Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/17/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Corporate America to President Trump: Give Us Tariff Relief
May 16, 2018 | CBS
Corporate America wants 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 Inks MoU with American Chemistry Council
May 17, 2018 | Pakistan Observer
Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers Association (PCMA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with American Chemistry Council (ACC) to manage certification of the global Responsible Care Programme ‘RC 14001’ within Pakistan. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Keeps Up Pressure on Perry
May 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Morning Newsletter
By Kelsey Tamborrino
...I'm your host Kelsey Tamborrino, and the American Chemistry Council’s Jon Corley was the first to identify Matthew Lyon as the sitting lawmaker sentenced to prison in 1798 for violating the Alien and Sedition Acts... -
Crank up the Siren. Scott Pruitt Has an Emergency.
May 16, 2018 | Washington Post
By Dana Milbank
Turn on the flashing lights and crank up the siren: Scott Pruitt has an emergency. -
(ACC Mentioned) NGOs Criticise TSCA Analysis That Found Animal Testing Spike
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Public health advocates have taken issue with recent analysis that claims TSCA's new chemical programme has resulted in a huge spike in animal tests, and they are questioning why the US EPA has apparently embraced the research. -
TSCA Reform Boosts Seattle-Area Chemicals Programme
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
A Washington state county hopes to use TSCA reform to increase the success and scope of its initiative encouraging businesses to switch to more environmentally friendly chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Absent ORD Chief, Trump's Toxics Pick Expands Reach Across EPA Science
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Nancy Beck, the controversial former chemical industry lobbyist who is the top political appointee in EPA's toxics office, appears to be playing a leading role in agency science issues beyond that of her title, deputy assistant administrator... -
(ACC Mentioned) Excessive Caution at EPA Produces Absurd Conclusions Excessive Caution at EPA Produces Absurd Conclusions
May 16, 2018 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Angela Logomasini
In an April 24 blog post, I detailed why a recent National Academies of Sciences review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System—a research program that conducts chemical risk assessments—should be disregarded. -
White House Fears PR 'Nightmare' over PFAS Risk Level
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Internal US EPA documents show concern that draft toxicological profiles for four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) from a separate federal agency could result in a "public relations nightmare". -
Pruitt Wants Chemicals Study at Heart of Interagency Spat Released
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid, David Schultz and Abby Smith
EPA chief Scott Pruitt told senators that he was unaware his agency has been clashing with another over the health risks posed by fluorochemicals. -
Capito Satisfied with Pruitt Answer on Chemical Study
May 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va) said she accepted EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s defense at a Senate Appropriations hearing this morning that he did not know his aides were seeking to “squash” an HHS chemical assessment... -
California Lawmakers Move to Ensure Lead-Free Water in Child Care Centers
May 16, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Susan Little
California lawmakers are moving toward ensuring that lead-free drinking water is required in all child care centers, catching up with Oregon, Washington and four other states. -
Canada Finalises Tighter Lead, Cadmium Standards for Children's Products
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Government agency Health Canada has finalised regulations aimed at reducing children's exposure to lead and cadmium. -
Echa Goal to Identify All Harmful Substances by 2025 'Unrealistic'
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Doubts have been raised about Echa's ability to deliver its objective of identifying all substances of concern and to start action on them by 2025. -
Landowners, Enviros Challenge BLM Oil, Natural Gas Leases in Montana
May 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Three landowners and two environmental groups on Tuesday challenged two recent U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lease sales of 287 parcels in Montana, alleging in federal court that the agency ignored the potential environmental impacts of prospective oil and natural gas drilling. -
Transportation Bill Advances While Dems Decry Riders
May 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
A House Appropriations subcommittee yesterday quickly advanced a transportation and infrastructure spending bill for fiscal 2019, despite some grumbling from Democrats about policy riders. -
Wehrum Backs House Bill to Reform NSR Program Despite Dim Prospects
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA air chief William Wehrum is offering strong support for pending House legislation to overhaul and ease the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting program by claiming it would provide long-sought regulatory clarity, but the bill appears to face dim prospects... -
EPA, States Plan Environmental Data Clearing House in Federalism Effort
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA and state regulators are planning to craft a clearing house of environmental research to improve states' access to EPA's Office of Research and Development data and tools, part of states' ongoing push to bolster their collaboration with federal regulators on implementing environmental laws... -
Bill on Industrial Emissions Changes Gets EPA Air Chief’s Support
May 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Legislation that would affect how industrial facilities’ emissions increases are calculated now has the backing of the top EPA air official, despite the agency’s efforts to also pursue regulation. -
Caucus Members Eye WRDA to Address Warming Impacts
May 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The upcoming House water infrastructure bill could provide an ideal opportunity to address the impacts of climate change, a bipartisan pair of Climate Solutions Caucus members said yesterday. -
Rise in CFC Emissions Threatens Ozone Recovery
May 17, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Mark Peplow
In a feat of atmospheric detective work, researchers have uncovered evidence that thousands of metric tons of an ozone-destroying chemical are still being released into the air every year, despite a global ban on production (Nature 2018, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2).
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Corporate America to President Trump: Give Us Tariff Relief
May 16, 2018 | CBS
Corporate America wants 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.
Early signs are emerging that tariffs and their countermeasures, proposed or imposed, already are hitting some U.S. industries, some in areas of the country that voted for Mr. Trump in the 2016 election.
Mr. 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
Mr. 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.
The surprising gesture marked a dramatic reversal from Mr. Trump's rhetoric during the campaign, when he said he would no longer allow China to "rape our country" and steal U.S. jobs.
Mr. 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. Mr. Trump then ordered the U.S. trade representative to look for an additional $100 billion in Chinese goods to tax.
Those threats are already impacting U.S. businesses. China is purposely avoiding direct soybean purchases from the U.S. Another casualty: about 2,000 growers of pecans from California to the Carolinas who sell about a third of their crop to China. Pecans were among the U.S. products China slapped with a 15 percent tariff after Mr. Trump proposed steel and aluminum tariffs in late March.
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 Mr. 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, Mr. 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 Mr. 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.cbsnews.com/news/corporate-america-to-president-trump-give-us-tariff-relief/
-
(ACC Mentioned) PCMA Inks MoU with American Chemistry Council
May 17, 2018 | Pakistan Observer
Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers Association (PCMA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with American Chemistry Council (ACC) to manage certification of the global Responsible Care Programme ‘RC 14001’ within Pakistan. According to PCMA sources, the MOU was signed by PCMA Chairman Zubair F Tufail and Secretary General Iqbal Kidwai, whereas, on behalf of the ACC, Debra Phillips, Vice President of its Sustainability and Market Outreach Division signed the MoU.
Giving details of the MoU, PCMA Secretary General said that 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 confirm to the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) Responsible Care Fundamental Features and established timelines for implementation.
He added that PCMA joined the global Responsible Care community in 2017 and since its recognition by ICCA’s Responsible Care Leadership Group, PCMA had been engaged in developing the set elements of its Responsible Care programme including a certification model. The current MOU, he asserted, was a major breakthrough in this regard, which had provided the PCMA with an opportunity to work in collaboration with ACC for one complete year to initiate an approved RC14001 accreditation process in Pakistan through the nation’s apex accreditation body, Pakistan National Accreditation Council (PNAC).
Kidwai said that MOU had knitted the PCMA and ACC into an agreement for expanding RC 14001 certification opportunities for PCMA within the country, whereas this sort of accreditations earlier were being processed in USA. This arrangement would not only improve performance of the local chemical industry in implementation of the Responsible Care Programme but also enhance their knowledge on RC14001 through a supporting RC14001 infrastructure to be created in Pakistan to provide the availability of accreditation services, auditor resources and training opportunities, he added.https://pakobserver.net/pcma-inks-mou-with-american-chemistry-council/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Keeps Up Pressure on Perry
May 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Morning Newsletter
By Kelsey Tamborrino
With help from Anthony Adragna, Emily Holden and Eric Wolff
TRUMP PRESSURES PERRY FOR SOLUTIONS: Faced with calls from donors to live up to his campaign promises, President Donald Trump is keeping the pressure on Energy Secretary Rick Perry to come up with a plan to bail out struggling coal and nuclear plants, sources tell Pro's Eric Wolff. So far, Perry hasn't settled on a strategy — but that doesn't mean he doesn't have options. The Energy secretary is poring over alternatives that include the Defense Production Act, the Federal Power Act and the 2015 highway bill. Perry is also considering asking the Defense Department to pay plants to provide power to military bases, but it's not clear that any of those offer a legally defensible way to save the plants.
All such options come down to a core principle: Perry's contention that looming retirements of the nation’s coal and nuclear fleet would threaten the power grid and pose a national security hazard. The Pentagon would be a key ally if it agrees with that argument, Eric writes. "They are in complete agreement with the arguments that Sec. Perry has made — if we are not careful here to walk ourselves into a national security issue," the DOE official said.
Of course, it's not the first time Perry has faced pressure from the president to save coal jobs. But during an Ohio donor meeting earlier this month, a frustrated Trump told a staffer to get Perry on the phone so he could tell him to take action on the issue. And DOE is pressing forward. Eric reports agency officials gathered with other senior Cabinet and White House aides at a deputies meeting last week at the White House and discussed whether the power plants could be considered critical infrastructure, and therefore qualified for federal help. Read more.
IT’S ALMOST FRIDAY! I'm your host Kelsey Tamborrino, and the American Chemistry Council’s Jon Corley was the first to identify Matthew Lyon as the sitting lawmaker sentenced to prison in 1798 for violating the Alien and Sedition Acts. For today: Name the third-oldest national park in the country. Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
LAWYERED UP: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has tapped white-collar defense lawyer Paul Rauser to advise him as he faces a dozen federal investigations into his activity, two sources tell POLITICO’s Andrew Restuccia and Emily Holden. Rauser is the co-founder of the firm Aegis Law Group, where he “focuses on domestic and international white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, and high-stakes commercial litigation and arbitration,” according to Aegis' website. The lawyer has been assisting Pruitt for several weeks, Andrew and Emily report.
Still hanging on: Pruitt confirmed during Senate testimony Wednesday that he had set up a legal defense fund, but that he would not personally solicit donations from lobbyists or corporations with business before the agency. (Catch up on Pruitt’s hearing here.) Inside the White House, Pruitt has lost the faith of staffers and some outside advisers to Trump. “He’s somehow managed to hang on,” said one former White House official. “It’s amazing.” But Trump is not yet ready to push Pruitt out, two of the officials say, even though the president himself has begun to sour on him. Additionally, two White House aides said they believe Pruitt could be fired if a series of pending investigations reveal new damaging information about the EPA chief.
Inhofe’s not worried: Pruitt’s acknowledgment he formed a legal defense fund isn’t cause for concern to one of his top allies, Sen. Jim Inhofe. “You know, he’s got problems and he wants to have protection,” he said. “And the alternatives are you either pay for it yourself, which he probably couldn’t afford to do, or have government pay for it or set up a fund.” Inhofe noted he hadn’t contributed to the fund.
HOW’D IT GO? Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that hosted Pruitt Wednesday, said he did his best to respond to aggressive questions from the panel’s Democrats. “It was a very direct and tough line of questioning from my ranking member, but I thought he tried to be as responsive as he could,” she said.
Not done yet: That ranking member, Tom Udall, told reporters Democrats on the panel planned to send many additional questions for the record to Pruitt in hopes he might be able to offer “more thorough” responses to their queries. He thanked Murkowski for allowing a full four rounds of questions: “That was very generous of her,” he said.
Semi-satisfied: GOP Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she was satisfied with Pruitt’s defense that he did not know his aides were seeking to “squash” an HHS chemical assessment, as POLITICO reported earlier this week. “I was satisfied that he has the same interests as me in getting all the information out, but I’m going to see what his actions are before I’m fully satisfied,” Capito told POLITICO.
EPA COUNCIL HOLDS ‘OPEN HOUSE’ WITH INDUSTRY: EPA touted a meeting between general counsel Matthew Leopold and senior representatives from eight industry groups on Wednesday in a release from the agency. The representatives were the first to meet with Leopold during an “open house” forum to learn about his priorities and the legal issues facing EPA, the agency said. Leopold plans to hold additional meetings with The Environmental Council of the States, “non-governmental advocates,” and state agency representatives, as well. EPA told ME the meeting included representatives from the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, Information Technology Industry Council and the National Mining Association, among others.
TIME TO DRILL DOWN: House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop told ME he planned to meet late Wednesday with several Florida Republicans seeking a permanent drilling ban in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, as well as representatives from the Interior and Defense Departments. That came after a report last week concluded expanding drilling activities in the area would severely affect test and training activities and harm military flexibility in the region. But it wasn’t as clear as Bishop would’ve liked: “The report is not definitive. I think you can read what you want to read into the report,” he said.
The Florida congressional delegation is set to hold a meeting today on offshore drilling. Co-chairs of the delegation, Reps. Alcee Hastings and Vern Buchanan, will host a panel with energy, tourism, and defense officials.
** A message from Chevron: This is a story about DOERS, small businesses, and the billions Chevron spends with them. Watch the video to hear the whole story: **
WHERE THE COMMISSIONERS ARE ALL ABOVE AVERAGE: It’s a quiet week on Lake FERC-be-gone: The 26-item agenda for today's meeting includes none of the banner items of recent months, like how utilities will address tax changes or the agency’s grand review of its pipeline certification procedures. There’s a chance FERC will get a chance to talk resilience when it receives the 2018 Summer Market and Reliability Assessment, which will provide an overview on whether there is enough generating capacity to handle summer high temperatures.
Solar flare up: FERC will consider a petition from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. to make a series of technical changes to standards related to geomagnetic disturbances. GMDs are things like solar flares that, while rare, can wreak havoc on grid.
WRDA UP: Assistant Secretary of the Army Civil Works R.D. James testifies this morning during a Senate EPW hearing on the new Water Resources Development Act, S. 2800 (115), dubbed “America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018.” The bill is the first major infrastructure bill introduced in Congress since Trump took office, but lacks many of the big-ticket items first proposed by the president. A bipartisan manager’s amendment is expected to be introduced.
What’s in it? EPW Chairman John Barrasso has said he supported adding the “Securing Required Funding for Water Infrastructure Now” provision to the bill — a controversial measure that would expand the WIFIA program, while making it more accessible to small and mid-sized communities. Barrasso said attaching the measure wasn't a done deal. “We’re working to try and get to that,” he told reporters earlier this week. If you go: The hearing begins at 10:15 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
LET'S GET FINANCIAL: While the president might have filed his financial disclosure form by the Tuesday deadline, Pruitt sought and was granted an extension. The EPA chief joins more than 70 EPA employees who were granted a filing extension by the agency, said Kevin Minoli, EPA principal deputy general counsel and designated agency ethics official. "As permitted by 5 CFR § 2634.201(f), EPA may grant extensions of up to 90 additional days for good cause," Minoli said. Spokesman Jahan Wilcox said that prior administrators were also granted extensions. EPA did not respond to questions seeking Pruitt's reasoning for his extension.
BY THE NUMBERS: Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz unveiled the 2018 "U.S. Energy and Employment Report" on Wednesday, which harkens back to Moniz's time at DOE. The report, from Energy Futures Initiative and the National Association of State Energy Officials, found the U.S. energy sector employed 6.5 million individuals in 2017, an increase of 133,000 jobs from the year prior. The report — which analyzed jobs in electric power generation and fuels; transmission, distribution and storage; energy efficiency; and motor vehicles — found that the energy efficiency sector added the most jobs (67,000) out of the four. Solar energy firms employed 350,000 individuals in 2017. That's a reduction of 24,000 jobs in solar — the first net job loss for the industry since solar jobs were first collected in 2010. Read the report here.
What about clean energy, you ask? E2 released its own "Clean Jobs America" analysis, finding that the U.S. accounted for nearly 3.2 million clean energy jobs in 2017. Read their fact sheet here.
NEW YORK MOVES TO SHUT DOWN COAL PLANTS: New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation proposed regulations Wednesday to effectively shut down the state’s remaining coal-fired power plants. The regulations would apply limits on carbon dioxide emissions to existing power plants, with a rationale based on mitigating the state's contribution to climate change, Pro New York’s Marie French reports. Gov. Andrew Cuomo first promised to shut down all of the state’s plants in 2016.
BREAKING SAB: During a House hearing Wednesday with EPA's Bill Wehrum, the air chief was asked whether he believed the agency's Science Advisory Board should have conducted a review of Pruitt's proposal to set new limits on what research the agency can use before it was published in the Federal Register. Wehrum told ranking member Paul Tonko that he didn't think it was necessary. But Pro's Annie Snider reports some of EPA's own scientific advisers are raising concerns about the proposal. Furthermore, SAB members were not alerted to the directive ahead of time, Annie reports, and only learned about it through press reports. More here.
KING ON CLIMATE: Heidi King, Trump’s pick to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was grilled Wednesday by Commerce committee senators, but she dodged a question from Democrat Maggie Hassan on whether she agreed that human-caused climate change was real. “You have my commitment to be data and science driven and thoughtful and transparent in all actions,” King responded. “And where it is necessary for us to consider climate impacts, which is very important to everyone, I will do so, relying on the experts I rely on, engineers, attorneys and others.” When further pressed by Hassan, King said she agreed “that it’s very important for experts to speak on the issue.” But added: “I apologize, I’m not a climate scientist.” NHTSA has been tasked by the president to figure out policy on Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
HOLDING COURT: The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet today to consider a slate of nominees, including two that have drawn the ire of environmentalists. The League of Conservation Voters have sent letters to senators on the nominations of Andrew Oldham, to be a circuit judge for the 5th Circuit, and Michael Truncale for the Eastern District of Texas. In a letter Wednesday, LCV President Gene Karpinski lays out how Truncale previously referred to EPA as a “job killer,” and in an earlier letter, the group outlines how Oldham questioned EPA’s legitimacy.
MAIL CALL! HURRY UP: The Environmental Integrity Project released a letter Wednesday signed by more than 300 former EPA employees, who call on the agency's inspector general to complete his investigation into Pruitt's travel and management. “We write to respectfully request that you complete your investigation and present your findings as soon as possible, so that EPA can better focus on its statutory responsibilities,” the letter states. Read it here.
MOVER, SHAKER: The Nuclear Innovation Alliance board of directors announced Wednesday that it had named Ashley Finan its executive director, effective immediately. Previously, Finan served as director of nuclear innovation at Clean Air Task Force and was an interim policy director for the NIA.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/05/trump-keeps-up-pressure-on-perry-220980
-
Crank up the Siren. Scott Pruitt Has an Emergency.
May 16, 2018 | Washington Post
By Dana Milbank
Turn on the flashing lights and crank up the siren: Scott Pruitt has an emergency.
President Trump’s embattled EPA administrator is an important man. He does not like to wait in traffic. So, he reportedly let it be known that he wanted his security detail to use police lights and sirens when taking him to the airport, meetings and social events — even though such emergency equipment is for, well, emergencies.
Confronted Wednesday by a Senate committee, Pruitt said the siren-and-lights thing was a false alarm.
“There have been reports that you encouraged the use of lights and sirens on your motorcade even though there wasn’t an emergency,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).
“I don’t recall that happening,” Pruitt maintained.
Udall rephrased. “You personally requested that on a number of trips,” he charged.
“No,” Pruitt insisted. “I don’t recall that.”
It was then that Udall revealed a just-released February 2017 email from Pruitt’s head of security, Pasquale “Nino” Perrotta. Subject: “Lights and Sirens.” The body consisted of one line: “Btw — Administrator encourages the use.”
The email was sent to Pruitt’s security detail, including Eric Weese, who was reportedly demoted after he refused to drive with lights and siren, and John Martin, who was also removed from the detail after raising objections to Pruitt’s security procedures.
Throw that log on Pruitt’s five-alarm blaze of cartoonish corruption, as his explanations go up in smoke.
The $3 million, 24/7 security detail that accompanied him to Disneyland and the Rose Bowl? Pruitt suggested that came from a threat assessment, but the EPA’s inspector general reported this week that Pruitt requested the protection when he started the job.
His $43,000 soundproof phone booth? The Government Accountability Office said last month that it violated the law.
The EPA official who served as Pruitt’s personal real estate representative? Pruitt said she did that on her own time but he admitted Wednesday he didn’t pay her for it — possibly making it an illegal gift.
He is the subject of no fewer than 15 investigations by various federal entities. Actually, make that 16: Udall requested another Wednesday, into the EPA allegedly using taxpayer money for partisan social media.
The president, and most congressional Republicans, have stuck with Pruitt, presumably because he has proven skilled at dismantling the EPA. But is there nobody else who can dismantle the EPA without acting like he’s the Sultan of Brunei?
“I am concerned that many of the important policy efforts that you are engaged in are being overshadowed,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) advised Pruitt.
Ya think?
There’s his affection for first-class travel, because, as Perrotta put it, “we believe that the continued use of coach seats for the Administrator would endanger his life.”
There’s his sweetheart deal on a $50-a-night D.C. condo, leased from the wife of a lobbyist.
There’s his trip to Morocco arranged by a lobbyist who then won a contract from the Moroccan government.
There’s the stacking of EPA advisory committees and the prioritizing of projects recommended by donors and lobbyists.
There’s the attempted exploitation of the Safe Drinking Water Act to give raises to top Pruitt aides, and the Pruitt friend who got a top EPA job but didn’t show up at work for months.
There are also the bulletproof vests, biometric locks, office decorations, luxury hotels, dubious trips and more.
Udall, usually one of the mildest members of the Senate, denounced Pruitt as “disastrous” and “a betrayal of the American people.”
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) mocked Pruitt’s security (“nobody even knows who you are”) and called him a “laughingstock.”
Pruitt maintained a placid expression; only his legs jiggling under the witness table betrayed his agitation. He said nothing about ethical problems in his opening statement and, when prompted, said the allegations are motivated by policy disagreements. He blamed his predecessors for failing to develop “processes . . . to prevent certain abuses.” Perhaps he expected a “No $43,000 Phone Booths” sign in his office?
He also blamed the decision for him to have 24/7 security on “law enforcement career officials” — even though emails reported this week by The Post show the decision was made by a Trump political appointee.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Pruitt why, given that he requested 24/7 security on day one, he justified the security by citing an August 2017 report on threats against him.
“That’s not the case,” Pruitt replied.
No? Just a few weeks ago, Pruitt read from the August 2017 “threat investigation” when asked by a House committee to justify his extensive security.
Pruitt’s abuses of office are catching up with him — and no quantity of bodyguards, biometric locks, sirens and flashing lights can protect him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-epa-lights-sirens-and-lots-of-smoke/2018/05/16/9d4e885e-594e-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?utm_term=.99ee482f36ae
-
(ACC Mentioned) NGOs Criticise TSCA Analysis That Found Animal Testing Spike
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Public health advocates have taken issue with recent analysis that claims TSCA's new chemical programme has resulted in a huge spike in animal tests, and they are questioning why the US EPA has apparently embraced the research.
Last month, the EPA published a stakeholder analysis submitted in response to the agency's consultation on a draft alternative test methods strategy.
Put together by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine (PCRM), the analysis indicated that the recently amended TSCA's new chemicals programme had caused a "dramatic increase" in animal testing, to the tune of more than 75,000 animals. Both Peta and the PCRM are NGOs opposed to animal testing.
However, in a recent blog post, the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) lead senior scientist, Richard Denison, says it is "curious" that the EPA's chemical division lead, Nancy Beck, "so prominently noted and expressed such enthusiasm" over the analysis in a hearing earlier this year, particularly given that it was not submitted in direct response to the draft plan.
"I suspect Dr Beck's interest in the Peta/PCRM letter and analysis has little to do with sparing laboratory animals and much more to do with her seeing the documents as providing a useful pretext for her concerted efforts to avoid imposing testing requirements on new chemicals – a clear priority for her previous employer, the American Chemistry Council (ACC)," he said.
Daniel Rosenberg, Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) attorney, agreed that, with Nancy Beck in a leadership role, the chemical industry and EPA have a shared goal: "as little testing or restrictions on toxic chemicals as they can get away."
"They're happy to use the animal testing issue as a 'Trojan mouse'" to advance that mission, he said.
'Significantly overstated'
Dr Denison also claims that the the analysis has "serious omissions".
The Peta/PCRM analysis "significantly overstated" the extent of the testing increase through consent orders between 2015 and 2017, as it relied on summaries that do not always include a description of testing requirements, he said.
That issue aside, he says the new law did expand the EPA's testing authorities to ensure it has sufficient information when making risk decisions. "It should be a surprise to no-one that, properly implemented, the new law should result in more, not less, testing of chemicals – including testing involving vertebrate animals where scientifically sound alternatives do not yet exist."
Kristi Pullen Fedinick, scientist with the NRDC, agreed that the amended law expanded the EPA's ability to "use a wide range of tools, including whole animal tests," to ensure the safety of substances.
"Animal welfare concerns should not be used as a free pass for the agency to sidestep its responsibility to protect people, wildlife, and the environment," Dr Pullen Fedinick told Chemical Watch.
The comment period on the EPA's draft strategy ended on 11 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67000/ngos-criticise-tsca-analysis-that-found-animal-testing-spike
-
TSCA Reform Boosts Seattle-Area Chemicals Programme
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
A Washington state county hopes to use TSCA reform to increase the success and scope of its initiative encouraging businesses to switch to more environmentally friendly chemicals.
King County – the nation's 13th most populous county, with more than two million people, and home to the city of Seattle – has been working with businesses for 20 years to find safer substances for use in such places as nail salons, auto refinishing businesses and dry cleaners using the solvent perchloroethylene (Perc).
What has changed, however, is an "added emphasis to it because of TSCA reform", Ashley Pedersen, policy liaison for the Local Hazardous Waste Management programme, told Chemical Watch.
When the Lautenberg Act amended TSCA in 2016, King County saw the requirement for the US EPA to begin risk evaluations of high priority chemicals as an opportunity to revamp their local effort to help businesses become safer.
For example, Ms Pederson said the county put more resources into its existing efforts around Perc after the EPA named it one of the first ten chemicals to undergo assessment under the new TSCA. That initiative started in the 1990s with an effort to ensure dry cleaners' proper disposal techniques and has evolved into an effort to move them away from using Perc entirely.
Expansion plans
Ms Pedersen said the agency is also weighing expanding the programme to address other chemicals on the EPA's list and encourage local businesses to stop using them.
"If the EPA starts to regulate more chemicals, we can help them with their transition," she said. "If the EPA is looking at a chemical, what would we recommend? What would not be a 'regrettable substitute'?"
King County's programme provides education, technical assistance, and small grants to help businesses pay for new equipment.
The local health board recognised the programme's Safer Alternative Strategy in a resolution last month, and commended its "leadership in responding locally to the national changes in chemical regulation" brought by the Lautenberg Act.
"The Safer Alternatives Strategy is, from our perspective, an important step forward in the state's efforts to reduce exposures to harmful chemicals," said Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, director of communications and strategy at Toxic-Free Future. The NGO testified in support of the resolution to the county health board.
"Local governments are the ones who can do outreach and help facilitate switching to safer alternatives," she said. "It's our hope that the Safer Alternatives Strategy resolution can be a model for other local governments to follow.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67002/tsca-reform-boosts-seattle-area-chemicals-programme
-
(ACC Mentioned) Absent ORD Chief, Trump's Toxics Pick Expands Reach Across EPA Science
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Nancy Beck, the controversial former chemical industry lobbyist who is the top political appointee in EPA's toxics office, appears to be playing a leading role in agency science issues beyond that of her title, deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), according to recently released internal emails and recent events.
Sources say her outsize role is driven in part by the fact that she is the only EPA political appointee with a science background in chemical issues, giving her an elevated status within the team of Trump personnel.
A toxicologist, Beck's career with the White House Office of Management and Budget during the Bush administration and later with the chemical industry trade group American Chemistry Council (ACC), has focused on regulatory environmental risk assessment.
But this has meant that her influence is felt in other agency offices, especially the Office of Research and Development (ORD), which lacks a Senate-confirmed assistant administrator (AA) and whose top administration official -- Richard Yamada, a mathematician and former House science committee aide -- does not have a background in chemical issues.
"She is the only political [appointee who is a scientist], since there is no AA in ORD, and since the deputy in ORD knows zero about toxics and risk issues, she's the so-called expert," one agency source tells Inside EPA. "Who do you think they're going to turn to? It's so obvious because there is nobody else."
The source adds that Beck's "influence as a deputy is so much bigger than even an AA in the normal environment."
Several other sources echoed these assessments, with some suggesting that Beck is effectively playing the role of EPA science advisor, but they were not willing to comment for the record.
EPA Science Advisor is tasked with managing agency science across all EPA offices. Traditionally, though not always, the AA in ORD also serves in the Science Advisor role. A career EPA scientist, Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, is filling both roles in an acting capacity since President Donald Trump has yet to nominate a candidate.
An EPA spokesperson says, in response to questions from Inside EPA, "Dr. Beck is not playing the role of the EPA Science Advisor. Regional and Program Offices throughout EPA work collaboratively often and frequently on many activities."
"We would expect Dr. Beck to participate in these discussions and provide comments as a representative of the [OCSPP]," she says.
Some sources say that Beck would be expected to participate in consultations across the agency. "Nancy is one of the few folks with a lot of science credibility among the political appointees at EPA. So even if OCSPP does not have an organizational stake in the matter, it would make sense that the political team might ask her to offer advice," says one member of the Environmental Protection Network, a group of former agency staff critical of Trump EPA changes.
"For many years EPA has promoted a culture in which multiple offices work together on matters that relate to each office's work," the source adds.
But recently released internal emails show her playing a significant role in guiding matters that appear to fall beyond the OCSPP deputy's purview -- sometimes along the lines of stances she took while representing ACC.
The emails, released to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) under the Freedom of Information Act, show, for example, Beck seeking to delay and expand a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review of ORD's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.
In a series of emails with Yamada and the top career officials in OSCPP and ORD, Charlotte Bertrand and Orme-Zavaleta, Beck sought to delay a workshop to review IRIS that NAS held Feb. 1-2, and to expand its agenda to include topics of interest to OCSPP's toxics office. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 211750)
In a Dec. 28, 2017 email, Orme-Zavaleta writes Beck and Bertrand, "To follow up on the discussion you have been having on IRIS and the upcoming NAS workshop, I asked Tina [Bahadori, director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment which manages IRIS] to reach out to [NAS] to explore including OPPT in the agenda. The NAS would like to get together with us next week to discuss how we would see this playing out."
In response to a related email from Bertrand, asking Orme-Zavaleta if the NAS workshop has been postponed, Orme-Zavaleta replied, "I learned that it will not be feasible to postpone this workshop, and given schedules, it may not be realistic to modify the scope of the workshop at this time."
Apparently unsatisfied with Orme-Zavaleta's response, Beck forwarded it to Yamada, adding, "I find it hard to believe a workshop can't be moved, even if it comes with a slight cost to the Agency (booked travel for members). Have you spoken to NAS directly about this?"
Yamada replied, "They made it very clear that this could not be moved and that they were not going to accommodate."
Beck wrote back to Yamada, "Ok. Quite surprising but everything is strange these days."
Emails also show Beck heavily involved in the drafting of Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial proposed rule seeking to bar EPA's use of any science that is not publicly available from agency decisionmaking.
Early versions of the proposal, which is based on stalled legislation pushed by House science committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), drew her concern over its potential for barring EPA's use of confidential business information (CBI), a key issue given OCSPP's use of such data in approving pesticide uses and reviewing new industrial chemicals.
In a Jan. 31 email, Beck writes Yamada that pesticide regulations require manufacturers to submit to EPA "a huge amount of data … it costs companies millions of dollars to do these guideline studies." Beck adds that these studies come to EPA as CBI and are reviewed by agency staff as part of the registration and re-registration process required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Similarly, Beck notes that with industrial chemicals governed by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), "It is likely that when we do TSCA risk evaluations, companies will provide us with" studies that companies were required to produce by European authorities over the past decade "as CBI (to protect the costs/money they spent to do the testing -- it's competitiveness issue)."
Without changes, the early version of the directive would "jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/re-registration process and likely all TSCA risk evaluations," Beck added, calling for it to be "revised."
Yamada replied, "thanks, this is helpful -- didn't know about the intricacies of CBI -- ok, we will need to thread this one real tight!"
Environmentalists say the proposed rule issued by EPA may have addressed CBI issues, at least for pesticide registrations, by applying the rule's requirements only to "major" rules costing more than $100 million, a definition that does not apply to registrations.
But ACC indicated in a statement that the proposal may need additional work to address its CBI concerns. The group said it will work with EPA "to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency's regulations while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights."
Nevertheless, ACC has welcomed the proposed rule's push to move the agency away from its strict, default linear dose-response approach for calculating cancer risks, which Beck and the industry group has long opposed, arguing it results in overly conservative standards.
EPA's proposed rule "gets it right" to move away from the approach, which assumes that any exposure to chemicals that can cause cancer could be harmful.
Beck has long argued against EPA's default approach, along with many other industry scientists. They suggest that EPA is too strict in its criteria of when enough evidence has been provided to step away from the default approach, and she has also in the past argued that EPA should present both linear and non-linear cancer modeling for some chemicals, in order to show a range of risk management options for certain chemicals.
For example, at a June 2015 meeting of science advisors peer reviewing EPA's draft IRIS assessment of ethylene oxide, a chemical used to sterilize medical instruments, Beck questioned EPA's decision to present only linear cancer potency modeling and the peer review panel's acceptance of that decision.
"There is no scientific rationale to talk about why the linear rationale is the only choice," said Beck, who represented ACC at the meeting. "There is great stakeholder concern. There will be a lack of public confidence if this is not addressed."
After the controversial policy was released, Richard Dension, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, charged it has Beck's fingerprints all over it.
"I suspect both [Pruitt and Smith] would have been hard pressed to describe the actual main focus of the proposal, which is now this: 'When promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation,'" Denison writes in an April 25 blog. "But I am sure Dr. Nancy Beck, chemical industry toxicologist turned top political appointee in EPA's toxics office, could in a heartbeat."
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/absent-ord-chief-trumps-toxics-pick-expands-reach-across-epa-science
-
May 16, 2018 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Angela Logomasini
In an April 24 blog post, I detailed why a recent National Academies of Sciences review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System—a research program that conducts chemical risk assessments—should be disregarded. Basically, NAS did nothing more than pat EPA on the back for having finally implemented someof NAS’s recommended procedural reforms that the agency should have put in place nearly a decade ago.
However, even if IRIS does finally implement all NAS-recommended reforms, it’s unlikely to fix the program and ensure its risk assessment make sense. I detail in Science 2.0 today that the program is fundamentally flawed because its excessively cautious approach produces absurd and useless conclusions about chemical risks. You can read the entire article on Science 2.0, but here’s an excerpt highlighting some of IRIS’s foolish findings.
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.
https://cei.org/blog/excessive-caution-epa-produces-absurd-conclusions
-
White House Fears PR 'Nightmare' over PFAS Risk Level
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Internal US EPA documents show concern that draft toxicological profiles for four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) from a separate federal agency could result in a "public relations nightmare". And the correspondence suggests that the White House’s intergovernmental affairs office had an interest in swaying the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) approach.
Last month, the NGO Union of Concerned Scientists released hundreds of EPA documents acquired through a public records request on the agency’s new 'science transparency' proposal.
In one email from January, an unidentified White House intergovernmental affairs employee flagged up the ATSDR's plans to publish a toxicological profile with "very, very low 'minimal risk level' (MRL) numbers" for four PFASs: PFOS, PFOA, PFHX, and PFNA. These include levels for adults and children ranging from 12 parts per trillion to 516ppt.
"The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these new numbers is going to be huge. The impact to EPA and [the Department of Defense] is going to be extremely painful," says the correspondence.
"We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realise the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be," it adds.
In a subsequent email exchange between EPA staff, Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, suggested getting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to "step up and coordinate interagency review" before the toxicology profile is publicly released.
The White House's office "played this role quite a bit under the Bush Administration, but under Obama they let each agency do their own thing", she added.
But the White House aide indicated that the ATSDR's director was unwilling to share the detailed draft toxicological profiles – only the numbers.
Richard Yamada, deputy assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), added it seemed the ATSDR "want[s] to roll out and do [their] own thing".EPA, ATSDR divergence
ATSDR is housed under the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Its MRLs are intended to serve as estimates of daily human exposure unlikely to cause an appreciable risk of adverse non-cancer health effects.
The EPA has established a non-enforceable lifetime health advisory level of 70ppt in drinking water for two PFASs – PFOA and PFOS.
A separate email exchange from earlier in the month shows that EPA staff worked with ATSDR to "better understand the basis for their risk levels, why and how they differ from EPA’s health advisory, and how we might be able to coordinate better going forward".
This exchange indicates that for PFOA, the ATSDR chose a different study from the EPA as the basis for their risk level – one which the EPA "would typically judge as inadequate" for such a purpose, according to an email from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, the principal deputy assistant administrator for science at the EPA's ORD.
And regarding PFAS, ATSDR applied an additional uncertainty factor to address immune system toxicity concerns. The EPA "[thinks] this uncertainty is already addressed" in its PFAS assessment, said Dr Orme-Zavaleta's email.
The ATSDR has yet to publish its draft toxicological profiles for the four PFASs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66992/white-house-fears-pr-nightmare-over-pfas-risk-level
-
Pruitt Wants Chemicals Study at Heart of Interagency Spat Released
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid, David Schultz and Abby Smith
EPA chief Scott Pruitt told senators that he was unaware his agency has been clashing with another over the health risks posed by fluorochemicals.
Internal agency emails that environmental advocates obtained indicate senior Environmental Protection Agency officials were worried about releasing a draft report from an office within the Department of Health and Human Services that found these chemicals could be more dangerous than previously known. Pruitt told a hearing of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that this report should not be suppressed.
“I was not aware there had been some holding back of a report,” he said. “I think it’s important to have all information in the marketplace.”
Pruitt would not answer follow-up questions after he left the May 16 hearing.
Six Times LowerFluorochemicals are frequently used in firefighting foam and in nonstick coatings. They were manufactured for years by companies like 3M, Saint-Gobain SA, and what is now DowDuPont Inc. The chemicals are highly resistant to degradation and can cause numerous health problems if they accumulate in the body.
Emails that the Union of Concerned Scientists obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that leaders at both the EPA and the White House were worried that a study from the Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry—yet to be released for public comment—could cause a panic because it concludes that a safety threshold for fluorochemical exposure may need to be six times lower than it currently is.
The EPA has recommended that two prominent fluorochemicals not exceed 70 parts per trillion in drinking water. In the released emails, a White House official said the study from the toxic substances agency pegs the safe level of exposure at 12 parts per trillion, though it noted that there’s enough scientific uncertainty that this number could be as high as 516 parts per trillion.
“The public, media, and congressional impact to these numbers is going to be huge. The impact to EPA and DOD will be painful,” an unnamed White House official wrote in a Jan. 30 email forwarded to the EPA. This official was concerned that the media would focus only on the lower end of the risk level range presented in the agency’s study.
In ensuing exchanges, EPA officials raised concerns about the approaches the toxic substances agency took to arrive at this range of risk levels. In particular, the agency used a study to develop a risk level for one of the fluorochemicals that the EPA deemed inadequate, according to an email from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, principal deputy assistant administrator for science at the EPA Office of Research and Development.
Orme-Zavaleta also raised concerns about how the toxic substances agency calculated the impact of these chemicals on the immune systems of children and adults.
More Scientific InputThe EPA is convening an interagency summit next week to take a closer look at what more should be done about exposure to these fluorochemicals. The toxic substances agency has been invited to the summit; however, it’s unclear whether it will present its findings, which haven’t been released yet.
The toxic substances agency emphasized that it is not issuing a standard, but rather providing an estimate of daily human exposure to the chemicals that can cause harmful health effects other than cancer.
The agency also said it would seek additional input from scientists at other agencies, including the EPA, but it didn’t respond to Bloomberg Environment’s questions about whether those concerns were resolved.
Instead, the agency said the body of knowledge about fluorochemicals is emerging quickly. “As a result, this document has been through the normal review process, leading to a number of revisions, resulting in multiple rounds of peer review and public comment,” the toxics agency said.
EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson told Bloomberg Environment in a statement: “EPA is eager to participate in and contribute to a coordinated approach so each federal stakeholder, EPA, DOD, and HHS, is fully informed on what the other stakeholders concerns, roles, and expertise can contribute and to ensure that the federal government is responding in a uniform way to our local, state, and Congressional constituents and partners.”
If the EPA decides to revise its health advisory based on the study, millions more people could be considered at risk than under the EPA advisory level, Yogin Kothari, senior Washington representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg Environment.
This study needs to be part of the national discussion, Kothari added.
“To the extent the administration is convening folks from across the country, it is important to elevate these issues and have a discussion about it,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pruitt-wants-chemicals-study-at-heart-of-interagency-spat-released
-
Capito Satisfied with Pruitt Answer on Chemical Study
May 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va) said she accepted EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s defense at a Senate Appropriations hearing this morning that he did not know his aides were seeking to “squash” an HHS chemical assessment, as well as his assurances that he was interested in getting more information about PFAS chemicals out to the public.
“I was satisfied that he has the same interests as me in getting all the information out, but I’m going to see what his actions are before I’m fully satisfied,” Capito told POLITICO.
Capito is the highest profile Republican to weigh in with concerns on the matter. A number of Democrats have also demanded a response from the Trump administration, including eleven Senate Democrats who today wrote Pruitt, as well as the heads of HHS, the Defense Department and the White House Office of Management and Budget demanding the study’s immediate release.
Capito said today that she has “not yet” taken the issue up with the Trump administration beyond today’s questions to Pruitt.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
California Lawmakers Move to Ensure Lead-Free Water in Child Care Centers
May 16, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Susan Little
California lawmakers are moving toward ensuring that lead-free drinking water is required in all child care centers, catching up with Oregon, Washington and four other states.
More than 700,000 California children are enrolled in state-certified child care centers, which are mostly housed in privately owned buildings. Since 2017, state law has required lead testing of water in public schools and child care centers based in schools, but it does not cover privately run child care centers.
Licensing regulations say private child care providers must serve safe drinking water from “non-contaminated fixtures,” which would seem to disallow lead-contaminated water from lead-leaching faucets. But the regulations do not require these centers to test the water children drink or that is used to mix formula.
Local water agencies don’t usually monitor lead levels in private businesses, even if they provide a public service. But based on a sampling of water at public schools and school-based child care centers, there’s reason to be concerned that thousands of children may be drinking water from lead-contaminated faucets.
EWG analyzed limited lead-testing data from the State Water Resources Control Board and found many examples of school drinking water well in excess of the Environmental Protection Agency’s action level of 15 parts per billion, or ppb, of lead. The board is expected to release lead-testing data for all schools soon.
For example, a water fountain at a Daly City elementary school contained 1,900 ppb of lead, a San Francisco school’s water contained 860 ppb, and a fountain in a Bakersfield school had 240 ppb. The drinking water at an East Oakland school’s on-site child care center contained 256 ppb of lead, water at a San Diego school-based child care center had 53 ppb, and a San Bernardino preschool’s water had 25 ppb.
Under federal regulations, lead concentrations in drinking water must be below 15 ppb, and water agencies whose water is found to have higher levels must take action to reduce the water’s lead content. But health experts believe the 15 ppb action level still exposes children to too much lead.
Lead is a severe neurotoxin that can cause health damage that lasts a lifetime. Even small amounts of lead can lower a child’s intelligence, cause behavior and learning problems, slow growth, and harm hearing. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that lead be removed from contaminated housing and child care facilities, and that water from fountains in schools should not exceed lead concentrations of more than 1 part per billion.
According to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, children absorb half of the lead they ingest, and if a child is malnourished, they will absorb lead faster. Children are exposed to lead in many ways, but the EPA says as much as one-fifth of a child’s exposure to lead is from drinking water. The EPA also estimates that up to 60 percent of formula-fed infants’ lead exposure can come from water used to mix formula.
Lead was banned from paint and gasoline many years ago, but only recently has federal law required the reduction of lead in water pipes and faucets to trace levels. Without regular testing of child care centers’ drinking water, we can’t be sure that hundreds of thousands of children aren’t getting daily doses of the neurotoxin.
EWG is sponsoring legislation by Assembly Member Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, to require the state Department of Social Services and the Water Resources Control Board to develop regulations mandating that all child care centers test their drinking water for lead and act to abate contamination.
But many centers operate on shoestring budgets, so they won’t be able to afford testing and fixing their drinking water systems on their own. The state needs to prioritize the health of our youngest citizens and allocate resources to pay for a centers’ lead tests and remediation when centers can’t manage the costs. At EWG’s request, 22 assembly members and senators have asked the Legislature’s budget committees to provide such funding in next year’s state budget. The committees are now considering this bipartisan request.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/california-lawmakers-move-ensure-lead-free-water-child-care-centers#.Wv053EiFPIU
-
Canada Finalises Tighter Lead, Cadmium Standards for Children's Products
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Government agency Health Canada has finalised regulations aimed at reducing children's exposure to lead and cadmium.
The proposed amendments to the Children's Jewellery Regulations will:
· add a 130mg/kg total cadmium limit for jewellery items "small enough to be swallowed by a child"; and
· introduce a single 90mg/kg total lead limit for all children's jewellery items – replacing the current 600mg/kg total lead limit and 90mg/kg migratable lead limit.
And, on the recommendation of the health minister, Canada has announced it is to replace its Consumer Products Containing Lead Regulations. The new rules apply a 90mg/kg total lead limit to:
· toys intended for children aged between 3-14;
· children's clothing and accessories; and
· products with a "primary purpose to facilitate the relaxation, sleep, hygiene, carrying or transportation" of a child less than four years of age.
The proposals were originally published in December 2016. During the consultation Health Canada received comments from two manufacturers, one manufacturer/distributor, one importer/ distributor, one retailer, three industry associations, one consultant, two public health NGOs, and one provincial government.
Alignment
US and Canadian industry groups urged Health Canada to alter the restrictions to align with US regulations, creating a uniform standard across North America.
US rules set only a migratable cadmium limit, which Health Canada decided is "not sufficiently protective."
While the lead standard is slightly different from the current US 100mg/kg total lead limit for children's jewellery, Health Canada calculated that alignment with that standard is less important than ensuring consistency with Canadian restrictions for other regulated children's products.
Both standards "preclude the intentional use of lead," the agency noted.
NGOs asked that the rules be made effective immediately, while one industry association asked for a one-year transition period. Health Canada stuck to its proposal to have the regulations become effective six months after publication in the Canada Gazette.
Two public health NGOs argued that lead and cadmium content restrictions should apply to all costume jewellery, rather than only items intended primarily for children, as young children may have access to adult jewellery.
A US industry association recommended the rules apply to items intended for children up to 12 years, as in the US, rather than 15 years.
However, Health Canada said it considers an upper age limit of 15 years "an appropriate balance."
https://chemicalwatch.com/67007/canada-finalises-tighter-lead-cadmium-standards-for-childrens-products
-
Echa Goal to Identify All Harmful Substances by 2025 'Unrealistic'
May 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Doubts have been raised about Echa's ability to deliver its objective of identifying all substances of concern and to start action on them by 2025.
The agency set the goal in its recently published draft strategic planfor the next five years. This named new substance identification and data generation as top priorities.
NGO Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) questioned the agency’s ability to execute the goal given its slow progress in updating the REACH candidate list, which currently has only 181 chemicals since its inception more than 10 years ago.
"We wonder whether the current objective … is realistic," HEAL said. It compared the number of chemicals on the candidate list with NGO ChemSec’s Substitute It Now list, which contains over 900 substances.
Echa needs "strong and clear commitments" to address substances of concern yet to be added to the candidate list, HEAL said.
ChemSec echoed this, saying Echa should include in its strategy the aim to add all substances of very high concern (SVHC) to the candidate list. The strategy is unclear about whether it includes non-registered substances of concern, ChemSec said, adding these also need to be dealt with under REACH.
Meanwhile, the European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, called for a clearer definition of the term 'substance of concern' and how it will be applied under EU chemicals legislation, to avoid confusion with SVHCs.
Substitution
HEAL said it welcomed Echa's emphasis in the strategy on the need for improved risk management of substances of concern. "Major wins could be made", it said, by running more efficient authorisation and restriction processes. It is important, it added, that the agency’s draft strategic plan provides indications on how these improvements are going to be done.
Authorisations are still being granted when safer alternatives exist, and member states have "too much burden" to demonstrate the need for restrictions, it said.
Both ChemSec and HEAL said they prefer to see the strategy for substitution and promotion of safer alternatives included in priority 1 of the plan, whilst also being stated "more explicitly" in priority 2 on safe and sustainable use of chemicals by industry.
Achieving this priority, HEAL said, requires "significant effort" from Echa to strengthen the process of analysing safer alternatives, which is "currently mostly" carried out by companies applying for authorisation.
More action needed
Echa should better consider which REACH review actions proposed by the Commission should be included and represented in the strategy, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said.
One of these is the 'precautionary principle'. The REACH review states that "in most cases" Echa and its committees "did not assess the scientific uncertainties to enable the Commission to consider possible action based on the precautionary principle".
Moreover, the NGO said Echa should include actions to improve the deficiencies identified in the REACH review. Actions should aim to:
· avoid animal testing without hindering the identification of new SVHCs;
· better address emerging issues;
· improve the identification of endocrine disruptors; and
· gather sufficient information on nanomaterials to ensure safety.
ClientEarth said Echa needs to change its mindset, as it "still sees its role as a service provider to the chemicals industry". This position, the NGO adds, prevents the agency from "truly fulfilling the role it was created for: to be a guardian for EU REACH regulation and a source for chemical information for all".
It is a "pivotal moment" for the regulator, ClientEarth said, and the direction it decides to go in now will have an impact on how chemicals are classified and regulated for the next five years. It will also impact the capacity of REACH to become "fully effective" as well as the EU’s capacity to achieve a safe circular economy, it said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67006/echa-goal-to-identify-all-harmful-substances-by-2025-unrealistic
-
Landowners, Enviros Challenge BLM Oil, Natural Gas Leases in Montana
May 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Three landowners and two environmental groups on Tuesday challenged two recent U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lease sales of 287 parcels in Montana, alleging in federal court that the agency ignored the potential environmental impacts of prospective oil and natural gas drilling.
In a 34-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, attorneys for WildEarth Guardians, the Montana Environmental Information Center and the landowners asked the federal court to "void any and all oil/gas leases" that were issued following lease sales held last December and March.
The court filing seeks to force BLM to "take a hard look" at potential groundwater and climate impacts from drilling on federal lands in parts of the Tongue River Valley in southeastern Montana and a parcel next to the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.
This latest legal action is part of ongoing efforts by various groups to oppose the Trump administration's push to lease ever-larger chunks of federal lands for fossil fuel development. In a case last year that involved the WildEarth group, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that BLM failed to adequately consider the carbon dioxide (CO) emissions of four large coal leases in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin (PRB).
In Montana, the groups, and landowners David Katz and Jack and Bonnie Martinell, contend that BLM"s environmental assessment (EA) was inadequate in both lease sales, which involved 145,000 acres. They allege that BLM did not address " reasonably foreseeable impacts" of drilling on groundwater aquifers or consider mitigation measures to protect drinking water sources. They also challenge parts of BLM's climate analysis for the two lease sales, saying it failed to calculate cumulative emissions from the leases.
Defendants listed in the lawsuit include Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, BLM and Donato Judice, the agency's deputy state director for energy, minerals and realty. Judice allegedly approved the contested lease sales.
The court complaint accuses BLM of "turning a blind eye to the groundwater contamination and climate pollution" that it contends will result from the leasing being allowed to go through.
Plaintiffs also pointed out that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Montana is currently confined mostly to the northeastern part of the state near the North Dakota border in the Bakken Shale. They said the latest lease sales "pave the way" for fracking to spread to other parts of the state.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114399-landowners-enviros-challenge-blm-oil-natural-gas-leases-in-montana
-
Transportation Bill Advances While Dems Decry Riders
May 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
A House Appropriations subcommittee yesterday quickly advanced a transportation and infrastructure spending bill for fiscal 2019, despite some grumbling from Democrats about policy riders.
The bill passed the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee by voice vote and now heads to the full committee.
Members declined to offer any amendments at the subcommittee markup, but Democrats made clear they aim to address their concerns at the full committee markup.
The 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 (E&E Daily, May 16).
Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), ranking member on the subcommittee, said it's unlikely the bill will advance in full committee with the current policy riders.
"I am strongly opposed to several controversial policy riders that were attached to this bill that unnecessarily attack high-speed rail," Price said. "They roll back transportation safety for the traveling public. They harm labor rights."
He added, "I won't offer amendments today ... but members will have the opportunity to delete these riders in full committee. They must be addressed if the bill is to garner bipartisan support."
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) took issue with provisions to increase truck weights and pre-empt state and local meal and rest break laws, saying they "make our roads less safe and have no place in an appropriations bill."
Lowey added, "Unfortunately, the majority has chosen to include these harmful policy riders that have repeatedly been stripped from previous bills. ... Just like every year, Democratic votes will be needed to enact an appropriations law, so I hope we'll soon start to work together."
House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), meanwhile, said he was "especially pleased" that the bill would fund Amtrak at $1.9 billion, of which $650 million is for the Northeast Corridor and $1.3 billion is for the national network.
While $650 million might strike some as a lot of money for the Northeast Corridor, it's an appropriate amount, Frelinghuysen said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/17/stories/1060081931
-
Wehrum Backs House Bill to Reform NSR Program Despite Dim Prospects
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA air chief William Wehrum is offering strong support for pending House legislation to overhaul and ease the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting program by claiming it would provide long-sought regulatory clarity, but the bill appears to face dim prospects as Democrats expressed uniform opposition to the measure.
Even if the discussion draft bill by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) can clear the House, Democrats' objections mean it would likely fail to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.
At a hearing of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel May 16 to discuss the draft legislation, Wehrum said the administration officially takes “no position” on the bill.
But he added, “I strongly support the overall goals of the discussion draft.”
The bill would help industry avoid full-blown NSR permit review, which is time-consuming, expensive and can result in costly pollution-control mandates. Industry groups have long complained that the program is an impediment to many projects, including those that would increase a plant's efficiency and in some cases decrease pollution.
The bill would allow permit applicants to determine likely emissions increases of projects using the maximum achievable hourly emission rate as compared to the 10-year period immediately preceding the project's construction.
This is a less-stringent standard than the NSR policy still used by EPA, which determines emissions increases based on current actual emissions, projected future “actual” emissions rates and actual emissions after project completion. Griffith's suggested change would align the NSR methodology with that used to determine applicability of the separate Clean Air Act new source performance standards (NSPS) program.
Further, the bill would change the definition of a “modification” to a source that would trigger full NSR permit review. It would exclude from consideration as a “modification" any change that "reduces the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the source per unit of output," or which is "designed to restore, maintain or improve the reliability or safety of the source," except when that would increase the maximum hourly rate of pollution compared to the prior 10 years, and where the EPA administrator determines that the change is harmful to human health or the environment.
"Modifications" not exempted by these terms would not be considered as modifications if they do "not result in a significant emissions increase, or a significant net emissions increase, in annual actual emissions at such facility."
The bill goes further even than Wehrum and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have in a series of recent policy memosand planned rulemakings reforming NSR.
Even House energy panel environment subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) told reporters that “this might be a bridge too far” for a bipartisan compromise, given Democrats' push-back.
Democrats' Opposition
Democrats at the hearing on the bill were strongly opposed to the measure, arguing it would result in emissions increases because it allows plants to circumvent NSR.
Also, critics say the switch to using maximum hourly emissions rates as a yardstick to determine when NSR applies, rather than projected actual emissions, would allow industrial facilities to operate more and potentially pollute more.
The Trump EPA has so far issued new policies stating that NSR enforcement will be determined by actual emissions from a project after its construction, rather than projections before construction, as under prior administrations; prohibiting EPA from “second guessing” pre-construction emissions projections; allowing project developers to count emissions decreases, as well as increases, in deciding whether a full project “netting “ analysis is necessary under NSR; and making it easier for industry to keep related sources separate and avoid triggering NSR as a single “aggregated” source under “common control.”
Further steps are planned on aggregation of projects and also exemptions granted for “routine maintenance” of sources under NSR.
But Wehrum told the hearing and reporters afterward that Griffith's bill would greatly simplify the program, and encourage companies to make efficiency upgrades and even install pollution controls where previously they would not. He said fears that the bill would result in more pollution are unfounded, and that emissions increases, while theoretically possible, are unlikely and in any case mitigated by numerous other Clean Air Act controls on air pollution.
Democrats on the committee were unconvinced by such claims. “There is no doubt this bill will increase pollution,” said full House energy panel ranking member Frank Pallone (D-NJ).
Democrats on the panel focused on the fact that, 40 years after its introduction, the NSR program is still providing regulatory exemptions from modern pollution controls for many “grandfathered” power plants. “Congress recognized that existing facilities would need time to plan for and install pollution controls,” but “industries have spent years employing legions of attorneys, with the sole mission of creating carve-outs in the NSR program,” Pallone said.
Environment panel ranking member Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) was blunt about the bill's prospects. “I am not interested in Clean Air Act amendments that will result in dirtier air,” he said. “I do not believe we will be able to reach common ground."
Should the measure be introduced as a final bill, and Democrats in both the House and Senate oppose it, its prospects of overcoming a possible Democratic Senate filibuster seem poor.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wehrum-backs-house-bill-reform-nsr-program-despite-dim-prospects
-
EPA, States Plan Environmental Data Clearing House in Federalism Effort
May 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA and state regulators are planning to craft a clearing house of environmental research to improve states' access to EPA's Office of Research and Development data and tools, part of states' ongoing push to bolster their collaboration with federal regulators on implementing environmental laws, which has gained traction under the Trump administration.
In a May 4 memo, top officials of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) update state regulators' on the group's progress in advancing the group's April 2017 paper on re-aligning states' working relationship with EPA, as well as plans for continuing that effort in the coming year.
“ECOS has made significant headway in socializing the principles of Cooperative Federalism 2.0, framing key actions needed to realize its potential, and establishing substantive dialogue with U.S. EPA in important priority areas,” the memo says. “However, the work done to date does not yet signal success nor imply completion.”
Improving states' access to ORD's technical expertise in assessing chemicals' toxicity and crafting risk values that support federal environmental rules is a goal of the ECOS paper released last spring, “Cooperative Federalism 2.0: A Deeper Look into a Rebooted EPA-State Relationship,” which is helping guide ongoing talks with EPA.
The memo outlines priorities for continued talks with EPA in 2018, including improving states access to ORD tools and research, addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and improving state and federal coordination on groundwater policies that affect Superfund cleanups.
The ECOS leaders, President Todd Parfitt, who is the director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and Past President John Linc Stine, who is commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, also describe recent talks with EPA on streamlining federal oversight of state permitting and enforcement actions.
On enforcement, the memo says ongoing discussions are focusing on striking the right balance between state and federal enforcement by developing principles that define expectations for states and EPA on individual enforcement actions, and on developing metrics for assessing overall compliance rates.
“Relying on these principles, states and U.S. EPA will: seek to establish best practices; strive to ensure consistent and transparent behavior across the U.S. EPA regions; and look for opportunities to minimize, or in some cases eliminate, the need for direct action or intervention,” the memo says.
States are also seeking more meaningful input into the development of EPA National Enforcement Initiatives to ensure they reflect state priorities and focus federal resources where they are most needed.
Similarly, ECOS says that in discussions with EPA it has secured a commitment to consult first with states on future proposed revisions to EPA Superfund-related groundwater policies that affect cleanups.
The memo “Cooperative Federalism 2.0: One Year of Progress and 2018 Aspirations” argues that ECOS' cooperative federalism seeks to build on states' improved capacity to administer federally-delegated environmental programs, and correct EPA's failure to adequately consult or fully leverage the capacity and expertise of state regulators.
The Trump administration has backed ECOS' cooperative federalism goals in its strategic plan released in February. Environmentalists and some state regulators have expressed skepticism of the Trump EPA's push to bolster “cooperative federalism,” saying increased state authority could weaken environmental safeguards or that similar agency commitments in the past have failed to materialize.
EPA's Role
But ECOS officials have said talks with EPA have advanced in recent months, focusing on streamlining EPA oversight of state permitting and enforcement through an audit policy rather than reviewing individual actions, and on crafting a policy for elevating disputes between state and federal regulators so they may be quickly resolved.
The ECOS memo says talks have also advanced on bolstering EPA's role as a technical and scientific resource for state regulators. In addition to seeking to improve states' access to valuable ORD research and tools and planning the clearing house of environmental research, EPA and states have established a workgroup to discuss new research and prepare for release of new toxicity information and values on emerging contaminants, such as PFAS.
“This workgroup may establish a new partnership between U.S. EPA and the states around how toxicity and regulatory information on newly emerging contaminants of concern are addressed,” the memo says.
The memo adds that ECOS is planning to conduct in late fiscal year 2018 a third biannual survey of state research needs, which gives states a significant opportunity to provide input on ORD's future research.
The push for greater state access to ORD comes as some states have been pushing EPA water officials to set an enforceable standard for PFAS, a common drinking water contaminant, though a senior agency water official has cautioned that is a lengthy process.
But in response to state calls, EPA has scheduled a May 22-23 PFAS National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. with other federal agencies and state officials to work on challenges and issues related to PFAS contamination.
ECOS Executive Director and General Counsel Sam Sankar told Inside EPA in a May 8 interview that ECOS is seeking to come up with “consensus ideas” of steps that EPA could take to address the contamination more quickly, and that all states would support. He cited federal health advisories, which some states have sought, as one possible recommendation.
“There is a lot of desire for consistent federal regulatory standards on these compounds. At the same time, states recognize that it takes time to develop those standards, and there are things that the federal government can do during the pendency of that standard as well,” Sankar said.
He added that officials from 36 states are planning to attend the summit and some will likely share individual state priorities for addressing PFAS. He also noted that specific priorities for EPA action on PFAS will also depend on whether federal regulators commit to taking any specific actions at the meeting.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-states-plan-environmental-data-clearing-house-federalism-effort
-
Bill on Industrial Emissions Changes Gets EPA Air Chief’s Support
May 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Legislation that would affect how industrial facilities’ emissions increases are calculated now has the backing of the top EPA air official, despite the agency’s efforts to also pursue regulation.
“The administration didn’t have an official position on the bill. I, personally, strongly support the discussion draft,” William Wehrum, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation, told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment.
The panel is holding a hearing to discuss the draft legislation, which would revise the air pollution permitting program known as New Source Review.
Under this program, facilities such as coal-fired power plants and refineries are required to install modern air pollution controls when renovating or building new facilities that significantly increase annual air emissions.
Changing the program has been a priority of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Industries required to obtain the permits have long complained the process is too complicated and time consuming.
Bill DetailsThe draft bill would allow emissions increases from expansions or modifications to be calculated on an hourly basis as opposed to projecting annual increases in air pollution from these modified plants.
It also makes clear that changes that decrease emissions or are the result of restoring, maintaining, or improving the reliability of the plant wouldn’t trigger the permitting requirements.
Wehrum said compliance under the existing program is time consuming and complicated and acts as an impediment to companies that want to upgrade their plants to increase productivity.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, argued that the bill would allow more air pollution because it would allow facilities to operate for longer hours, increasing annual emissions even if the hourly pollution rates aren’t as high.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bill-on-industrial-emissions-changes-gets-epa-air-chiefs-support
-
Caucus Members Eye WRDA to Address Warming Impacts
May 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The upcoming House water infrastructure bill could provide an ideal opportunity to address the impacts of climate change, a bipartisan pair of Climate Solutions Caucus members said yesterday.
With a major infrastructure bill all but dead in Congress, the Water Resources Development Act authorization is one of the last chances this year for modest measures that deal with the effects — rather than the causes — of climate change, said Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.).
"In WRDA, I think there's a real opportunity to get back to looking at flood, storm control projects, upgrading stormwater systems," Lowenthal said at a Capitol Hill event sponsored by the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the National Audubon Society.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released its WRDA bill last week to bipartisan applause.
But the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's version — set for release in coming weeks — could prove more controversial.
Lawmakers have indicated they may use the must-pass bill to push a variety of infrastructure measures, including a proposal to move the Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works division out of the Pentagon (E&E Daily, May 16).
At the same time, it could be another step toward addressing the economic effects of climate change, said Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.).
"Building with a mind towards avoiding that obvious pollution but also building with an eye towards being able to sustain the impacts of severe weather is something we've got to be smarter about," Faso said.
The approach of addressing climate change without mention of fossil fuels or greenhouse gases is where the Solutions Caucus is most comfortable.
With attitudes gradually shifting in Congress, the caucus can help reframe the issue, Lowenthal said.
As an example, Lowenthal pointed to the "Preparedness and Risk Management for Extreme Weather Patterns Assuring Resilience and Effectiveness Act," H.R. 4177, a bipartisan extreme weather bill. The measure was, in part, a product of the caucus, but climate change and its causes go unmentioned.
"It doesn't talk about climate change, but we're really talking about climate change," Lowenthal said.
In the current fiscal and political climate, that's really all climate change advocates can ask for, Faso said.
"Swinging for the fences in this environment, with the fiscal constraints we have, is probably not realistic," he said. "We have to hit singles and sometimes get on base with a bunt."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/17/stories/1060081929
-
Rise in CFC Emissions Threatens Ozone Recovery
May 17, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Mark Peplow
In a feat of atmospheric detective work, researchers have uncovered evidence that thousands of metric tons of an ozone-destroying chemical are still being released into the air every year, despite a global ban on production (Nature 2018, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2).
Their investigation traced trichlorofluoromethane (a chlorofluorocarbon, CFC-11) back to east Asia, and concluded that it was probably emitted by new, unreported production facilities. “If it continues at this rate, it will delay ozone recovery by about a decade,” says Stephen A. Montzka of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who led the research.
CFC-11 is one of a suite of halocarbons that are controlled under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, widely hailed as being the most effective environmental treaty in history. When the protocol came into force in 1989, it set a timetable to phase out various industrial halocarbons used as refrigerants, solvents, and propellants. In Earth’s stratosphere, these compounds release halogen atoms that catalyze the breakdown of ozone, thinning a vital atmospheric shield that filters out most of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. Current estimates suggest that the protocol’s restrictions should help the concentration of stratospheric ozone to return to 1980 levels by the middle of this century.
CFC-11 was widely used to help expand foams during manufacturing, and emissions peaked in the late 1980s at about 350,000 metric tons per year. The protocol stipulated that developed countries should stop producing CFC-11 by 1996, while developing countries had until 2010. Global reported production has been close to zero since 2006.
But with an average lifetime of 57 years in the atmosphere, CFC-11 remains the second most abundant ozone-depleting substance, after dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12). Meanwhile, foams already in place still contain a hefty reservoir of CFC-11, estimated at about 1.4 million metric tons in 2008, which is gradually leaking into the air.
Montzka’s team used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to measure the concentration of CFC-11 in air samples taken from 12 remote sites around the globe including Antarctica, the northern tip of Canada, Ireland,and Australia. Then they poured these data into computational simulations that included climate and atmospheric chemistry models.
The team calculated that the atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 declined at a steady 2 parts per trillion every year from 2002 to 2012. That in itself is unexpected—the decline should have accelerated over that time, given that the foam reservoir is shrinking and production was supposedly being scaled back. The reason, the team concludes, is that CFC-11 emissions remained fairly constant over that time, at around 54,000 metric tons per year.
The real shock came during the period from 2014 to 2016, when they found that the decline had slowed to just 1 part per trillion each year. The implication is that emissions must have risen to about 67,000 metric tons per year. “It’s a quite astounding finding,” says Michaela I. Hegglin of the University of Reading. “It’s extremely important to have these measurements so that we can go and check that people are adhering to the regulations.”
Air samples from Hawaii offered the researchers other important clues. They found that in 2013, plumes of air containing higher levels of CFC-11 than before began to arrive from east Asia. The CFC-11 concentrations changed in lockstep with other industrial chemicals, including chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) and dichloromethane, suggesting that the chemicals were all emitted from production facilities rather than the foam reservoir. The researchers also found significantly higher concentrations of CFC-11 in the northern hemisphere, where more industrial sites are located, compared with the southern hemisphere.
Montzka’s team did consider other factors that could affect CFC-11 concentrations, such as circulation changes in the atmosphere, but these could not explain the scale of the apparent rise in emissions.
So why would anyone restart CFC-11 production? Montzka notes that developing countries were due to start reducing hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFCs) production in 2013, so it’s possible that CFC-11 could be making up a shortfall. “But it’s pretty much speculation at this point,” he says.
Montzka has been talking with researchers in Japan, China, and South Korea about his findings for the past couple of years, and says they are making local air measurements that could narrow down the origin of the emission to particular cities—and, if there is only one factory in that city that produces halocarbons, finger a potential culprit.
That sort of evidence could help Montreal Protocol signatory states to apply pressure on the relevant countries to shut down unauthorized production. “Let’s narrow in and see if we can pinpoint these sources,” says Montzka.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/greenhouse-gases/Rise-CFC-emissions-threatens-ozone/96/i21
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested