Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/16/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Businesses Vie for Protection at Hearing on Trump's China Tariffs
May 15, 2018 | The Hill
By Niv Elis
American companies took turns Tuesday beseeching the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to protect them from potential tariffs on China. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Firms Seek Tariff Relief as Us and China Try to Mend Rift
May 16, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post
By Paul Wiseman
Corporate America is seeking relief from President Donald Trump’s threatened tariffs on at least $50 billion in Chinese goods as negotiators seek to prevent a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies. -
(ACC Mentioned) PCMA, ACC Sign MoU
May 16, 2018 | News International
The Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers’ Association (PCMA) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to manage certification of the global Responsible Care Program “RC 14001” within Pakistan, a statement said on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Plastics Resin Producers Commit to Complete Recycle or Recover the Plastic Packaging by 2040
May 16, 2018 | Plastics Insight
By Chetan in Recycling
According to American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics Division, U.S. Plastics Resin Producers has committed to recycle or recover 100 percent of all the plastic packaging by 2040 and to further enhance plastic pellet stewardship by 2022. -
(ACC Mentioned) Wants to Hit 100 Percent Recovery for Plastic Packaging
May 16, 2018 | Resource Recylcling
By Jared Paben and Dan Leif
A major U.S. industry group has announced ambitious long-term goals related to the recycling of plastic packaging. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industrial Packaging Market Worldwide Top Players Revenue and Forecasts to 2025
May 15, 2018 | Investor Opinion
By mohit@coherentmarketinsights.com
Industrial packaging is essential for the packaging of industrial goods and products, during or after the manufacturing process. -
Top Advisors Pan Pruitt's Science Transparency Rule, Seek SAB Review
May 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Top EPA science advisors, including Administrator Scott Pruitt's hand-picked chair of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB)... -
Scott Pruitt on Capitol Hill: What to Expect in Round 3
May 16, 2018 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to field more tough questions from lawmakers about allegations of ethical abuses and excessive spending when he appears Wednesday before a Senate Appropriations Committee panel. -
UK Chemical, Food Industries Worry About Post-Brexit Planning
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ali Qassim
Uncertainty about the U.K.’s future trading relationships as Brexit approaches is causing anxiety among chemical and food-based industries about how to retain customers. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA May Invite Hazard, Exposure Data on Dozens of Chemicals
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA may invite chemical manufacturers and others to submit toxicity and exposure information on dozens of chemicals already on its radar for potential scrutiny. -
US EPA Regulatory Agenda Reflects Commitment to 'Reducing Burdens'
May 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA's planned regulatory activities remain largely focused on statutorily required work, according to its recently released semi-annual agenda. And, according to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, this reflects the Trump administration's... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA IRIS Program Is Hardly The “Gold Standard”
May 16, 2018 | Science 2.0
By Angela Logomasini
Don’t be fooled by those who say the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) sets the gold standard for chemical risk assessments. -
Ohio Republican Asks Pruitt to Release 'Nightmare' Chemicals Study
May 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) became the first Republican to call for the Trump administration to release a controversial chemical assessment that EPA and the White House sought to block. -
San Francisco Lawmakers Propose Bill Banning Plastic Straws
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
San Francisco lawmakers are expected to roll out legislation Tuesday that would ban plastic straws in the city's eateries. -
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Construction to Continue, Dominion Says (1)
May 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
One of the companies behind the Atlantic Coast Pipeline expects construction to move forward as scheduled despite a court ruling that the project received an insufficient endangered species analysis. -
Oil and Gas Leases in Large, Undeveloped Montana Areas Challenged
May 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Bureau of Land Management should have considered how fracking affects clean water and climate when it issued oil and gas leases on 150,000 acres in Montana, environmental groups said. -
BLM Failed to Fully Analyze Mont. Lease Parcels — Lawsuit
May 15, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater and Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups and three landowners are challenging the Bureau of Land Management's decision to offer 287 parcels for oil and gas leasing in Montana, accusing the agency of "turning a blind eye" to the potential impacts of drilling on the region's groundwater and climate. -
New York’s Green Energy Roulette
May 15, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
New York liberals are aflutter over their obliviousness to the abusive boyfriend in their midst. State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman resigned last week after allegations he struck several women he dated. -
Hackers No Match for Doors, Locks Guarding Radioactive Material: NRC
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Hackers can’t get past the “doors, locks, barriers,” and people guarding radioactive materials used by industries and universities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said, dropping plans for a new cybersecurity rule. -
Bill Would Reject Trump Cuts, Boost Rail Funding
May 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
A House spending bill released yesterday ignores many of President Trump's proposed cuts to transportation and infrastructure programs. -
EPA Sends Proposed SO2 NAAQS Review for OMB Review
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent its proposed review of the existing sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review, a rule that is expected to either propose leaving the current standards in place... -
Emails Show Pruitt Pushing 'Red Team-Blue Team' Climate Debate
May 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Anthony Adragna
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had hoped at least twice last year to announce his plans for a controversial red team-blue team debate that would take aim at a federal assessment supporting climate change science, according to newly released emails. -
‘Impossible to Ignore’: Why Alaska Is Crafting a Plan to Fight Climate Change
May 15, 2018 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
In the Trump era, it has mainly been blue states that have taken the lead on climate change policy, with liberal strongholds like California and New York setting ambitious goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. -
Mosaic Fertilizer Mows Down Toxic Air Emissions Claim
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Mosaic Fertilizer beat claims that emissions from one of its Florida plants caused a woman’s respiratory problems and decreased her home’s value.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Businesses Vie for Protection at Hearing on Trump's China Tariffs
May 15, 2018 | The Hill
By Niv Elis
American companies took turns Tuesday beseeching the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to protect them from potential tariffs on China.
The hearings, which will run over three days, are an opportunity for the Trade Representative to get feedback on President Trump’s plan to impose $50 billion in tariffs on China for unfair trade practices under Section 301 of the trade law.
Many businesses that could benefit from the tariffs, such as representatives from American steel companies, were on hand to make the case that their industries deserved protection in the form of import taxes, which would make competing foreign products more expensive.
“We think the impact would be very positive,” said Tim Brightbill, speaking on behalf of SolarWorld Americas, before adding: "USTR may want to consider additional remedies as well, in addition to tariffs.”
“I support the duties by the United States government firmly,” said George Carlisle of AlterSciences, an IT startup.
Owen Herrnstadt, of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, told the committee that tariffs on aerospace parts that failed to make Trump's list would be helpful to his industry.
But other executives came to protest the potentially negative impacts of tariffs on their businesses, spelling out scenarios of gloom and doom should the government follow through on threats to impose the import taxes.
“We would be severely impacted if [Section] 301 tariffs were enacted,” said George Tuttle III of Sanden International, which builds automotive air conditioning.
The tariffs would affect his supply chain, he said, by adding $3.5 million in duty payments to the cost of their components. The process of finding new suppliers would also be lengthy and time-consuming, he added, saying that it could take years to find, vet, test and approve new supply lines.
“At this point we have locked in contracts,” he said. “The company will have to eat the additional duties, and that’s going to affect their staffing levels.”
All told, he predicted, tariffs would force the company to lay off 39 people initially and delay or cancel planned investments.
The suggested trade actions have put businesses in a bind. Many are frustrated that China engages in unfair trade practices, particularly when it comes to intellectual property theft. But they also harbor concerns that imposing punitive tariffs would spark a trade war, send prices soaring and disrupt business, without guaranteeing any results.
“Enabling a retaliatory trade war will only advantage China’s growing industry at the expense of American production,” said Edward Brzytwa of the American Chemistry Council.
“Our preferred pathway to solving these problems is constructive, thorough, and sustained negotiations focused on pragmatic solutions to the challenges of China’s mercantilist policies,” he added.
Indeed, negotiations between the U.S. and China on how to address some of the trade difficulties, which failed to yield concrete results last week, continued this week.
The outcome of the negotiations is far from certain, and may not please all the companies with a stake in the results. President Trump turned heads when he tweeted support for Chinese company ZTE, which had been forced to shutter its doors in the U.S. due to concern over intellectual property and security.
Trump is also in the process of trying to hammer out an updated NAFTA agreement in time for congressional fast-track approval. He also wants to strike a deal with major trade partners such as the European Union over steel and aluminum tariffs.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/387830-businesses-vie-for-protection-at-hearing-on-trumps-china-tariffs
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Firms Seek Tariff Relief as Us and China Try to Mend Rift
May 16, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post
By Paul Wiseman
Corporate America is seeking relief from President Donald Trump’s threatened tariffs on at least $50 billion in Chinese goods as negotiators seek to prevent a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.
Best Buy wants televisions to be spared from the tariffs. Sanden International (USA) of Wylie, Texas, warns it will have to lay off 39 of its 431 workers if 25 percent tariffs take effect on the components it uses to make car air-conditioning compressors. SABIC, a petrochemical manufacturer, wants some building materials struck from the tariff list.
As the U.S. government began three days of hearings on the tariffs Tuesday, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He traveled to Washington to seek a resolution to the trade dispute. A similar high-level U.S. delegation made a trip to Beijing earlier this month and returned empty-handed.
Trump raised hopes for the latest talks by striking a surprisingly conciliatory tone toward China, which he has long accused of predatory business practices that robbed American jobs and swelled Washington’s trade deficit with Beijing. Trump offered a lifeline to ZTE, a Chinese telecom company that is fighting for survival after being hit with sanctions this month by the U.S. Commerce Department
Trump tweeted Sunday that he was working with President Xi Jinping to put ZTE “back in business, fast” and save tens of thousands of Chinese jobs — a stance that drew an immediate outcry from many Republicans and Democrats alike.
Trump had campaigned for the presidency on a vow to strike a much tougher trade stance than his recent predecessors, who, he argued, had agreed to deals that gave an unfair advantage to America’s competitors. The president has pointed to the U.S. trade deficit ($566 billion last year) as a sign of economic weakness caused by disastrous agreements and abusive behavior by China and other countries.
He has proposed tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports to punish Beijing for forcing American companies to hand over technology in exchange for access to China’s vast market. China fired back by targeting $50 billion in American products, including soybeans and small aircraft, for potential retaliatory tariffs. Trump then ordered the U.S. trade representative to look for an additional $100 billion in Chinese goods to tax.
The prospect of an escalating trade war has rattled financial markets and alarmed many businesses. The American Chemistry Council has predicted that by driving up prices and killing sales, the tariffs would wipe out 24,000 jobs at the companies that make chemicals and the companies that use them.
Yet some trade analysts have suggested that Trump’s unexpected ZTE overture could give U.S. and Chinese negotiators something to work with. Commerce and ZTE last year settled charges that the Chinese company sold sensitive telecommunications equipment to Iran and North Korea in violation of U.S. sanctions. ZTE agreed to plead guilty and pay about $1 billion in fines.
Commerce last month accused ZTE of violating the agreement and blocked the company from importing American components for seven years. The department said ZTE had misled regulators: Instead of disciplining all employees involved in the sanctions violations, Commerce asserted, ZTE had paid some of them full bonuses and then lied about it.
The two countries are reportedly attempting a swap: Relief for ZTE in return for Beijing dropping plans to impose tariffs on U.S. farm products.
“The president is transaction-oriented,” said Christine McDaniel, senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. “He and his team are working very hard to make a deal ... That (ZTE) tweet maybe teed up the visit by Mr. Liu.”
William Perry of the Seattle law firm Harris Bricken, who runs the US China Trade War blog, said he thought the president has belatedly realized that a trade war would hurt some of his staunchest supporters — farmers in the American heartland who rely on exports. It might also hurt his Republican Party in the November congressional elections.
“He’s worried about the midterms and the impact of his trade policy on farmers,” Perry said.
Still, Trump’s ZTE tweet drew fire on Capitol Hill from some Democrats and Republicans.
“It’s the wrong time to cut a deal, and this would be a terrible deal,” said Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.
Rubio said China won’t play by the rules. He said the Trump administration has been given an historic opportunity to place the U.S.’s relationship with China in proper balance. He said one misstep could blow the whole thing apart and “doom generations of Americans to living in a world, not one with a powerful China, one with a dominant China and a declining America.”
“... If they win this battle on ZTE, the world will notice and the message it will send is that when push comes to shove this administration is no different than the others,” Rubio said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York lambasted Trump for going easy on a company that violated U.S. sanctions.
“He talks a big game on China,” Schumer said. “He promises to be tough, and yet this weekend on the toughest thing he did (harsh sanctions on ZTE), the thing that woke the Chinese up ... the president backed off.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2386e53a-58c1-11e8-9889-07bcc1327f4b_story.html?utm_term=.83a4205b4350
-
(ACC Mentioned) PCMA, ACC Sign MoU
May 16, 2018 | News International
The Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers’ Association (PCMA) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to manage certification of the global Responsible Care Program “RC 14001” within Pakistan, a statement said on Tuesday.
The MoU was signed by Zubair F Tufail, chairman and Iqbal Kidwai, secretary general of PCMA, whereas, on behalf of the ACC, Debra Phillips, vice president of its Sustainability and Market Outreach Division signed thedocument.
PCMA secretary general said responsible care was the global chemical industry’s joint programme for safety of environment and human health, through which the participating national and regional trade associations had agreed to conform to the International Council of Chemical Associations’ (ICCA) Responsible Care Fundamental Features and established timelines for implementation.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/317175-pcma-acc-sign-mou
-
May 16, 2018 | Plastics Insight
By Chetan in Recycling
According to American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics Division, U.S. Plastics Resin Producers has committed to recycle or recover 100 percent of all the plastic packaging by 2040 and to further enhance plastic pellet stewardship by 2022.
Three goals have been identified by the members of ACC’s Plastics Division for capturing, recycling, and recovering plastics, which include: (1) re-using, recycling or recovering all the 100% of plastics packaging by 2040, (2) to make 100% of plastics packaging recyclable or recoverable by 2030 and (3) participation of 100% of the U.S. manufacturing sites operated by ACC’s Plastics Division members in Operation Clean Sweep-Blue by 2020 and with all of their manufacturing sites across North America involved by 2022.
Steve Russell, ACC’s vice president of plastics, said, “We are embracing the drive toward a circular economy for plastics because it helps demonstrate our overarching commitment to sustainable materials management. In setting these goals our industry is publicly affirming our vision of the future we want for safe, sanitary plastic packaging and our intention to get there quickly.” He further, added, “Together with our value chain partners we intend to transition to increasingly circular systems for designing, manufacturing, recycling and recovering our plastic packaging resources.”
Plastic resin producers have planned to concentrate on six key areas to achieve the goals. It include: designing new products for greater efficiency, recycling and reuse; developing new technologies and systems for collecting, sorting, recycling and recovering materials; making it easier for more consumers to participate in recycling and recovery programs; expanding the types of plastics collected and repurposed; aligning products with key end markets; and spreading awareness about the used plastics that are valuable resources awaiting their next use.
U.S. Plastic resin producers lead on stewardship initiatives and are building new coalitions and business models to help to help optimize a range of environmental, economic and societal outcomes.
https://www.plasticsinsight.com/u-s-plastics-resin-producers-commit-to-complete-recycle-or-recover-the-plastic-packaging-by-2040/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wants to Hit 100 Percent Recovery for Plastic Packaging
May 16, 2018 | Resource Recylcling
By Jared Paben and Dan Leif
A major U.S. industry group has announced ambitious long-term goals related to the recycling of plastic packaging.
In a release issued last week, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics Division laid out the following targets:
· 100 percent of plastics packaging is reused, recycled or recovered by 2040.
· 100 percent of plastics packaging is recyclable or recoverable by 2030.
· 100 percent of the U.S. manufacturing sites operated by ACC’s Plastics Division members will participate in Operation Clean Sweep-Blue by 2020, with all of their manufacturing sites across North America involved by 2022.
Operation Clean Sweep-Blue is a voluntary campaign designed to ensure plastic-handling operations take steps to reduce the loss of pellet, flake or powder into the environment.
“In setting these goals our industry is publicly affirming our vision of the future we want for safe, sanitary plastic packaging and our intention to get there quickly,” Steve Russell, ACC’s vice president of plastics, stated in the press release.
Hitting 100 percent recovery will require major movement on the part of the wider plastics industry. For instance, the U.S. plastic bottle recycling rate was 29.7 percent in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available. That represented a decrease of 1.4 percentage points from the year before.
The U.S. EPA pegged the nation’s overall plastics recycling rate for 2014 at just 9.5 percent (that number includes all type of plastics, not just packaging).
Russell and Rick Wagner, global sustainability manager at Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, held a press briefing on the announcement on May 9.
On the call, Russell said that ACC is defining “recovery” to include a variety of methods, including pyrolysis, gasification systems and plastics-to-fuel technologies. He specifically mentioned Hefty’s EnergyBag program. “There are similar programs that will help communities collect and process materials that are not traditionally recycled,” Russell said.
He added that a variety of tools may be needed to bring more plastics into the recovery system. “Quite frankly, there may be a role for policy here,” he said. “We would prefer industry-led or voluntary initiatives. … We have previously not gone out and supported [extended producer responsibility] schemes. That remains our position, but we are open to thinking about ways the communities could finance growth in their systems and enable technology breakthroughs with our investment.”
According to an ACC press release, plastics producers will focus on multiple strategies to meet their goals. They’ll focus on designing new products for greater efficiency, recycling and reuse; developing new technologies and systems for collecting, sorting, recycling and recovering materials; making it easier for more consumers to participate in recycling and recovery programs; expanding the types of plastics collected and repurposed; aligning products with key end markets; and expanding awareness that used plastics are valuable resources awaiting their next use.
On the call, Russell said the time had come for his group to take a more active role on the recycling issue.
“We’ve been working for a long time at improving recycling, and we are dissatisfied at the rate it’s grown,” Russell said.
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/05/15/acc-wants-to-hit-100-percent-recovery-for-plastic-packaging/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industrial Packaging Market Worldwide Top Players Revenue and Forecasts to 2025
May 15, 2018 | Investor Opinion
By mohit@coherentmarketinsights.com
Industrial packaging is essential for the packaging of industrial goods and products, during or after the manufacturing process. Industrial packaging is different from others types of packaging. It mainly focusses on the strength and thickness of the materials used along with secured lock mechanisms and closures. Various industries use high-quality packaging to meet international packaging standards of providing protective packaging. Industrial goods are often bulky, heavy, and sensitive to hazards or external contacts, thus industrial packaging involves the use of different material such as stainless steel, wood, and plastics.
One of the major factors propelling the global growth of this market is rapidly developing construction industry. According to Coherent Market Insights report, the global construction industry is projected to exhibit a CAGR of 5.8% from 2016 to 2021. Moreover, increasing trend of recyclable and biodegradable packaging materials such as plastics and paper & paperboard materials, along with increasing consumption of packaged food items coupled with growing industrialization in the emerging economies such as India, China, and Brazil has propelled the market growth. Advancement in technology such as nanotechnology in printing and films shows new opportunities for the growth of industrial packaging.
Request a sample copy of this report:https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/insight/request-sample/883
However, fluctuating prices of the raw materials used for the manufacturing of industrial packaging products, lack of marketing, branding, and distribution channels, lack of 100% commitments to the quality standards, and unavailability of skilled manpower are some of the major factors restraining the market growth.
Asia Pacific holds the largest market share in global industrial packaging market. It is projected to exhibit the fastest CAGR of 7.4% during the forecast period. The emerging economies in Asia Pacific such as India, China, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand are expected to propel the growth of industrial packaging market in the near future. Furthermore, industries such as petrochemicals, automotive, agriculture, oil and gas, food and beverages, chemicals, and metal fabrication have a high requirement for transportation, safe handling, and storage. These factors augments the market growth in Asia Pacific.
Among materials, plastics segment held the dominant position in 2016, with 45.0% market share. Availability of numerous grades of plastic, easy handling due to light weight, and due to its chemical inert property, are some of the major factors driving the demand for this segment.. Paper and paperboard accounted as the second largest segment in 2016, with 29.12% market share. This is mainly owing to its eco-friendly and biodegradable materials, which are used by many end-use industries.
Among the end users, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries has the largest market share in the industrial packaging market, owing to high adoption rate of industrial packaging products. According to American Chemistry Council (ACC), due to availability of cheap and abundant ethane and shale gas, there is boom in chemical industry in U.S, with starting of 294 new projects by 2017. According to U.S International Trade Administration, the world market of pharmaceuticals witness a growth rate of 4.9%, and is projected to grow from US$ 1 trillion to US$ 1.3 trillion from 2015 to 2020. Thus, increase in the demand for packaging of chemical and pharmaceutical goods is expected to drive the growth of industrial packaging market over the forecast period.
Plastic held the dominant position in 2016 and is expected to retain its dominance during the forecast period. Packaging holds a revenue of US$ 25.5 billion and is projected to exhibit a CAGR of 5.4% over the forecast period.
Asia Pacific held the dominant position in the global industrial packaging market in 2016 and is expected to retain its dominance throughout the forecast period.
Major Players in the Global Industrial Packaging Market
Some of the major players operating in the global Industrial packaging market include AmeriGlobe LLC, Beacon Converters, Bemis Company, Aphena Pharma Solutions, Cascades Inc., International Paper Company, United Drug Plc, and Sigma Plastics Group.
https://opinioninvestor.com/industrial-packaging-market-worldwide-top-players-revenue-and-forecasts-to-2025/546903/
-
Top Advisors Pan Pruitt's Science Transparency Rule, Seek SAB Review
May 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Top EPA science advisors, including Administrator Scott Pruitt's hand-picked chair of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB), are strongly criticizing the administrator's controversial plan to require only publicly available research to justify its regulations, charging it will undermine rules' integrity and was developed without adequate review.
“The proposed rule does not include any assessment of the impact of data restrictions on existing or future regulatory programs. Without access to the restricted data, regulatory programs could become more or less stringent than they otherwise would be, with consequences for both regulatory costs and benefits,” an SAB work group said in a May 12 memo recommending the full SAB review the measure.
The work group even warns that the proposed rule “could have the effect of removing legal, ethical, and peer-reviewed studies of health effects as sources to support the agency’s regulatory efforts,” and suggests several steps to ease the rule's limits to allow for the use of confidential data.
And echoing concerns from EPA staff, environmentalists, states and Democratic lawmakers, the memo warns that the measure was developed without adequate review from the public, the scientific community and others and calls for the full SAB to review the measure.
“Although the proposed rule cites several valuable publications that support enhanced transparency, the precise design of the rule appears to have been developed without a public process for soliciting input from the scientific community,” the memo says.
“The proposed rule deals with issues of scientific practice and proposes constraints that the agency may apply to the use of scientific studies in particular contexts,” the memo says. “As such, this rule deals with a myriad of scientific issues for which the Agency should seek expert advice from [SAB],” it adds.
The work group’s May 12 memo is scheduled to be considered by the chartered SAB at its next meeting, slated for May 31-June 1 in Washington, D.C. The board is already scheduled to consider an earlier work group report that calls for the SAB to review Trump EPA plans to roll back three Obama-era climate rules -- for new and existing power plants, as well as new and modified oil and gas sources -- because they concluded EPA may not use adequately peer-reviewed science to justify the plans.
Historically, SAB work groups reviewing EPA regulatory agendas rarely find actions that meet their strict criteria to merit further review, but such calls appear to have become more common.
The latest recommendation for SAB review was issued quickly, weeks after Pruitt signed the measure April 24.
The full board -- with its slate of new members selected by Pruitt -- could reject the work group’s advice, but the recommendation still raises the heat on an already controversial proposal.
And while SAB's earlier work group recommending review of the three climate rules contained few Pruitt appointees, the updated membership of the work group recommending full SAB action on the science transparency rule includes its new chairman, Michael Honeycutt, a top Texas state risk assessor, who Pruitt appointed to the post late last year.
The work group also includes John Graham, another Pruitt appointee who led the Bush administration's White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Graham was instrumental in advancing a controversial risk assessment guidance for federal agencies until it was forced into a critical National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review, which in 2007 recommended that it be dropped.
In a statement to Inside EPA the agency replied, SAB “plays an important role in informing EPA actions on policy and regulatory matters. 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.”
Proposed Rule
The proposed rule generally bars EPA staff from basing regulatory actions on any science where the underlying data and modeling is not publicly available, though the plan allows the administrator to waive the requirements. The concept is based on controversial legislation long championed by House science committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), which twice passed the House but has failed to advance in the Senate.
Critics charge it is intended largely to block the use of long-standing confidential medical studies that the agency has relied on when setting strict air quality and other health-based standards, though the chemical and pesticide industries have also raised concerns it could affect the use of confidential business information.
Environmentalists are especially concerned that the proposal targets the agency's long-time use of strict, default linear dose-response models, which Republicans and industry groups say result in stricter rules than are needed.
Many observers have warned the measure faces significant legal hurdles, including vague or undefined terminology, statutory mandates likely at odds with the rule and potential violations of administrative law.
The proposal was published in the Federal Register April 30 for a 30-day public comment period, though environmentalists, states and Democratic senators have urged the agency to withdraw the proposed rule to consult with the National Academy of Sciences and to extend the comment period by as much as 150 days to allow for such NAS consultation.
EPA staff has also warned that the measure was rushed through intra-agency review without the usual staff and program office input that such significant measures usually receive. As a result, they say it is unclear whether the agency will be able to finalize the proposal in its current form because officials did not create an agency-wide group that would be able to review and respond to the thousands of comments the agency is likely to receive.
The SAB work group memo echoes much of the criticisms, noting that the proposed rule “would limit the use of science based on human subject data and would impose requirements for the analysis of dose-response relationships widely used in risk assessments across a wide range of agency programs.”
While acknowledging the value of transparency in underlying data, modeling and approaches, as well as the efforts in multiple science fields to advance transparency, the work group adds that it is not always possible, especially for studies published in the past. “There are also sensitive situations where public access may infringe on legitimate confidentiality and privacy interests, and where exceptions from complete public access may be appropriate,” the work group writes.
The work group adds that the proposed rule “fails to mention that there are various ways to assess the validity of prior epidemiologic studies without public access to data and analytic methods” and “oversimplifies” its argument that it is easy to address confidentiality concerns through existing methods, such as redaction.
And, the memo criticizes the draft rule's efforts to make transparent “the dose response data and models that underlie what we are calling 'pivotal regulatory science'.” Rule language on dose-response modeling appears to target EPA's longstanding cancer risk assessment guidance, which as a default directs agency risk assessors to use linear modeling -- assuming no safe exposure -- unless there is biological information directing otherwise.
The work group says that the proposed rule's “requirement of the consideration of multiple dose-response models should explicitly state that this consideration is based on information relevant to the selection of the most scientifically-appropriate model(s) such as biological plausibility, mode of action, or mechanism of action. Deviations from the use of default models should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and have adequate scientific justification for use of an alternative model better supported by the chemical-specific data.”
The work group also suggests several other steps EPA take to soften the proposal, including limiting its application to future studies rather than those already designed or published.
“It might be easier to accomplish the rule’s objectives if the focus were on future studies rather than on studies that are already designed and published with terms that make complete transparency difficult or impossible to accomplish.”
“It might also be easier if the rule took into account reasonable areas for accommodation or exception in situations for which it is not possible to release a data set publicly either entirely, or without revision, for legitimate reasons pertaining to the use, for example, of human subject data,” the memo adds.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/top-advisors-pan-pruitts-science-transparency-rule-seek-sab-review
-
Scott Pruitt on Capitol Hill: What to Expect in Round 3
May 16, 2018 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to field more tough questions from lawmakers about allegations of ethical abuses and excessive spending when he appears Wednesday before a Senate Appropriations Committee panel.
The hearing, to discuss the agency’s budget for the coming year, will be the first opportunity for senators to ask Mr. Pruitt about his first-class travel, foreign trips organized by lobbyists, renting a $50-a-night condo from a lobbyist with business before the agency and other issues that have become the subject of 12 different federal investigations. It follows appearances by Mr. Pruitt last month before two House panels.
While Mr. Pruitt’s last grilling from Congress was blistering, critics and supporters alike say the administrator walked away mostly unscathed. Republicans said they were largely satisfied by Mr. Pruitt’s answers, and President Trump has continued to express his support.
Mr. Pruitt’s champions said they expected him come through his Senate inquiry intact as well.
“I just think that President Trump has affirmed time and time again that he’s still very supportive of Scott Pruitt,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, which promotes fossil fuels. “Barring any shocking revelation, I think this drip, drip, drip of information is not likely to cause his ouster.”
Here’s what to watch for as Mr. Pruitt takes the stand at 9:30 a.m. before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the environment.What the Democrats are likely to ask
Democrats intend, as they did last month, to throw the kitchen sink at Mr. Pruitt. And they have plenty to ask about.
In the three weeks since Mr. Pruitt testified before the two House committees, the public has learned that the administrator has allowed lobbyists and Washington power brokers to arrange his foreign travel, that Mr. Pruitt’s aggressive effort to shroud his meetings and speaking engagements in secrecy was done primarily to avoid uncomfortable and unexpected questions and not out of a concern for security as his staff had claimed, and that E.P.A. aides took steps to conceal a dinner Mr. Pruitt held in Rome with Cardinal George Pell last year after they learned that the cardinal had been charged with sexual abuse.
That’s in addition to a raft of other longstanding questions about Mr. Pruitt’s first-class travel and the need for a 24-hour security detail of at least 20 people that has so far cost more than $3 million.What Republicans are expected to talk about
This one is tougher. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, chairwoman of the appropriations committee’s environment panel, called for Mr. Pruitt to testify at a time when Republican support for Mr. Pruitt appeared to be on a downswing. Since then, however, Republicans have tamped down criticism of the E.P.A. chief.EDITORS’ PICKSSurest Way to Face Marijuana Charges in New York: Be Black or Hispanic45 Stories of Sex and Consent on CampusKeyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll
One notable exception is Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
Mr. Grassley on Tuesday threatened to be the first Republican to call on Mr. Pruitt to resign, citing his frustration with the administrator over waivers the E.P.A. has given to small fuel refineries exempting them from a federal ethanol mandate on the nation’s gasoline. While Mr. Grassley is not a member of the committee that Mr. Pruitt will face, his concerns are shared by other corn-state Republicans and could become an issue at the hearing.
If past is prologue, though, Mr. Pruitt is likely to hear Republicans express concerns about his stewardship of E.P.A. in their opening statements but mostly draw attention to the regulatory rollbacks that they, and many of their constituents, support.What Pruitt is expected to say
Last time around, Mr. Pruitt repeatedly shifted blame to members of his staff for the spending and ethical issues dogging him.
He said his chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, had been solely responsible for giving $72,000 in raises to two aides who previously worked with Mr. Pruitt in Oklahoma. He said career staff members had signed off on spending $43,000 to install a secure phone booth, an expense that was ultimately found to violate federal law. And he said his security detail had insisted he fly first class for his own protection.
In one exchange with Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Mr. Pruitt had to be asked three times if he was the E.P.A. administrator before answering in the affirmative, but avoided answering whether the buck stopped with him.
“That’s not a yes or no answer,” Mr. Pruitt replied then. It’s a safe bet Mr. Pruitt will continue to tread as carefully Wednesday, and the E.P.A. spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, said in a statement that Mr. Pruitt remained focused on policy.
“From advocating to leave the Paris Accord, working to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States, declaring a war on lead and cleaning up toxic Superfund sites, Administrator Pruitt is focused on advancing President Trump’s agenda of regulatory certainty and environmental stewardship,” Mr. Wilcox said.Where the president stands
President Trump has remained steadfast in his support for Mr. Pruitt, despite the arguments of several White House aides — including John F. Kelly, the president’s chief of staff — that the administrator should be fired. Asked last week if he still had confidence in Mr. Pruitt, the president replied, “I do.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-hearing.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock
-
UK Chemical, Food Industries Worry About Post-Brexit Planning
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ali Qassim
Uncertainty about the U.K.’s future trading relationships as Brexit approaches is causing anxiety among chemical and food-based industries about how to retain customers.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it has set plans through December 2020 offering guidance to business on departing the European Union. The target Brexit date is March 2019.
“We have already agreed to the terms of an implementation period that will provide businesses with the continuity they need to prepare and thrive after we leave the EU,” a department spokesman said.
But representatives of the chemical, food and drink, and farming industries—three of the U.K.'s top five manufacturing sectors—don’t see it that way.
Their anxiety stems from the fear that they will lose market access, because regulations framed by EU legislation are central to tariff policy, exports, labor availability, and trade, according to a critical May 4 report from the U.K. Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.
Useful MechanismsAs part of the EU, food and chemical businesses benefit mainly from the Common Single Market—which allows free movement of goods without any regulatory obstacles—and the Customs Union, which ensures tariff-free trade and no burdensome customs checks at the border.
Once the U.K. leaves the EU, the prospect of “any tariffs or checks and inspections for movements of food and drink would have a major impact,” Dominic Goudie, policy manager for exports, trade, and supply chain at the Food and Drink Federation, told Bloomberg Environment.
The federation represents about 19 percent of the country’s total manufacturing sector, representing 7,000 businesses, including multinational firms such as Coca-Cola European Partners PLC, Mars Drinks, and Mondelez International.
Differences in regulations after Brexit would be damaging, given that around 95 percent of U.K. law is in the form of EU regulations and more than 70 percent of U.K. trade in food and non-alcoholic drinks is with the EU’s neighboring 27 markets, Goudie said.
Regulatory DivergenceThe federation is seeking as little divergence as possible with those EU regulations until it is confident that the U.K. government and neighboring markets have the right mechanisms to ensure that the new regulations won’t hurt trade, Goudie said.
The Chemicals Industries Association—whose multinational members include Dow Chemical Company Ltd, BASF plc, and BP Chemicals—also seeks continued alignment with EU rules.
Stephen Elliott, the association’s chief executive, told Bloomberg Environment that departing from these rules would duplicate efforts for companies, as well as jeopardize a decade’s worth of investment to comply with sweeping EU-wide chemical rules.
Because of the uncertainty about Brexit, the chemicals sector fears that growth and maintenance investment is being held back, Elliott said.
About 60 percent of the U.K.’s chemical exports, worth an annual 50 billion pounds ($67.7 billion), go to the EU. The association is lobbying to retain a meaningful associate membership status with the European Chemicals Agency.
Such a status would ensure that both U.K. and EU companies would undergo one series of approvals for chemicals they manufacture and trade, Elliott said.
Concern Over New IT SystemsThe anxiety among business extends to information support.
In its report, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted concerns over the potential for disruption to the agri-food and chemical industries if new information-technology systems aren’t ready in time.
If the U.K. government distances itself from the EU’s regulatory system and reaches no agreement on tariffs—a scenario commonly described as a “hard” Brexit—the U.K. will need to introduce IT systems to support import controls for trade in animals as well as new chemical products, the report said.
Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers Union, told Bloomberg Environment her lobby group was “understandably concerned about government’s capability to deliver the huge amount of work that preparations for Brexit will require.”
The U.K.’s agriculture sector provides 61 percent of the raw materials for the wider U.K. agri-food industry worth around 108 billion pounds ($146.3 billion) of gross value, she said.
The Agricultural Industries Confederation, which represents animal feed, crop protection, fertilizer, seed and grain companies, echoed Batters’ concerns.
“There is a real danger that the detail will not be concluded in time to allow the necessary IT and payments structure to be developed and robustly tested,” said Paul Rooke, the confederation’s head of external policy.
Perishable Goods DelaysRooke also raised concerns about delays of perishable goods at ports on both sides of the English Channel.
Ed Barker, senior policy adviser for the U.K.’s National Pig Association—the trade group for British commercial pig producers—said a hard Brexit would mean that all imports and exports would have to go through physical inspections at border inspection posts. That, he said, would severely disrupt trade.
Currently, U.K. pork producers can use the EU’s Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES), which covers all sanitary requirements on intra-EU trade and importation of animals, embryos, food, feed and plants.
“It can only be used by EU Member States to track livestock and only covers EU countries, although third countries can provide documentation to go into the system,” he said.
After Brexit, “the UK would therefore have to create a similar tracing system to track stock imported and exported, or otherwise negotiate with the EU our continued use and access to the TRACES system,” he said. “Either way, we are not aware of Government contingency plans in this area, or in ensuring that high biosecurity standards are maintained at points of import.”
The Fresh Produce Consortium’s Chief Executive Nigel Jenney—which represents 700 businesses selling fruit, vegetables, and cut flowers—is urging sufficient testing of the current electronic Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight system. The system manages the movement of goods across EU borders where the moved material belongs to a U.K. party.
“The system will need enough capacity to manage the potential for a huge increase in applications,” Jenney said.
Maintaining Access to EU WorkersFor the chemical sector, the labor issue is a serious concern, as Brexit could limit recruitment, according to Elliott. In the same way, maintenance teams in U.K.-based companies need the ability to travel to other units in the supply chain based in the EU, he said.
“EU nationals make up around a third of the U.K. food and drink supply chain’s permanent workforce, employed at every skill level,” Goudie said.
Similarly, labor restrictions are concerns for pig and other meat industries.
“We know that abattoirs, processors, vet businesses and hauliers all rely heavily on EU labor across their supply chains,” Barker said. Poultry producer association officials added that 60 percent of their workforce is made up of EU nationals.
For the U.K.’s fresh-produce industry, temporary labor is vital for harvesting, production, and beyond, Jenney said.
“A flexible scheme is needed for the entire supply chain which provides access to labor across a range of skills levels,” Jenney said.
‘Clock is Ticking’In its report, the Public Accounts Committee said the government is too busy drawing up several alternative post-Brexit scenarios to provide effective guidance to businesses on departing the EU.
“The clock is ticking and there is still no clarity about what Brexit will mean in practice,” the committee’s chair, Meg Hillier of the Labour Party, said in a statement that accompanied the report.
The lawmakers urged the department to publish more explicit guidance information and timelines.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/uk-chemical-food-industries-worry-about-post-brexit-planning
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA May Invite Hazard, Exposure Data on Dozens of Chemicals
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA may invite chemical manufacturers and others to submit toxicity and exposure information on dozens of chemicals already on its radar for potential scrutiny.
“EPA is considering opening dockets for these chemicals in order to collect relevant information needed for prioritization and risk evaluation,” the agency said May 14 in an emailed response to questions that Bloomberg Environment submitted.
If a chemical is deemed to pose an unreasonable risk, the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 require the EPA to take regulatory or other actions to prevent those risks.
About 80 chemicals are on what the Environmental Protection Agency calls its work plan list.
TSCA requires the agency to use its work plan list to decide which chemicals to evaluate for public health and environmental risks. The reasoning was this list includes chemicals, such as lead, that have toxic or other concerning characteristics.
Open Dockets, Attorneys Say“It would be very useful for EPA to open dockets on the work plan chemicals so companies along the value chain can plan for these evaluations by gathering information and evaluating data gaps,” Martha E. Marrapese, an attorney with Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment. “Early information gathering will help the development of science policy around how hazard and exposure will be assessed.”
Opening the dockets also would help the EPA meet the statute’s tight deadlines, said Marrapese, whose law firm works with chemical manufacturers and companies that purchase chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council also would support the EPA opening dockets on the work plan chemicals, Christina Franz, an attorney with the council, told Bloomberg Environment.
“The information submitted would likely not only inform EPA’s ultimate risk evaluations, but also may help inform which work plan chemicals are higher priority for risk evaluation than others,” Franz said.
The Washington-based chemistry council is the primary trade association representing chemical manufactures including AkzoNobel NV, Eastman Chemical Co., and W. R. Grace & Co.
Deadlines ApproachThe EPA already is evaluating the risks of 10 chemicals from its work plan list.
TSCA requires the agency to select any additional chemicals after a screening process, known as prioritization, that quickly examines their hazards and exposures.
At the end of that process, the agency can designate a chemical in one of two ways: The chemical could either be a high priority for risk evaluation, meaning the EPA must start to assess that chemical within six months, or a low priority, meaning the chemical is set aside unless new information suggests it poses a greater risk than previously realized.
The EPA must begin that screening process early next year to meet one of the statute’s many deadlines.
By December 2019, the agency must have identified 20 high-priority and 20 low-priority chemicals.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-may-invite-hazard-exposure-data-on-dozens-of-chemicals
-
US EPA Regulatory Agenda Reflects Commitment to 'Reducing Burdens'
May 16, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA's planned regulatory activities remain largely focused on statutorily required work, according to its recently released semi-annual agenda. And, according to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, this reflects the Trump administration's "commitment to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens".
Along with other federal agencies, the EPA published the status of proposed and final agency actions in its spring regulatory agenda. Highlights include:
· TSCA activities are largely in keeping with requirements put in place by the 2016 amendments to the law;
· the rule governing the collection of TSCA fees from industry is scheduled for finalisation in August. The agency recently extended the deadline for its fees proposal to 24 May, to allow additional time to evaluate the impact of changing the small business definition under the law;
· the agency will be looking in the autumn to propose a rule to revise reporting requirements for the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. This may include amended obligations for inorganic byproducts. A final rule is expected in September 2019 – ahead of the next 2020 CDR reporting period;
· a final TSCA mercury reporting rule is expected next month, consistent with the law's 22 June deadline. It is currently under review at the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB); and
· a proposed procedural rule for reviewing confidential business information (CBI) is scheduled for release next January, to be finalised at the end of 2019. This appears consistent with the statutory requirement to firm up the rule, one year after it issues a final TSCA inventory. The agency has said it will issue the updated inventory about two months after the optional processor reporting period ends in October.
The agenda also includes the agency's controversial 'science transparency' proposal. No final rule date is included.
Deferred action
Like the last semi-annual update, three TSCA section 6 proposed rules – which would see bans or restrictions on certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) – have been relegated to "long-term actions". This list contains actions which the agency does not plan to complete within a year, and may include those it will abandon work on.
The EPA, however, recently reversed course on stalling its methylene chloride paint stripping rule, when it signalled its intent to finalise the proposal "shortly". The agency's announcement came on the tails of a meeting Mr Pruitt had with the families of young men who have died using the products.
Also in the long-term file is a rule to regulate five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances under TSCA. The agenda indicates that the agency will defer action on these until the statutory deadlines kick in: June 2019 for a proposal, and late 2020 for a final rule.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66866/us-epa-regulatory-agenda-reflects-commitment-to-reducing-burdens
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA IRIS Program Is Hardly The “Gold Standard”
May 16, 2018 | Science 2.0
By Angela Logomasini
Don’t be fooled by those who say the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) sets the gold standard for chemical risk assessments. In addition to a long history of sloppy research, lack of transparency, and low productivity, IRIS suffers from a more fundamental flaw that recent reform efforts are unlikely to resolve.
EPA officials created IRIS administratively in 1984 as a research program to provide information on chemical risks that other EPA offices could use for regulatory purposes. IRIS first produced a database of chemicals and relevant data, and then eventually began to conduct its own chemical risk assessments—for which it had no legal guidelines.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) raised concerns about IRIS’s productivity and procedures more than a decade ago. Since then, IRIS reform has continued to be the subject of GAO reports, an Inspector General report, and congressional hearings.
In a 2011 review of IRIS’s risk assessment for formaldehyde, a NAS panel and report pointed out serious methodological failures and IRIS’s “recurring problems with clarity and transparency of the methods.” The NAS committee made a number of recommendations for improving the IRIS program.
NAS has met a few more times since 2011 to review IRIS’s procedures and recently claimed that the agency is finally making significant progress. But this “progress” only addresses procedural issues and fails to consider an agency-wide flaw: EPA risk assessments, by and large, focus on preventing the worst-case scenario—even when that scenario is utterly ridiculous—and ignore much more plausible health risks created by EPA’s own regulations.
For example, the EPA pesticide program’s 2000 risk assessment for the pesticide malathion developed an absurd scenario to estimate exposures to children from malathion use. In this scenario, a three-year-old toddler stands for 20 minutes in a cloud of malathion as it is released from a mosquito fogger truck at the full, legally allowed concentration levels and without the fog naturally dispersing. In addition, the child was assumed to have high exposure from indoor pest control uses, as well as exposure from playing on treated lawns.
Because EPA relies on such outlandish assumptions, it passes excessive regulations and even bans useful products, including pesticides needed to fight insect-borne diseases like the West Nile virus, the Zika virus, and others. As a result, few pesticides are currently available for mosquito control.
Likewise, IRIS assessments are based on excessive caution, forcing EPA to set nonsensical “reference doses” for various chemicals. The reference dose represents the level at which humans may be exposed daily with no expected adverse health effects. Setting the reference dose too low can lead other EPA divisions to impose harsh regulations and bans that won’t actually improve public health and safety.
In a short but helpful paper, scientists at the American Chemistry Council detailed a few examples of IRIS’s excessively cautious reference doses. Using that information, one could draw these ludicrous conclusions:
If you believe IRIS, human breast milk is naturally dangerous and should be banned! The human body produces acetone, and the levels naturally found in breast milk are almost two times the IRIS reference dose. “Thus,” ACC scientists point out, “the IRIS analysis suggests that the daily doses of acetone in mother’s milk are unsafe to the nursing child,” which of course makes no sense.
If you believe IRIS, stop breathing, because human respiration releases toxic chemicals into the environment
IRIS’s standard for formaldehyde (in its draft assessment) is multitudes lower than the amount that humans naturally exhale with each breath. The World Health Organization estimates that humans exhale 8.0 parts per billion (ppb) per breath while IRIS proposed setting a standard below 0.008 ppb. So if you want to avoid allegedly “dangerous” levels of this chemical, stop breathing. And don’t cook or eat brussels sprouts, cabbage, or shiitake mushrooms, either. The mushrooms alone can contain more than 300 parts per million (ppm). Note that’s parts per million, much higher than the parts per billion noted in the IRIS standard. But even then, these exposures pose no significant health concerns.
If you believe IRIS, steer clear from orange juice, because it could produce adverse developmental effects. IRIS’s assessment of methanol also sets the reference dose lower than the amounts that naturally occur in healthy foods like orange juice. This assessment implies that Americans are already at risk of methanol-induced developmental effects from such things as drinking a mere seven ounces of orange juice.
IRIS’s procedural reforms are unlikely to address the program’s overly cautious culture, so it’s time to shut this program down and take a fresh approach. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides an alternative approach. Recently reformed by Congress with broad bipartisan support, this law has some stronger language directing the agency to use the best available science, rather than rely on outdated approaches that misrepresent actual risks. Accordingly, there are good reasons to believe that TSCA’s approach would be superior to IRIS’s, and the IRIS program functions could easily be transferred to the TSCA program.
Clearly, IRIS is not the gold standard that many claim. Rather, it has long produced assessments that have little basis in reality. It’s time to eliminate IRIS and move forward with a more rational science-based approach.
http://www.science20.com/angela_logomasini/epa_iris_program_is_hardly_the_gold_standard-232410
-
Ohio Republican Asks Pruitt to Release 'Nightmare' Chemicals Study
May 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) became the first Republican to call for the Trump administration to release a controversial chemical assessment that EPA and the White House sought to block.
"The Health and Human Services report concerning PFOA and PFOS contamination of drinking water must be publicly released without delay," Turner, who chairs a House Armed Services subcommittee, wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that was also sent to President Donald Trump.
POLITICO reported on Monday that the White House and EPA political officials intervened in January, shortly before the planned release of the assessment that was poised to find that the chemicals pose a danger to human health at far lower concentrations than EPA had previously said. Internal emails released under the Freedom of Information Act show a White House official calling the study "a potential public relations nightmare." The agency that was producing the report says it has no timeline for releasing it publicly.
Turner's district is home to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where PFOA and PFOS contamination was discovered in December 2015. In his letter, Turner said the community has been working from EPA's health advisory, which suggested a lifetime exposure limit of 70 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS together.
"If this study finds, as reported, that this is no longer an accurate level of safety for our drinking water, Congress and our constituents need to know immediately so we can begin to address it," he wrote.
WHAT'S NEXT: Pruitt may face questions about his agency's interference with the study when he appears before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Wednesday.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
San Francisco Lawmakers Propose Bill Banning Plastic Straws
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
San Francisco lawmakers are expected to roll out legislation Tuesday that would ban plastic straws in the city's eateries.
Supervisors Katy Tang and Ahsha Safai plan to unveil legislation that would stop restaurants, bars and coffee shops from handing out plastic straws, stirrers or cocktail sticks with beverages, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
The lawmakers want businesses to serve compostable or reusable alternatives instead.
“Why do we have straws all the time?” Safai told the paper. “And if we’re going to have straws, it’s easy to have an alternative that’s much more recyclable or reusable or washable."
"It's sort of this moment where everyone is realizing just how many straws people are using on a daily basis, and that we really need to get a handle on this, or else our environment is going to suffer," Tang added.
If passed, the proposed bill would take effect in July 2019.
The law would also require other plastic products — such as beverage lids, condiment packets and napkins — to only be made available to customers upon request or at self-serve stations. Another measure in the bill mandates that events hosting 100 or more people on city property offer reusable cups as an option to at least 10 percent of those in attendance.
The move comes after several cities in California, including Malibu, Davis, and San Luis Obispo, passed ordinances regulating the use of plastic straws.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/387811-san-francisco-lawmakers-propose-bill-banning-plastic-straws-bloggers-x
-
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Construction to Continue, Dominion Says (1)
May 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
One of the companies behind the Atlantic Coast Pipeline expects construction to move forward as scheduled despite a court ruling that the project received an insufficient endangered species analysis.
A federal appeals court May 15 struck down the federal government’s analysis of the harm the planned pipeline would cause to endangered and threatened species, known as an incidental take statement. The court, in a brief order, questioned the adequacy of enforcement and monitoring under the Endangered Species Act and promised a more thorough explanation in a future opinion.
The planned 600-mile natural gas pipeline would originate in West Virginia, travel through Virginia, and terminate in North Carolina, according to the project website. The pipeline is being developed by Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, and Southern Company Gas.
An attorney for the Sierra Club and other environmental advocates who challenged the pipeline said in a May 15 statement that all construction must stop because of the ruling. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
However Dominion Energy said construction can continue.
“This decision only impacts activities directly covered by the Incidental Take Statement in certain defined areas along the route,” Dominion spokeswoman Jen Kostyniuk said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg Environment. “We will fully comply as required while we continue to construct the project.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that issued the analysis, is reviewing the decision and considering next steps, an agency spokesman told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
The agency found the pipeline project would affect eight different protected species, including the rusty patched bumble bee.
“Like other agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service rushed this pipeline approval through under intense political pressure to meet developers’ timelines,” D.J. Gerken, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center who is representing the environmental advocates, said in a statement. “It’s foolish and shortsighted to risk losing rare species for an unnecessary and costly pipeline boondoggle.”
The case is Sierra Club v. Interior, 4th Cir., No. 18-1082, 5/15/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/atlantic-coast-pipeline-construction-to-continue-dominion-says-1
-
Oil and Gas Leases in Large, Undeveloped Montana Areas Challenged
May 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Bureau of Land Management should have considered how fracking affects clean water and climate when it issued oil and gas leases on 150,000 acres in Montana, environmental groups said.
The environmental analyses for the lease sales cut corners and failed to quantify the direct effects of greenhouse gases that will result from drilling and hydraulic fracturing in pristine areas, Rebecca Fischer, a climate advocate for WildEarth Guardians in Denver, one of the environmental groups challenging the leases, told Bloomberg Environment May 15.
“We’re seeing BLM rushing its environmental analyses, and they’re making mistakes,” she said.
WildEarth Guardians, the Montana Environmental Information Center, and three individual landowners filed suit May 15 in federal court against the bureau, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Donato Judice, deputy state director for the Bureau of Land Management in Montana, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The BLM press office told Bloomberg Environment the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation. Companies that successfully bid on leases in the sales—including Ballard Exploration Co. Inc. of Houston and Hoover & Stacy of Cheyenne, Wyo.—did not return Bloomberg Environment’s requests for comment.
Leased Area Grew by 18 PercentAt issue are 287 oil and gas leases sold off in two auctions—one on Dec. 12, 2017, for leases in the Tongue River Valley in southeastern Montana and the second on March 13 for leases near Livingston, the Beartooth Front, scenic areas north of Yellowstone National Park, and next to the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. The area represents about an 18 percent increase in the amount of acreage currently being developed for oil and gas leases in the state, Fisher said.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals in to tight shale formations deep underground to stimulate the production of natural gas and oil. Industry maintains it can be done safely, while environmentalists say it threatens ground water and air quality.
The pace of “federal giveaways” of public lands for oil and gas extraction has quickened in the last two years, the groups said. In 2017, the BLM auctioned off more than 1 million acres of public lands in six Western states. Lease sales for the first half of 2018 already total 1 million acres, they said.
The case is WildEarth Guardians v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., D. Mont., No. 4:18-cv-00073, 5/15/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-and-gas-leases-in-large-undeveloped-montana-areas-challenged
-
BLM Failed to Fully Analyze Mont. Lease Parcels — Lawsuit
May 15, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater and Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups and three landowners are challenging the Bureau of Land Management's decision to offer 287 parcels for oil and gas leasing in Montana, accusing the agency of "turning a blind eye" to the potential impacts of drilling on the region's groundwater and climate.
The 34-page complaint, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, asks the court to "void any and all oil and gas leases" issued following two lease sales held on Dec. 12, 2017, and March 13.
Voiding the leased parcels "will ensure that BLM can take a proper hard look at water and climate impacts and consider reasonable alternatives to unbridled oil and gas development," says the complaint filed by WildEarth Guardians, the Montana Environmental Information Center, and landowners David Katz and Jack and Bonnie Martinell.
BLM's environmental assessments (EAs) of the parcels covering 145,000 acres were "flawed," in part because "the agency did not address the reasonably foreseeable impacts of oil and gas drilling on groundwater aquifers or consider measures to ensure that underground sources of drinking water are protected from contamination," the complaint says.
It also takes issue with several elements of BLM's climate analysis for the two lease sales.
It claims the agency failed to tally cumulative emissions from other proposed lease sales in the region; failed to accurately quantify direct and indirect emissions from oil and gas development; failed to put emissions estimates into context; and failed to measure the cost of emissions, despite emphasizing economic benefits of lease sales.
In short, the agency did not "adequately evaluate the effect of the challenged lease sales on greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change impacts, perpetuating the fundamental disconnect between the federal government's management of public lands and the changing climate," it says.
"BLM has not done its homework," Laura King, a Western Environmental Law Center attorney, said in a statement.
Attorneys with the Western Environmental Law Center and Earthjustice are representing the plaintiffs.
"The BLM's analyses avoid giving key calculations and context that would allow the public and decision makers to understand the true costs of selling the leases, and to make informed choices among alternatives," King added.
The lawsuit lists as defendants Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke; BLM; and Donato Judice, BLM's deputy state director for energy, minerals and realty. Judice signed the decision records approving the contested lease sales, the complaint says.
A BLM spokeswoman said the agency does not comment on matters pertaining to pending litigation.
Officials with the Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on this story before publication.
The lawsuit is the latest to challenge the merits of BLM's analysis of parcels offered for oil and gas leases.
Today's complaint is similar to a separate lawsuit filed last month by four different environmental groups. In it, the groups challenged BLM's analysis of 53 parcels offered in separate lease sales held in western Colorado (E&E News PM, April 26).
Environmentalists have complained for months about the large size and location of federal parcels being offered for lease by the Trump administration. The newly leased acreage challenged in today's complaint includes parts of the Tongue River Valley in southeastern Montana and a parcel next to the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.
The lawsuit filed today in Montana hints that BLM's lease sales in March and December are part of an effort to "pave the way" for development of the Bakken Shale play — currently centered in the northeastern part of the state — "to move south and west into other parts of Montana."
Green groups have also complained about the quality of analysis by BLM to evaluate whether the parcels nominated by industry are suitable for oil and gas drilling.
The December lease sale relies on a broad resource management plan from BLM's Miles City Field Office that the Montana court deemed inadequate in separate litigation earlier this year (Energywire, March 26).
The March lease sale relies on three environmental assessments that are tiered to other resource plans. The environmental groups argue that the studies fail to consider leasing alternatives that would have avoided sensitive water resources or strengthened groundwater protections.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/15/stories/1060081777
-
New York’s Green Energy Roulette
May 15, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
New York liberals are aflutter over their obliviousness to the abusive boyfriend in their midst. State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman resigned last week after allegations he struck several women he dated.
“It hurts the most when it’s one of the ‘good’ ones,” began a commentary in the New York Times.
Of course the problem here is assuming that sharing one’s politics is tantamount to being a “good” person. So anyone who differs is “bad”? This only shuts out unwelcome truths and aids the state’s residency in fantasyland.
Take the explosion of political correctness out of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s mouth at an event last Thursday when questioned by green activists. “I don’t build any fossil-fuel plants anymore, and I banned fracking, and I have the most aggressive renewable goals in the country,” he insisted, according to Politico.com. He also credited himself with blocking new pipelines.
Some of these claims are untrue; all are perverse.
Mr. Cuomo banned fracking in New York, but that didn’t stop fracking. It only deprived New Yorkers of their share of jobs and prosperity that other states are enjoying.
Gas plants have been approved on his watch, including one at the heart of a corruption scandal that will send one of his closest former aides to jail.
His opposition to pipelines runs flat into his signature scheme to get 50% of the state’s power from renewables by 2030. A new report from the state grid manager could not be clearer: The report uses the word “reliability” 155 times and warns that new gas plants are urgently needed to support the governor’s wind and solar goals.
New Yorkers find energy a fitting subject for irrational gestures only because they haven’t yet paid the cost in blackouts and intolerable price hikes. That will change.
Mr. Cuomo’s renewables goal was subject to no cost-benefit analysis—because there is no benefit. New York accounts for 0.4% of global greenhouse emissions.
Germany shows and a new study of 10 nations confirms: Investing heavily in wind and solar doesn’t really reduce fossil-fuel use or fossil-fuel emissions. Why? Adding solar and wind as adornments to a basically functioning grid is one thing. Once you begin relying on them, however, each must be paired with an equivalent gas plant for when wind and sun are absent.
This is expensive, and the outage risk remains, not just because the grid must cope with a proliferation of unpredictable, intermittent power sources. Coal plants, which New York state has been closing willy-nilly, maintain 30 days of fuel on site. The state’s biggest nuclear plant, which Gov. Cuomo is closing, requires refueling only every two years.
In contrast, gas plants depend on just-in-time fuel delivery from an interstate pipeline system, connected to producing areas (which, thanks to Mr. Cuomo, New York isn’t).
In 2014’s polar vortex, the Northeast and the Midwest avoided blackouts by burning dirty oil in gas plants when pipelines became overloaded, and grid operators still had to cut voltage by 5% to keep heat and lights on. If the same thing happened today, it’s doubtful that blackouts could be avoided.
Mr. Cuomo privately would argue his green posturing protects New Yorkers from worse. Whoever wins the Democratic primary is likely to be the next governor. His primary opponent is “Sex and the City” actress Cynthia Nixon, who wants 100% of the state’s energy from renewables by 2050.
A feature and not a bug is the incoherence of both candidates’ green button-pushing. Closing the Indian Point nuclear plant, for instance, which both joyously support, would mainly deprive New York of its most important source of climate-friendly energy.
The problem is, Mr. Cuomo intends to run for president in 2020, so his pandering will have to continue for another two years while the state burns through its energy safety margin.
Let’s borrow a concept from technologist Peter Thiel, who once noted President Obama’s “touching faith” in capitalism to support the burdens he placed on it.
Careers like Mr. Cuomo’s are built on running down what might be called “good policy” political capital. Mr. Cuomo is using up the state’s margin of energy survival to burnish his green potentials. He is sacrificing upstate’s economy to burnish his green credentials.
President Trump may lack decorum, but his corporate tax reform addressed a universally recognized problem, and now future politicians have a fresh cushion for antibusiness tax gestures without unduly risking the economy.
Ditto his trimming back of President Obama’s expensive but ineffectual climate policies: Now future politicians can dip their buckets in this well to advance their careers without overtaxing the citizenry’s ability to sustain costly climate gestures that produce no benefit.
This is the good-policy capital buffer at work. Mr. Cuomo is doing statewide what Mayor David Dinkins did for New York City in the early 1990s, using up the buffer.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-green-energy-roulette-1526423502?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2
-
Hackers No Match for Doors, Locks Guarding Radioactive Material: NRC
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Hackers can’t get past the “doors, locks, barriers,” and people guarding radioactive materials used by industries and universities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said, dropping plans for a new cybersecurity rule.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is ending a rulemaking process that would address cyber security threats against large amounts of radioactive byproduct material used in industrial radiography, oil and gas drilling, medical devices, manufacturing and by universities, according an NRC notice scheduled to appear May 15 in the Federal Register.
Cyberattacks are a growing threat to energy and nuclear power systems nationwide. The Department of Homeland Security issued an alert in March warning that Russian hackers have targeted U.S. nuclear power and other energy infrastructure since 2016.
NRC staff considered whether imposing cybersecurity requirements on the thousands of byproduct material licensees in the U.S. “would enhance the overall security of these materials against potential malicious use,” NRC spokesman David McIntyre told Bloomberg Environment. “Staff concluded there would not be sufficient additional benefit to justify additional regulation.”
The rule would have applied to radioactive byproducts stored in high enough quantities to permanently injure or kill anyone handling them.
Rulemaking Began in 2012The NRC took its first steps toward a cybersecurity rule in 2012. After forming a working group to study the issue in 2013 and surveying companies and organizations licensed to use the radioactive material, the NRC concluded in 2017 that enough physical security measures are in place to protect the material from cyberthreats, according to the notice. That latest notice makes that decision official.
Existing NRC security regulations are sufficient to protect public health and safety, Janet Schlueter, senior director of radiation and materials safety at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told Bloomberg Environment.
“We do support NRC’s decision to discontinue the potential rulemaking,” she said.
NRC ‘Behind the Times’Edwin Lyman, senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, told Bloomberg Environment that the NRC’s decision is “idiotic.”
“If NRC-regulated facilities or materials have sufficient potential to endanger public health and safety that they require physical protection measures, then they should also require cybersecurity measures as well,” Lyman said.
Historically, physical and cybersecurity threats were addressed separately before cyberattacks became a significant threat, he said.
“But today, physical protection and cyber protection should be considered holistically,” Lyman said. “NRC’s approach to these issues is behind the times.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/hackers-no-match-for-doors-locks-guarding-radioactive-material-nrc
-
Bill Would Reject Trump Cuts, Boost Rail Funding
May 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
A House spending bill released yesterday ignores many of President Trump's proposed cuts to transportation and infrastructure programs.
The House Appropriations Committee's fiscal 2019 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill would provide $71.8 billion in discretionary funding for transportation and infrastructure programs, an increase of $1.5 billion above this year's level and $23.8 billion above the White House request.
The Department of Transportation itself would receive $27.8 billion, a $542 million boost above this year's enacted level.
Rail infrastructure and safety programs are big winners. They would be funded at $3.2 billion, a $62.5 million increase over the fiscal 2018 enacted level and $2.1 billion above the request.
Amtrak would get $1.9 billion, of which $650 million is for the Northeast Corridor and $1.3 billion is for the national network. Lawmakers ignored the Trump administration's recommendation to halve Amtrak's funding.
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development grants, formerly known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grants, would get $750 million.
That's less than the $1.5 billion they received in the recent omnibus. Yet the Trump administration had proposed eliminating the program two years in a row.
"For too long, the transportation infrastructure in our nation has been neglected, which has dampened growth and efficiency," said House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.). "This bill will provide a much-needed boost in funding for improvements in our infrastructure system — whether it is roads, rail, transit systems, or air and waterways."
The bill comes as Trump's infrastructure plan has failed to gain traction on the Hill. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said last week she wasn't sure whether there would be an infrastructure bill this year (see related story).
"I don't know that there will be one by the end of the year," Sanders said during a White House press briefing.
Her remarks were in line with Trump, who said in March that an infrastructure bill would likely have to wait until after the November elections (E&E News PM, March 29).
Still, subcommittee Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) sought to sell the boosts as a "down payment" on the president's infrastructure plan, which urges spending $200 billion over 10 years to spur additional investment from state and local governments and the private sector.
"The president has made it a priority to invest in our nation's infrastructure, and I am glad we were able to deliver historic levels of funding for the second year in a row," Diaz-Balart said.
"This is another down payment toward rebuilding our nation's roads, bridges and rail systems, while also providing critical housing improvements for our most vulnerable populations."
The subcommittee is set to mark up the spending bill this evening.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/16/stories/1060081805
-
EPA Sends Proposed SO2 NAAQS Review for OMB Review
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent its proposed review of the existing sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review, a rule that is expected to either propose leaving the current standards in place or potentially float a slight softening of the SO2 limit.
Under a legal deadline, EPA must propose a new SO2 NAAQS rule by May 25, and sign a final rule by Jan. 28. EPA sent the rule for OMB review May 14, according to OMB's website. OMB review typically takes up to 90 days, but can be faster or slower, depending on the circumstances.
EPA staff documents released in final form May 9 and published in the Federal Register May 15 suggest that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may opt to keep the current standard unchanged.
The Obama EPA in 2010 set the current primary, or public health-based, standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) using a novel one-hour averaging time in order to guard against short-lived but intense spikes in pollution. The 2010 rule also revoked earlier annual and 24-hour limits that had been in effect since 1971.
The agency in 2012 also left unchanged the secondary, or welfare-based NAAQS, at 50 ppb averaged over three hours, the level in place since 1971.
EPA staff in its final risk and exposure assessment (REA) and policy assessment (PA) documents again reaches the conclusion reached in earlier draft versions that the current limit should stay.
Staff in the PA says, “consideration should be given to retaining the current standard of 75 ppb SO2, as the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations averaged across three years, without revision. Accordingly, and in light of this conclusion that it is appropriate to consider the current standard to be adequate, we have not identified any potential alternative standards for consideration in this review.”
Industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute have recommended that EPA also consider weakening the SO2 NAAQS, but EPA staff has declined to do so, instead suggesting retaining the existing standards.
Pruitt in his May 9 memo reforming the NAAQS review process says the agency should evaluate standards both weaker and more stringent than existing limits, raising questions over whether EPA's proposal will adhere to the PA and review process undertaken so far on this issue.
Pruitt further says that EPA should consider consolidating into one step the current steps of the process, which include an integrated review plan, integrated science assessment to synthesize the latest science on a pollutant, the REA and PA. This would accelerate NAAQS reviews, Pruitt claims, in order to help EPA meet its Clean Air Act duty to issue NAAQS review rules every five years.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sends-proposed-so2-naaqs-review-omb-review
-
Emails Show Pruitt Pushing 'Red Team-Blue Team' Climate Debate
May 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén and Anthony Adragna
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had hoped at least twice last year to announce his plans for a controversial red team-blue team debate that would take aim at a federal assessment supporting climate change science, according to newly released emails.
Pruitt’s contentious review was abandoned because of the White House's objections, but the communications reveal new details about how the process would have worked and who was influencing Pruitt.
Many scientists have complained that a red team-blue team style debate was a poor way to examine the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly supports the findings that humans are the primary driver behind climate change. But for Pruitt, who had once suggested the event might be televised, the debate appeared to be directed at rebuffing the Fourth National Climate Assessment.
That government-wide report issued on Nov. 3 contradicted many Trump administration political appointees who have questioned the connection between greenhouse gas pollution and global warming.
A draft press release that circulated on Nov. 4 among top EPA officials, and which was shared with Pruitt on Nov. 5, laid out the line of attack, according to the documents made public on Tuesday by EPA following a records request from the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“EPA is standing up a Red Team peer review of the report,” they wrote, while the “blue team” would essentially be the federal assessment and its authors.
“A robust, transparent public peer review evaluation of climate change is something everyone should support,” Pruitt said in the unreleased November statement. “Now is a perfect opportunity for the formation of a 'Red Team' exercise.”
The draft release also included space for quotes from two prominent climate science critics: Steve Koonin, an Obama-era Energy Department official, and William Happer, a Princeton physicist who argues that increased carbon dioxide would benefit the planet.
The duo appear to have been tapped to help guide the red-team review together.
“Your contributions even in a small way to the validity of the red team blue team approach would be appreciated,” Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, wrote to Koonin and Happer on Nov. 4.
In an email to POLITICO, Happer said the exercise was “badly needed,” while Koonin, now the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, told POLITICO the National Climate Assessment was “demonstrably deficient on a number of points.”
EPA did not return a request for comment.
Pruitt has previously said a Wall Street Journal piece written by Koonin in April 2017 calling for a similar EPA review of climate science was his inspiration for instigating the “red team” review.
The emails, however, show that Koonin and his allies began wooing Pruitt even before that. In an email more than a week before Koonin’s WSJ piece ran, Dan Yergin, the Pulitzer-winning oil historian and vice chairman of IHS Markit who joined a board advising President Donald Trump, introduced Koonin by email to Jackson.
Pruitt and Koonin met April 28, and the emails show Koonin was closely involved in the process afterward.
Koonin sent EPA a "prospectus" outlining the exercise, and though much of it was redacted by EPA before its release, Koonin suggested timing the red team review to the National Climate Assessment, which was due out six months later. Doing so would "ensure that certainties and uncertainties in projections of future climates are accurately presented to the public and decision makers," he wrote.
A revised version of the prospectus was circulated by EPA to White House officials in July after news of Pruitt’s plans had leaked.
“There are a lot of press reports about EPA's planning on this. None of it is being run by us. This seems to be getting out of control,” wrote Michael Catanzaro, a top energy adviser to Trump who has since left the administration, a few days after receiving Koonin’s proposal.
In late June, Liz Bowman, then a top EPA spokeswoman, questioned whether the exercise could be announced as early as July 5 or 6. But it wasn't until November that top Pruitt staffers begin circulating a draft press release on the announcement.
A draft of the announcement on Nov. 5 inspired a lengthy email chain, which EPA redacted, that involved direct messages from Trump chief of staff John Kelly, strategic communications director Mercedes Schlapp, and former White House staff secretary Rob Porter.
Pruitt was touting his plans to launch the red team review as late as December. Emails early in that month indicate the agency’s air chief, Bill Wehrum, would make the announcement on Dec. 12 while Pruitt traveled in Morocco. One message that included Jackson had the subject line of “Red Team/Blue Team Announcement Planned for Tuesday, Dec. 12.”
The New York Times reported in March that Kelly and other top officials stopped the announcement in the fall, and Kelly's deputy Rick Dearborn met with Pruitt in mid-December to declare the plan dead.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/05/emails-show-pruitt-pushing-red-team-blue-team-climate-debate-543613
-
‘Impossible to Ignore’: Why Alaska Is Crafting a Plan to Fight Climate Change
May 15, 2018 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
In the Trump era, it has mainly been blue states that have taken the lead on climate change policy, with liberal strongholds like California and New York setting ambitious goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, at least one deep-red state could soon join them: Alaska, a major oil and gas producer, is crafting its own plan to address climate change. Ideas under discussion include cuts in state emissions by 2025 and a tax on companies that emit carbon dioxide.
While many conservative-leaning states have resisted aggressive climate policies, Alaska is already seeing the dramatic effects of global warming firsthand, making the issue difficult for local politicians to avoid. The solid permafrost that sits beneath many roads, buildings and pipelines is starting to thaw, destabilizing the infrastructure above. At least 31 coastal towns and cities may need to relocate, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, as protective sea ice vanishes and fierce waves erode Alaska’s shores.
“The change has been so real and so widespread that it’s become impossible to ignore,” Byron Mallott, the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, said Tuesday while visiting Washington to discuss climate policy. “Folks are realizing that it’s something we have to deal with.”
The state is still finalizing its climate strategy. In October, Gov. Bill Walker, a former Republican who won election as an independent in 2014, created a task force headed by Lieutenant Governor Mallott that would propose specific policies to reduce emissions and help the state adapt to the impacts of global warming. The recommendations are due by September.
In addressing climate change, Alaska will have to grapple with its own deep contradictions. Roughly 85 percent of the state’s budget is funded by revenues from the production of oil, which is primarily exported to the rest of the United States, and local politicians have largely been unwilling to curtail the supply of fossil fuels. Both Governor Walker and Lieutenant Governor Mallott supported the recent decision by Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, a move opposed by environmentalists.
“The state will continue to be an energy producer for as long as there is a market for fossil fuels,” the men wrote in a recent op-ed for the Juneau Empire. But, they added, “We should not use our role as an energy producer to justify inaction or complacency in our response to the complex challenge of climate change.”
To that end, the state’s climate task force released a draft in April that included a proposal for Alaska to get 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources like solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal by 2025, up from 33 percent in 2016. The draft also proposed cutting statewide greenhouse gas emissions one-third below 2005 levels by 2025, tackling sectors like transportation and “natural resource development,” which includes oil drilling operations.
Alaska, which ranks as the nation’s 40th-largest emitter overall but is fourth-largest on a per-capita basis, has already cut its emissions by 25 percent since 2005, driven by a drop in emissions from both aviation and industry. The state’s main climate impact, however, is through the oil that it exports to the rest of the country, where it is burned in cars and trucks.EDITORS’ PICKSSurest Way to Face Marijuana Charges in New York: Be Black or Hispanic45 Stories of Sex and Consent on CampusKeyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll
The task force trod lightly around Alaska’s heavy reliance on oil and gas exports. An earlier draft had included a line that said, “There is an economic and ethical imperative to pursue a transition away from a global dependence on fossil fuels.” That language was dropped in the latest version, which instead suggests that Alaska develop an “energy transition” strategy, balancing economic concerns with climate change considerations.
“We need to have a revenue stream from nonrenewable energy that will allow us to invest in renewables,” Lieutenant Governor Mallott said.
As one possible approach, the draft proposal says that the state could consider a “carbon fee and dividend program” that would tax carbon dioxide emitters and then reinvest the revenues in local energy efficiency and clean energy programs. The lieutenant governor also suggested that Alaska’s natural gas could be used to help reduce emissions in coal-reliant countries like China. (While natural gas is about half as carbon-intensive as coal, it produces more emissions than renewables or nuclear power.)
The task force will solicit public comment on the proposals before delivering final recommendations to Governor Walker, who faces a tough battle for re-election in November.
Any carbon tax proposal within the state could face pushback from Alaska’s oil and gas industry. “I think they need to be focusing on things that will actually have an impact,” said Kara Moriarty, president and chief executive of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. “Climate change is a global problem, so unless you’re talking about a global carbon tax, I’m not sure this would move the needle in a state with only 750,000 people.”
There is broader consensus that the state will need to take more immediate action to prepare for the impacts of higher temperatures. The Arctic is already warming faster than the rest of the planet. Wildfires are growing larger during the Alaskan summer, menacing homes and roads. Native communities that rely on walrus hunting are seeing catches decline as sea ice disappears. And, in May, the rural village of Newtok received a $22 million federal grant to help relocate residents threatened by erosion and flooding.
The state’s draft proposal urges more scientific research on threats like ocean acidification, which could threaten state fisheries, as well as new strategies to ensure food security in indigenous communities. By taking the lead on such efforts, the draft notes, Alaska could potentially export its adaptation know-how to the rest of the world.
“Many climate impacts are unfolding more quickly and sooner here,” said Nancy Fresco, a scientist studying climate adaptation at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “But that could mean that the rest of country might be able to learn from our successes and failures.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/climate/alaska-climate-change.html
-
Mosaic Fertilizer Mows Down Toxic Air Emissions Claim
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Mosaic Fertilizer beat claims that emissions from one of its Florida plants caused a woman’s respiratory problems and decreased her home’s value.
A doctor’s testimony offered to show the emissions caused her pulmonary hypertension, obstructive pulmonary disease, and other lung and non-lung-related conditions was properly excluded as unreliable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said.
Plaintiff Rhonda Williams was therefore unable to show that emissions from Mosaic Fertilizer’s Riverview, Fla., plant caused her medical problems, the court said.
The doctor failed to address other potential causes of her conditions or give the background risk of those conditions, the appeals court said.
Williams also failed to establish that the value of her home was diminished based solely on her own lay opinion testimony, the court affirmed.
Though a property owner is competent to testify regarding value, Williams only offered speculation.Williams didn’t try to sell her house or speak to an appraiser or real estate agent to determine its value, the court said.
Her assertion that the property was damaged by “the stigma” of “on-going exposure to sulfur dioxide, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, barium, radioactive isotopes and other hazardous air pollutants,” was insufficient, the court said.
Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum and Ursula Ungaro.
Burns PA represented Williams.
Greenberg Traurig PA represented Mosaic.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/mosaic-fertilizer-mows-down-toxic-air-emissions-claim
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested