non-recycled Plastic (NRP) on Gasification: A Quantitative Assessment,” non-recycled plastics are a valuable feedstock for gasification.
“This study demonstrates that because carbon and hydrogen rich plastics have high energy content, there is tremendous potential to use technologies like gasification to convert these materials into fuels, chemicals, and other products,” researcher Marco Castaldi stated in a press release.
The research was funded by the American Chemistry Council, Plastics Industry Association and Canadian Plastics Industry Association. It was completed by the Earth Engineering Center at The City College of New York. The trials took place at a gasification facility in Edmonton.
The researchers focused on often-landfilled plastics. “Since there are practical limits on mechanical recycling, it is important to understand the environmental impacts of alternatives to landfill, such as gasification to methanol,” the report states.
For the trials, researchers used feedstock blends that included a range of plastic content, from 0 percent to 50 percent, mixed in with wood chips. The plastics came from residue from Edmonton’s materials recovery facility (MRF). They examined how increasing the percentage of plastics in the gasification feedstock mix would impact end-product yield, thermal efficiency of the process, and the volume of unuseable byproduct.
The study found positive results from adding plastics, with the results improving based on higher plastics content. With a 50 percent plastics mix, 80 percent more synthetic gas was produced than with a mix that didn’t include plastic, and only marginally more energy was required to process the mix. A mix with 50 percent plastics also produced up to 42 percent more methanol, the researchers found.
“The road to producing greater quantities of liquid fuels and chemicals from gasification is still evolving,” the researchers concluded. “Companies will need to optimize feed handling and process efficiencies. However, this study indicates that [non-recycled plastic] is a material stream that should be diverted from landfill because it offers significant benefits to the overall performance and product yield of gasification technologies.”
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/05/08/report-gasification-yields-improve-with-plastic-feedstock/
-
SAB Panel Seeks Rare Review Of Three Trump EPA Climate Rule Rollbacks
May 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A workgroup of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is recommending that the full board review the science underlying three planned rollbacks of Obama-era climate rules -- for new and existing power plants, as well as new and modified oil and gas sources -- after finding that EPA may not use adequately peer-reviewed science to justify the plans.
While the full SAB, with its slate of new members selected by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, could reject the workgroup's advice and decide not to review the rules at its upcoming May 30 - June 1 meeting, the group's recommendation nevertheless raises the prospect that the agency will have to publicly justify its decisions to roll back the rules given the group's criticisms.
For example, the workgroup recommends SAB review the Trump administration's planned changes to the Obama-era greenhouse gas rule for new and modified power plants because the agency indicated it will consider the rule's impacts on energy supply but without conducting “novel” analysis requiring peer review that the workgroup believes is necessary.
“It is unclear how an a priori determination can be made regarding whether this planned action may require” influential scientific information (ISI) or highly influential scientific information (HISI) that usually requires higher levels of peer review, the workgroup says in its April 30 report.
Such criticisms may bolster opponents of the planned rollbacks. For example, the workgroup recommends a review of the planned rollback of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) governing GHGs from existing power plants because the agency “does not plan to rely on science that meets the EPA Peer Review Handbook definition of "an influential scientific or technical work product.”'
“It is unclear how the Agency could have a draft proposed rule and not have determined the content of that proposal,” the report adds.
The workgroup also notes in its justification of its proposed review that EPA's proposal to narrow the rule's scope to address only measures that can be applied directly to a source, such as heat rate improvements, may not be lawful.
“This interpretation of section 111(d) is not necessarily consistent with case law or the perceived Congressional intent of the language of the Act,” the workgroup says, echoing language from environmentalists and states who have strongly criticized EPA's planned rollback.
“The meaning of 'best system of emission reduction' is relevant to the consideration of science issues because it affects the scope of types of measures that might be applicable.”
The third rule recommended for review is EPA's planned measure amending the Obama-era new source performance standards (NSPS) governing oil and gas sources, where the workgroup also questioned the adequacy of the agency's science.
The report also defers recommendations on two other actions in EPA's most recent Unified Agenda -- the definition of “waters of the U.S.” and a rule mandated by the revised Toxic Substances Control Act on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals -- because EPA has yet to provide sufficient information.
Rare Reviews
Such recommendations for review are rare. SAB's process for screening the science underlying planned regulatory actions has long been known for strict criteria that generally ruled actions out of review -- usually because the science EPA relied on was not new, or was being reviewed through another peer review mechanism, or because an action was not deemed so significant as to trigger review.
Ironically, one of the few rules SAB has previously sought -- but ultimately failed -- to review was the Obama administration's planned rule governing GHGs from new and modified power plants over its emissions standard that could have required some new units to install carbon capture and sequestration.
The board eventually accepted agency legal arguments that the sequestration mandate fell outside the rule's scope, and therefore was not eligible for SAB review, though the decision angered Republican critics who pushed legislation to overhaul SAB's membership.
Despite the workgroup's initial criticisms, EPA welcomed any board review. SAB “plays an important role in informing EPA actions on policy and regulatory matters,” the agency tells Inside EPA. “We value the Board’s expertise, and we welcome feedback from the chartered panel on areas in which they are interested in getting additional scientific information that is relevant to the rulemaking process.”
But the new report tasks EPA with providing better information to make informed decisions about actions to review. “The Work Group thanks the EPA for providing information for consideration but emphasizes that the SAB requires more complete and timely information from the agency to make recommendations and decisions regarding the science supporting planned actions. To improve the process for future review of the semi-annual regulatory agenda, the SAB Work Group strongly recommends that EPA enhance descriptions of future planned actions by providing specific information on the peer review associated with the science basis for actions and more description of the scientific and technological bases for the actions.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sab-panel-seeks-rare-review-three-trump-epa-climate-rule-rollbacks
-
Majority of Voters Oppose Trump Offshore Drilling Plan: Poll
May 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
More than half of voters oppose proposed plans by the Trump administration to expand oil and gas drilling off coastal states, according to a poll out Tuesday.
The survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland found that 60 percent of voters surveyed are against the Interior Department's plan to lift a ban on oil drilling along coastlines and expand drilling around Alaska.
Additionally, 70 percent of respondents supported states' rights to request a drilling exemption through a waiver, the study found.
Support for lifting the ban on drilling largely fell along party lines. Democrats and independents opposed lifting the ban by 86 and 60 percent, respectively, and similarly supported granting states waiver authority by 86 and 65 percent, respectively. On the other hand, two-thirds of Republicans surveyed supported lifting the offshore drilling ban, with 56 percent of Republicans supporting state waiver rights.
When the study asked respondents who lived in one of the the 15 coastal U.S. states currently requesting an exemption, 88 percent of Democrats approved of their state's request, as did 50 percent of Republicans.
The poll comes at a time when states are mulling over the authority they have to deny the Trump administration its plan to expand offshore drilling on the coast in order to increase profits from oil and gas royalties.
Currently, most coastal states that would be affected have requested a waiver. Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke admitted in a hearing last month that oil and gas company interest in offshore drilling is also significantly lower than their interest in land drilling.
The poll was conducted online and surveyed 2,003 registered voters from March 9 to 23 with a margin of error of 2.2 percentage points.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/386695-60-percent-of-voters-oppose-the-trump-administrations-offshore
-
April’s U.S. Natural Gas Injections Lowest in 35 Years, Says EIA
May 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
April natural gas storage injections could prove to be the lowest for the fourth month of the year since 1983, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said Tuesday.
In its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA estimated a total net injection of 22 Bcf for the month, leaving inventories 27% below the five-year average for the end of April.
“If confirmed in the monthly data, the April 2018 injection would be the smallest April injection since 1983,” EIA said, attributing the lean monthly build to what it said was the coldest April in 21 years based on preliminary data.
EIA continued to report net storage withdrawals into the third week of April, the longest the withdrawal season has extended into April going back to at least 1994, the agency said.
“Despite inventories falling to more than 500 Bcf below the five-year average by end of April, natural gas prices have remained relatively flat. Similar to price movements in March, natural gas futures prices in April traded in the narrowest range since 1995, with a difference of just 22 cents/MMBtu between the high and low prices,” EIA said.
“In comparison, natural gas futures prices traded in a 41-cent range on average each month in 2017. EIA expects that higher natural gas production during the injection season will offset current low storage levels and keep price movements moderate.”
Thanks to rising production, now projected to average a record 80.5 Bcf/d in 2018 and increase further to 83.3 Bcf/d in 2019, EIA expects inventories to refill at a faster rate than the five-year average through the remainder of the current injection season, leaving inventories at more than 3.5 Tcf by Oct. 31, or about 8% below the five-year average for end-of-October inventories.
EIA also has slightly revised its 2018 natural gas price forecast Tuesday and now expects Henry Hub spot prices to average $3.01/MMBtu this year and $3.11 in 2019, up from an April forecast of $2.99 for 2018 and $3.07 for 2019.
Stronger production should support a growth in natural gas exports for 2018 and 2019, with net exports expected to average 2.0 Bcf/d this year and 4.6 Bcf/d next year from 0.4 Bcf/d in 2017, according to EIA.
Meanwhile, with the summer cooling season just around the corner, EIA’s latest forecast shows the total share of U.S. utility-scale electric generation fueled by natural gas rising from 32% in 2017 to 34% for 2018 and 2019. Coal is expected to see its share slip from 30% last year to 29% in 2018 and 2019. EIA expects nonhydro renewables to account for 11% by 2019, up from just under 10% in 2017.
EIA also noted higher demand for ethane driving a “widening spread between ethane spot prices and natural gas futures prices, which averaged $1.04/MMBtu in April 2018.”
The wider spread incentivizes processors to extract more ethane from the natural gas stream, EIA said, noting that ethane production has increased to an estimated 1.6 million b/d in April from 1.3 million b/d in September 2017. EIA projects ethane production to average 1.7 million b/d for 2018 and 1.9 million b/d in 2019.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114310-aprils-us-natural-gas-injections-lowest-in-35-years-says-eia
-
Massachusetts Rules to Curb Emissions Are Illegal, Power Plants Say
May 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Massachusetts requirements to drive down greenhouse-gas emissions by power plants are illegal and need to be voided, companies argued in a state court May 8.
The rules, issued in August 2017, require power plants to emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide by 2.5 percent per year through 2050.
They are an overreach of the law and shouldn’t be applied to power producers at all, Seth D. Jaffe, an attorney with Foley Hoag LLP who is representing the New England Power Generators Association, said May 8 during oral arguments to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as part of the organization’s appeal of the rules.
The rules are “arbitrary and capricious,” Jaffe told Chief Justice Ralph Gants and the six other justices on the court. The generators association represents Dominion Resources Inc., Emera Energy Inc., PSEG Power LLC and other electricity producers.
Meanwhile, Seth Schofield, a Massachusetts assistant attorney general, said the rules were well thought out and crafted to “be achievable in the real world.”
State SuedThe rules were issued to carry out the emissions-reduction targets of a 2008 state law, the Global Warming Solutions Act, aimed at lowering the state’s contribution to global warming.
The same court ruled in 2016 that the state was required to enforce stricter emissions limits. The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by the Conservation Law Foundation.
According to Jaffe, the law didn’t intend that the power plants be included in the state’s emissions targets because the state already requires generators to lower emissions through their purchase of renewable energy. Just as importantly, the power plants participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which sets a regional limit on tons of carbon dioxide emissions, Jaffe said.
About 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in Massachusetts come from electric power plants based in the state, Jaffe said.
Rules Compatible“The power plants tried to derail RGGI with the same argument. Now, they speak lovingly about it,” Schofield said.
The state Department of Environmental Protection and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, which issued the rules, did take into consideration RGGI and the renewable energy requirements on electric generators when the agency drafted the rules, Schofield said.
The state carbon dioxide emissions caps will complement and not undermine the RGGI and renewables programs, Schofield said.
Neighboring StatesDavid Ismay, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, argued in a friend of the court brief he filed on behalf of the state that Connecticut and Rhode Island are also placing emissions limits on their power plants “at a similar pace and at the same scale” as in Massachusetts.
The three states comprise 80 percent of the population and energy consumed in the region, Ismay said. The efforts of these neighboring states “will undoubtedly have a similarly beneficial, emissions-reducing effect,” he said.
The judges are expected to make a decision within 130 days, although there is no firm deadline, according to the court clerk.
GenOn Energy Inc. is appealing the rules as a plaintiff with the New England Power Generators Association.
Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development L.P. and Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. are intervenor-appellants in the case.
Jaffe is representing the New England Power Generators Association. Schofield is representing state agencies. Ismay is representing the Conservation Law Foundation.
The case is New England Power Generators Ass’n v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Mass., No. 12477, oral argument 5/8/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/massachusetts-rules-to-curb-emissions-are-illegal-power-plants-say
-
E.P.A. Emails Shed Light on Pruitt’s Plan to Debate Climate Change
May 8, 2018 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport
A new trove of documents sheds light on one of the most controversial proposals of Scott Pruitt’s first year as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: the plan to stage public debates on the veracity of climate change, an idea that was ultimately blocked by the White House.
The emails were released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental organization .
While the broad outlines of Mr. Pruitt’s military-style debate plan, known as “red team, blue team,” are already known, the documents show the extent to which the E.P.A., which is the main federal agency charged with protecting human health and the environment, worked with groups like the Heartland Institute, which holds positions on climate change that are far outside the mainstream of scientific opinion, as opposed to the agency’s own chief scientists.
The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank that disputes the established science of human-caused climate change. Other groups included the CO2 Coalition, which promotes the idea that planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution is beneficial to humans. Neither group immediately responded to questions late Tuesday.
Academic scientists said the involvement of these and other organizations went well beyond established norms for scientific debate.
“The idea that the Heartland Institute should be dictating what E.P.A. does on climate science is crazy,” said Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “They do not have scientific expertise.”
In a statement, Ed Chen, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, “Scientists at the EPA who know something about climate science want nothing to do with the Red Team, Blue Team exercise.”
The emails suggest that E.P.A.’s Office of Research and Development, which does most of the agency’s science work, was not active in the discussions around the debates. In one email, a program analyst in the office, Christina Moody, wrote: “We are not involved. The Administrator is the one who wants to do this and I’m guessing his folks are putting it together.”
A spokesman for the E.P.A., Jahan Wilcox, declined to offer a statement on the emails.
Last December, President Trump’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, let it be known that the red team, blue team debates should be considered “dead,” according to people familiar with a White House meeting on the matter that month. After that, however, the emails show Mr. Pruitt continued setting up meetings to discuss the broad themes favored by organizations that question climate science, while not explicitly citing the idea of a debate.EDITORS’ PICKSIn Puerto Rico, Waiting for Power, for Tourists, for the FlowersHow Trump’s Lawyer Built a Business Empire in the ShadowsThe Pleasure and Pain of Being the World’s 5th-Largest Economy
“We were thinking this meeting could be purely informative in nature, and not necessarily in the context of a specific EPA exercise,” Tate Bennett, associate administrator at the E.P.A., wrote to Oren M. Cass, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank that has questioned mainstream climate science, in a Jan. 18 email. Mr. Cass could not be immediately reached for comment late Tuesday.
Mr. Pruitt first publicly floated the idea of having climate science debates — possibly televised — to a group of coal executives last June. And at least a month earlier, in May 2017, the documents show, the E.P.A. staff was working with groups that oppose mainstream science to develop the concept.
“The ‘Red Team’ idea is superb. We will be glad to help the initiative in any way we can,” Rodney W. Nichols, an applied physicist and consultant to the CO2 Coalition, wrote on May 17 to Lincoln Ferguson, Mr. Pruitt’s senior adviser for public affairs.
In a later email to Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, Mark Carr, a consultant who works for the CO2 Coalition, wrote to note that he had discussed the group’s ideas with Mr. Pruitt.
“I’m following up on face-to-face conversations my CO2 Coalition colleagues and I have had with Administrator Pruitt,” Mr. Carr wrote. “As you likely know, our experts are strongly supporting and helping organize the Red/Blue team initiative.”
Mr. Pruitt has made at times conflicting comments about rising global temperatures. He has said that the climate is changing but the extent to which human activity is to blame is unknown, that carbon dioxide is not the primary contributor, and that climate change could be beneficial to humans.
Those points were refuted last November in a sweeping climate change study issued by 13 federal agencies, which found that more than half of the temperature rise in the past half-century can be attributed to human activity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/climate/pruitt-epa-red-blue-team-debate-emails.html
-
N.Y. Attorney General Exit Won’t Stall Rollbacks Fight: Democrats
May 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman and Abby Smith
Democrats lost a chief crusader against Trump administration environmental rollbacks when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) abruptly resigned his post, but other state litigators and environmentalists are downplaying the impact of his exit.
“I don’t think we’re going to miss a beat,” Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) told Bloomberg Environment in an interview.
Frosh is among several attorneys general that have frequently joined Schneiderman in lawsuits against regulatory rollbacks at the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, and other agencies. He said the work is “like playing whack-a-mole” with the Trump administration “going after every environmental protection that exists it seems some days.”
“This work isn’t about one person. It’s about the dedicated women and men in Attorneys General’s Offices around the country who enforce the law and protect people’s rights,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment. “That work continues.”
Schneiderman announced his resignation late May 7, effective the end of May 8, after a report surfaced in The New Yorker in which four women alleged he became physically and emotionally abusive while in romantic relationships. He contested the allegations but said they will “effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time.”
Barbara Underwood, the state’s solicitor general since 2007, is serving as acting attorney general until the New York Legislature fills the position.
Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the Legislature, and they are expected to appoint another Democrat whose positions are closely aligned with Schneiderman’s until the general election is held in November. The state’s primary election is Sept. 13, and the filing deadline for candidates is July 12.
Leading VoiceSchneiderman earned the enmity of the political right for his aggressiveness in taking on the Trump administration. The conservative publication American Spectator called him “an anti-Trump zealot.”
On May 7, hours before The New Yorker’s story broke, Schneiderman led seven other attorneys general to call on the EPA to withdraw its plans to restrict the kinds of science the agency can use to make policy—or to extend the time for public input from 30 to 150 days.
Among the Trump policies that Schneiderman challenged—either on behalf of New York or as a leader of multi-state coalitions—are those concerning offshore drilling, methane emissions, Clean Water Act rules defining waters of the United States, cross-border air pollution from Midwest power plants and factories, Clean Power Plan rollbacks, federal standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles, and energy efficiency in appliances.
Schneiderman was also among the first state officials to investigate Volkswagen AG in 2015 for using technology to cheat air pollution tests adding to U.S. and California probes.
But Maryland’s Frosh said he expects New York to continue its leadership role with Underwood.
“And obviously other attorneys general, myself included, are prepared to step in if there’s more work that needs to be done,” Frosh added.
He pointed to Healey and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) as other leading voices on these issues.
‘Aggressive, Competent’ StaffPeter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York, told Bloomberg Environment he also doesn’t expect much change in the many multi-state lawsuits filed against the Trump administration.
Schneiderman “built up a staff of aggressive and competent assistant attorneys general,” Daniel Riesel, a principal in Sive, Paget & Riesel PC in New York City, told Bloomberg Environment. “Those are the guys that are doing the yeoman’s work.”
Investigators under Schneiderman turned up evidence that Rex Tillerson—who was then Exxon Mobil’s chief executive officer and went on to become President Donald Trump’s first secretary of state—had sent emails under the alias “Wayne Tracker” to comment on climate change issues.
—With assistance from John Herzfeld.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/ny-attorney-general-exit-wont-stall-rollbacks-fight-democrats
-
'Early Notice' of DOJ Referrals May Weaken Regions' Enforcement Leverage
May 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine's mandate that headquarters receive “early notice” of regions' civil cases slated for referral to the Justice Department (DOJ) could weaken regions' leverage in settlement talks, an industry source says, as DOJ referrals are often used as a threat to push for higher penalties in enforcement actions.
The requirement for headquarters review of regional enforcement cases before they are referred to DOJ “makes it harder for EPA to start penalty demands as high as it has in the past,” because companies know regional officials face a new hurdle in referring cases to DOJ, Steve Richmond, of the law firm Beveridge & Diamond, said in a recent interview with Inside EPA.
The memo will likely weaken agency leverage in negotiations because regional enforcement officials have long used the threat of a DOJ referral in settlement talks, he said.
The prospect of a DOJ referral often leads to higher penalties because DOJ is not constrained by the agency penalty guidelines and because certain statutes, like the Clean Water Act, allow DOJ to seek a waiver of statutory caps on penalties.
“Cases can result in higher penalties in court and EPA uses that as leverage in discussions with the regulated community,” Richmond said. “EPA will now need to negotiate within their statutory authority, which for industry is a very appropriate limitation” on the agency's negotiating power.
Additionally, Richmond said that headquarters level reviews of enforcement cases could lead to greater uniformity in the types of cases referred to DOJ and prompt EPA to handle less significant cases themselves for smaller penalties.
One former EPA regional enforcement official, however, dismissed the assertion that Bodine's memo will weaken region's leverage in negotiations, saying industry lawyers always seek to undermine arguments in settlement talks.
Nevertheless, the former EPA source and a second industry attorney agreed with Richmond that Bodine's March 23 memo creates an additional hurdle for regional enforcement staff and will likely drive down referrals to DOJ.
The “thing that is extremely difficult to quantify is the unspoken pressure that doing something like this causes the regions that want to stay in the good graces of headquarters,” the former EPA official says. “The fact that she is asserting her presence and requiring additional coordination could have a chilling effect” on future DOJ referrals.
The source also says that agency enforcement officials might forgo the extensive work that goes into preparing a case for referral to DOJ if they fear that EPA's political leadership is likely to block the referral.
In a statement to Inside EPA, an EPA spokesman disputes any assertion that the memo creates hurdles for DOJ referrals.
"Industry attorneys have misunderstood the purpose of the memorandum, and so their concern that there could be a ‘higher bar to referrals’ is unfounded. The delegations of authority to the regional offices to refer cases to DOJ remain unchanged. The purpose of the memorandum is to provide headquarters with notice of referrals so that we can help the regions and DOJ reduce the time between a referral and a return to compliance," the spokesman says.
Fewer Referrals
In her March 23 memo, “Interim Procedures for Providing Early Notice of Civil Judicial Referrals,” Bodine requires “early notice” of civil cases that headquarters or regional enforcement officials are planning to refer to DOJ, and she argues that the effort will accelerate corrective actions.
“To facilitate early approval and ongoing support of judicial cases, I am asking for early notice of cases recommended for referral to DOJ” Bodine, the assistant administrator in EPA's Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, says in the memo to EPA regional counsels, regional enforcement directors and others.
The second industry attorney says the memo is consistent with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's emphasis on focusing on the most significant cases. But the source adds that political-level reviews will add a layer of bureaucracy to the referral process and likely lead to fewer referrals.
“Time will tell how routinized this process becomes, but you could imagine that [the memo] could have a dampening effect on the number of referrals and the pace at which they get out of the agency,” the source says.
As a result, enforcement staff may decide “to handle more cases administratively, to stay out of this framework so the penalty amounts could be smaller and the injunctive relief measures requested could also be smaller."
Expectations that Bodine's early notification process may drive down DOJ referrals and thereby reduce penalties come as environmental groups and some House Democrats are faulting Pruitt for scaling back enforcement.
The Environmental Integrity Project in a Feb. 15 report found that EPA civil enforcement cases and penalties have dropped by half during the first year of the Trump administration compared to the previous three presidential administrations, a trend that could be exacerbated by proposed fiscal year 2019 budget cuts.
Several House Democrats also cited Bodine's memo on DOJ referrals in an April 24 letter to the Government Accountability Office seeking an investigation of EPA enforcement practices under Pruitt, including efforts to increase state autonomy while creating new hurdles for the agency's regional enforcement staff.
Enforcement Guidance
The memo follows interim guidance Bodine issued Jan. 22 that details plans for deferring to states on enforcement of environmental laws if they have enforcement programs recognized by EPA, part of Pruitt's push for “cooperative federalism,” though the guidance includes exceptions for cases of significant noncompliance.
Former EPA official Kyla Bennett, now with the government whistleblower group Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility, has called the March 23 memo one of a series of “red flags.”
Bennett, who worked in EPA's Region 1 in the 1990s, suggested that Bodine is seeking early warning of looming civil cases so EPA's political leadership can stop referrals to DOJ before they happen.
The industry attorneys say that while the memo's effects remain to be seen, they expect it will lead to greater uniformity in the types of cases referred to DOJ and press staff to handle other cases within the agency.
The second industry attorney says that increased scrutiny of DOJ referrals could lead enforcement officials to be more cautious and not include claims that could be legally vulnerable, also reducing claims referred to DOJ.
While citing greater consistency among referred cases as a possible outcome, the source balked at Bodine's assertion in the memo that early notice will smooth management of litigation.
“These referrals typically take years, so I'm not sure if layering more bureaucracy up front,” will speed the process. “The question is how do they have the resources to do this? It has to be a fairly streamlined process to have the top political official in the region and enforcement be briefed on and understand the referral,” the source says. “That is a resource burden and EPA is not getting a lot of extra resources.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/early-notice-doj-referrals-may-weaken-regions-enforcement-leverage
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested