Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 22/05/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) 13 Ways Pruitt’s EPA Has Made Your Life More Toxic
May 22, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
Today is the first day of an Environmental Protection Agency summit on perfluorinated substances, or PFAS. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, NGOs Lock Horns Over US EPA Science Policy
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council has fired back at critics of the US EPA's proposed 'science transparency' rule, even while scientists and NGOs continue to insist the policy would lead to the exclusion of critical public health studies. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Energy 202: EPA Holds Summit on Dangerous Chemicals After Delayed Report
May 22, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Environmental Protection Agency will today hold a day-and-a-half-long summit about how to address a potentially harmful class of chemicals in the drinking water of millions of Americans. -
(ACC Mentioned) US House Democrats Question ACC Role in PFAS Controversy
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Four US House of Representatives Democrats have demanded more information from the EPA on whether the American Chemistry Council influenced agency efforts to "suppress" a toxicological profile on perfluorinated compounds (PFASs). -
The Latest: EPA Bars AP, CNN From Summit on Contaminants
May 22, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, NBC News)
The Environmental Protection Agency is barring The Associated Press, CNN and the environmental-focused news organization E&E from a national summit on harmful water contaminants. -
EPA Bars Reporters from Summit on Politically Toxic Chemicals
May 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt this morning announced a series of concrete steps to address health concerns associated with a class of nonstick chemicals at an event marred by mishandling of the press. -
EPA Reverses Course, Lets Reporters Into Hearing After Outcry
May 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
In a reversal following media outcry, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would allow all representatives from the media to attend the second half of a chemical summit that previously barred some press. -
Pruitt’s Limits on Science May Hamstring Response to Chemical Crisis
May 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
When EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt convenes a “leadership summit” on a set of toxic chemicals found in 98 percent of Americans’ blood, he and state regulators won’t be hearing from the scientists responsible for the lion’s share of what is known about the chemicals’ impact on human health. -
Would Firing Scott Pruitt Save the EPA?
May 22, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Leif Fredrickson, Jennifer Liss Ohayon and Christopher Sellers
So many different scandals have engulfed Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that multiple publications have created trackers to help readers sort them out. -
Senior Lawyer Gets Key Chemicals Post
May 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Erik Baptist, one of EPA's top lawyers, is moving elsewhere in the agency. -
EPA Cautioned Over Linking Safer Choice, TSCA Prioritisation
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Attempting to tie a US EPA programme for encouraging the safer use of chemical ingredients to prioritisation under TSCA could be dangerous for Safer Choice and manufacturers who participate in it, participants at a recent stakeholder event have said. -
Pruitt: Dealing With Water Contaminant a 'National Priority'
May 22, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Dealing with a slate of toxic chemicals contaminating some drinking water systems around the country is a national priority, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said Tuesday. -
EPA to Formally Consider Drinking Water Regulation of PFAS
May 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said this morning that EPA will formally consider whether to set a limit on the amount of the chemicals PFOA and PFOS allowed in drinking water, the first step under the law toward regulation. -
Sweden Plans Bisphenol Candidate List Proposal
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency intends to nominate 2,2-bis(4'-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane for addition to the REACH candidate list of SVHCs. -
Permian Associated Natural Gas in Early 2020s Could Supply U.S. Demand, Says Bernstein
May 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
U.S. natural gas markets are no longer self-correcting as supply surges from onshore unconventional oil-associated wells, particularly the Permian Basin, while demand is maxing out even with exports, according to an analysis by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC. -
U.S. Oil Export Boom No Slam Dunk After U.S.-China Cease-Fire
May 22, 2018 | Reuters (In E&E Energywire)
With a trade war with China put "on hold," the Trump administration wants to export more oil and gas. -
Exelon Drags LNG Imports Into Push for Federal Bailout
May 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
Typically, when a power plant announces its retirement, the local grid operator issues a short, dry document that amounts to a laconic goodbye. -
Wehrum Touts Air Quality Benefits from Ending 'Always In' MACT Policy
May 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA air chief William Wehrum says the agency's controversial decision to end the longstanding “once in, always in” policy that required facilities to meet strict air toxics limits regardless of whether they lowered emissions will have air quality benefits, pushing back on critics' claims that it will allow facilities to emit more air pollution. -
Chemical-Plant Explosions Continue as EPA Pursues Weaker Safety Rules
May 22, 2018 | Business Insurance
By Gloria Gonzalez
A new proposed rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would gut an effort to improve the safety of chemical facilities launched under the Obama administration even as incidents at these facilities continue to occur, according to some experts. -
(ACC Mentioned) Center for LNG Joins TRANSCAER Sponsors
May 22, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Center for LNG has become the newest sponsor of TRANSCAER®, which provides hazardous materials education and training to first responders. -
As Deadline Nears, FRA Issues $250M Funding Opportunity for PTC Projects
May 22, 2018 | Transport Security World
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for $250 million in Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems Grants. -
Committee Advances WRDA with Contentious Finance Amendment
May 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously advanced a modified version of a water infrastructure bill today.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) 13 Ways Pruitt’s EPA Has Made Your Life More Toxic
May 22, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
Today is the first day of an Environmental Protection Agency summit on perfluorinated substances, or PFAS. The group of chemicals is linked to a host of health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease, weakened immunity and other health issues.
Perfluorooctanic acid, or PFOA, was used to make Teflon and is the most infamous of these chemicals. PFAS chemicals are responsible for contaminating drinking water in dozens of communities and military bases across the U.S. They also show up in personal care products, food packaging, textiles, and even baby products. Because most of these chemicals never break down, some call them “forever chemicals.”
Last week, news broke that the EPA tried suppress a study from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that found the EPA’s proposed safe level of exposure for two PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water was likely significantly too high.
But the EPA’s actions on PFAS chemicals are just the latest of many EPA actions to undermine chemical safety under Administrator Scott Pruitt’s leadership. Here are 13 of the most egregious ways the EPA has been working to make your life more toxic. Delayed a damning study on formaldehyde. The EPA isn’t just trying to hide the dangers of PFAS chemicals from the public. The agency has also delayed its release of results from an assessment linking formaldehyde to leukemia and other cancers. Although the study was completed in the fall, top EPA officials have reportedly intervened to delay publication.Delayed a ban on a deadly paint stripping chemical. Methylene chloride is a highly toxic chemical used in paint strippers that most consumers can buy at their local hardware stores. In the waning days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed banning it. However, the EPA signaled in December that the ban would be delayed indefinitely. At least four people have died from the chemical since then and more than 50 people have died from it since 1980. Although the EPA recently reversed course and announced it would be taking action on methylene chloride after meeting with victims’ families, many important details remain unknown. The fate of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, or NMP, another toxic paint-stripping chemical the EPA previously proposed regulating is also unknown.Indefinitely delayed a ban on the “A Civil Action” chemical. Trichloroethylene, or TCE, is a known carcinogen made infamous in the novel and movie “A Civil Action.” It is also linked to various cancers in former residents of the Camp Lejeune military base in North Carolina and it contaminates military bases throughout the U.S. The EPA proposed banning some uses of TCE in December 2016 and January 2017. But in December 2017, the EPA signaled that it would delay the proposed ban on these uses indefinitely.Reversed a ban on a pesticide that damages kids’ brains. Chlorpyrifos is a pesticide that is also a potent neurotoxin, particularly risky to children’s brains. After a decade of advocacy from concerned stakeholders, the EPA proposed to ban the pesticide in October 2015. Facing a court-ordered deadline, EPA was poised to finally ban the pesticide in March 2017. Instead, the EPA chose to abruptly reverse course and allow the pesticide to stay on the market.Gutted proposed rules for reviewing chemical safety. In June 2016, Congress passed a historic update to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the country’s primary chemical safety law. In the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed robust, health-protective rules governing how the EPA will choose chemicals to assess and how it will conduct those assessments. In July 2017, the EPA gutted those rules before finalizing them in line with the chemical industry’s priorities. Rubber-stamped hundreds of new chemicals. The 2016 update to the Toxic Substances Control Act also substantially changed the way the EPA is supposed to assess new chemicals for safety. But in August 2017, the EPA fundamentally changed the way it was reviewing these new chemicals and eliminated a backlog of 600 new chemicals overnight. Since June 2016, the EPA has reviewed nearly 2,000 new chemicals, more than half of which have been approved to come onto the market.Hobbled a program designed to promote safer consumer products. Safer Choice is an EPA program designed to identify safer chemicals and promote the use of less toxic chemicals in consumer products like cleaners. But in February, the EPA cut the staffing for this program by one-third.Undermined EPA science. At the end of April, the EPA proposed dramatically changing the kinds of science the agency can rely on to guide agency decision-making. This so-called “secret science” rule would prevent the agency from relying on studies based on confidential medical data – even if those studies are thoroughly peer-reviewed. This proposed rule would threaten the science the EPA relies on to issue air pollution rules estimated to have already saved thousands of lives. The proposed new rule could also undercut Pruitt’s “war on lead.”Stacked EPA’s advisory boards with pro-industry scientists. Last fall, the agency announced that it would no longer allow academics who have received EPA grants, even if they are leading experts in their field, to continue serving on EPA advisory boards. Because many academic scientists rely on EPA grants, this new rule allowed the EPA to stack its advisory boards with industry scientists.Filled key positions with industry-friendly appointees and nominees. The EPA has also looked to industry advocates to fill leadership positions within the agency. Nancy Beck, who holds a leadership position in the EPA’s chemical safety office, came to the EPA directly from the American Chemistry Council, where she lobbied for weaker chemical safety regulations. Michael Dourson was nominated for the top post in EPA’s chemical safety office after a long career of doing junk science for the chemical industry. He withdrew his nomination after significant public backlash. Kathleen Hartnett White’snomination to head the Council on Environmental Quality was also withdrawn after her record of denying the well-documented risks of radiation in water was exposed. Bill Wehrum, prior to becoming the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation chief, was fighting against an Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule to protect workers from silica exposure. Andrew Wheeler, the EPA’s second-in-command, has a long history of lobbying for the coal industry.Betrayed worker safety. Pruitt’s EPA has also significantly betrayed worker safety. Last week, the agency announced plans to repeal important accident-prevention rules at chemical and fertilizer plants, putting workers and communities near more than 10,000 facilities at risk. The EPA has also delayed, and is considering gutting, new rules to protect agricultural workers – including minimum age requirements for applying pesticides and additional training requirements – that were finalized in 2015. Time will tell if the agency heeds a request to limit the way it considers worker safety when considering whether to approve new chemicals.Cut funding and staffing. The president’s budget proposed significant cuts to the EPA – including deep cuts to programs that remediate lead in homes, research hormone disrupting chemicals, and clean up bodies of water like the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, the EPA has put significant pressure on employees to leave the agency with early buyouts, putting the agency at its lowest staffing levels since 1988.Killed a rule designed to help clean up a toxic chemical in school light fixtures. As many as 26,000 schools may be contaminated with toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, which can leach from caulk, sealants or aging fluorescent light ballasts. In 2016, the EPA proposed a rule to regulate fluorescent light fixtures with these chemicals. However, just days after President Trump took office, the rule was withdrawn from review.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/13-ways-pruitt-s-epa-has-made-your-life-more-toxic#.WwQ_FoNubIU
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, NGOs Lock Horns Over US EPA Science Policy
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council has fired back at critics of the US EPA's proposed 'science transparency' rule, even while scientists and NGOs continue to insist the policy would lead to the exclusion of critical public health studies.
Formally issued late last month, the agency's proposed rule seeks to allow increased transparency and public validation of studies underpinning agency regulatory decisions. It has met vocal oppositionfrom scientists and NGOs, who say the policy would "severely limit" the research the agency can draw from to make its policy decisions.
But the ACC is continuing to contest these claims.
Critics of the proposed rule "would have people believe that protecting individual privacy and increased public access to research data are mutually exclusive," wrote the industry group in a blog post. This position, it said, is false.
According to the ACC, the impetus for EPA's recent proposal is "virtually the same as the agency's policy put into place by [then-EPA Administrator] Gina McCarthy during the Obama Administration". The 2016 document, Plan to increase access to results of EPA-funded scientific research, aimed, the ACC said, to make EPA research "available to the public, the scientific community, and industry to the greatest extent feasible".
The organisation also notes alignment with Mr Pruitt's recent proposal and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) positions on public access to data.
It therefore asked why groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), who have previously publicly stated their support for "transparent decision making" regarding the use of science in federal policymaking, have had a "change of heart".UCS hits back
But Genna Reed, lead science and policy analyst at UCS, told Chemical Watch the ACC fails to account for a major difference between the new proposal and the past initiatives: the latter, she said, are internal policies that will not impact rulemaking. "To compare [these to] a policy that would be a sweeping change for how EPA considers all academic science and external science is a faulty comparison," she said.
Transparency in science is "critically important", she said, but this policy goes about it in "completely the wrong way".
Ms Reed added that the discretion Pruitt has to decide when or when not to decide to call for the release of data is unacceptable: "That's not a way to protect scientific integrity, that's a way to politicise the scientific process at the agency.
"This policy as written cannot claim to be a policy with a goal of transparency," she said.EPA Science Advisory Board weighs in
A working group of the EPA's Science Advisory Board – which includes scientists appointed by Mr Pruitt himself – also questioned the effects of the policy.
In a recent memorandum, the agency's external scientific experts said the proposed rule "could have the effect of removing legal, ethical, and peer-reviewed studies of health effects as sources to support the agency's regulatory efforts".
And they wrote that the exclusion of restricted data could result in regulatory programmes becoming "more or less stringent than they otherwise would be, with consequences for both regulatory costs and benefits".
The working group said the EPA's proposal "merits further review" by the Science Advisory Board.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67094/industry-ngos-lock-horns-over-us-epa-science-policy
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Energy 202: EPA Holds Summit on Dangerous Chemicals After Delayed Report
May 22, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Environmental Protection Agency will today hold a day-and-a-half-long summit about how to address a potentially harmful class of chemicals in the drinking water of millions of Americans. But environmental advocates question how serious the Trump administration is about tackling the nationwide problem.
As recently as January, EPA staff huddled with chemical industry representatives to discuss a widely used class of commercial chemicals one day after a White House official privately suggested to those officials that an upcoming study on the substances might be a “public relations nightmare.”
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week disclosed the Jan. 31 meeting between the EPA and the American Chemistry Council, raising concerns about whether the chemical industry’s main lobbying group influenced the decision of Trump administration officials to delay publication of a study on polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances — better known as PFAS. But EPA chief Scott Pruitt says that it's not his job to release the PFAS report, but that of the Health and Human Services Department that conducted it.
The EPA’s actions regarding PFASs have come under scrutiny from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle after recently released emails showed White House and EPA officials sought to stall the publication of an assessment of PFASs from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a HHS division.
Researchers have shown that long-term exposure to the class of chemicals — used for decades in the manufacture of nonstick pans, water-repellent clothes and firefighting foam — is linked to increased risks of kidney cancer, thyroid problems, high cholesterol and hormone disruption, among other issues.
But the yet-to-be-released study will show the chemicals endanger human health at levels far lower than what the EPA says is safe, according to emails released this month by the EPA through the Freedom of Information Act.
The EPA will try to correct course on Tuesday by hosting state, tribal, industry and nonprofit officials at agency headquarters for what it is billing as a “ first-of-its-kind” summit of more than 200 PFAS stakeholders.
In brief remarks at the beginning of the summit, Pruitt called the gathering a "historic day."
"Clearly, this is a national priority that we need to focus on as a country," he said.
Pruitt noted that products using PFASs have saved lives in the past and were used in countless products that made American lives easier. But he acknowledged that some of the same attributes that made the chemicals desirable, especially their durability, also had fueled concern about their prevalence in the drinking water for millions of Americans.
"That's the reason we're here today," Pruitt said, adding that the agency intends to "take action, not just raise awareness" in coming months.
Specifically, Pruitt vowed that the EPA will soon take steps under the Safe Drinking Water Act to evaluate the need for a federal threshold, known as a "maximum contaminant level," of the chemicals in drinking water - a move that if completed would go beyond the guidance on lifetime exposure to PFASs that the agency published during the Obama administration.
In addition, Pruitt said the EPA would develop groundwater cleanup recommendations for the substances and begin taking steps to put in place liability issues concerning the chemicals under the law that governs the federal Superfund program.
Only a portion of the summit, which starts Tuesday morning and will run until noon on Wednesday, will be open to the press and the public, sparking criticism from environmental watchdogs.
While some media outlets were invited to cover the opening hour of Tuesday's summit, other outlets such as the Associated Press were turned away at the door, according to posts on social media.Ellen Knickmeyer@KnickmeyerEllen
The @AP, @CNN and E&E all showed up to cover this @EPA meeting on widespread, dangerous contaminants in many drinking water systems around the country. We were all turned away at the door of the EPA building. https://twitter.com/RobAllenHF/status/998901971347214336 …3:38 PM - May 22, 2018259477 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacy
“Scott Pruitt could score points with the public by taking action in the interest of public health and release all data... and pressure other federal agencies, utilities and labs to do the same," said Dave Andrews, senior scientist at the nonprofit organization Environmental Working Group. "Goodness knows he could use some positive press."
And in their letter to Pruitt, Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats expressed a deep distrust of Pruitt's actions on PFAS that has come to characterize the frosty relationship between the EPA chief and congressional Democrats.
“We are deeply concerned that these actions appear to indicate that politics, and potentially industry interests, are being placed before public health,” four of the House panel’s Democrats, led by Rep. Frank Pallone (N.J.), wrote to Pruitt.
After the Democrats' letter was published, an EPA spokesman confirmed the January meeting with the ACC, which was titled “ACC Cross-Agency PFAS Effort” in the calendar of Richard Yamada, deputy assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD).
“The meeting was scheduled by Office of Water career staff to meet with the ACC FluoroCouncil to inform them about the Cross-Agency efforts to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),” the EPA wrote in a statement. “Several ORD staff were invited to the meeting, and an invitation was also extended to Richard Yamada.”
When reached for comment, the ACC said the PFAS assessment being prepared by Toxic Substances and Disease Registry did not come up at the meeting.
“I can tell you that we did participate in the meeting,” ACC spokesman Jonathan Corley said. “It was specifically about EPA’s intra-agency effort to address PFAS. The ATSDR study did not come up in the meeting.”
In a Jan. 30 email, James Herz, a political appointee at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, told Pruitt’s aides that the forthcoming PFAS study was going to be a “potential public relations nightmare”for the EPA and other government agencies, including the Defense Department.
“The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these new numbers is going to be huge,” Herz wrote in the email, released to the Union of Concerned Scientists through a FOIA request. “The impact to EPA and DoD is going [to] be extremely painful.”
Follow-up emails show that Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator at EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, suggested having the study go through an “interagency review” at the White House (such a process could slow down its release).
Before being hired by Pruitt, Beck was the ACC’s senior director at the regulatory science policy.
Beck is barred by EPA ethics officials from participating in any matter involving the ACC without the approval of the top agency lawyers. Corley said Beck “was not present at the meeting.”
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee earlier this month. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
During Pruitt’s testimony last week in front of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, the delayed study became a topic of concern for not just Democrats but also Republicans, including Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, where PFAS from a DuPont plant made its way into the Ohio River.
Pruitt told the committee he “was not aware that there had been some holding back of the report.”
Separately, the EPA chief noted in a May 21 letter to Rep. Daniel Kildee (D-Mich.), obtained by The Washington Post, that the agency “does not have the authority to release this study.” Kildee's district is home not only to Flint, famous for its high levels of lead in its drinking water, but also to several sites of PFAS contamination, according to the Environmental Working Group.
"I share your concern for communities across the United States that continue to deal with these substances," Pruitt wrote to Kildee.
The nonstick chemicals are more prevalent in the nation’s drinking water than the public probably realizes. An analysis published Tuesday by the EWG shows that up to 110 million U.S. residents may be drinking water contaminated with PFAS.
Environmental officials from Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Michigan, as well as a representative from the ACC, will speak at the summit Tuesday.
But the Natural Resources Defense Council, the only nongovernmental group invited to speak, bemoaned the lack of leaders from affected communities or from firefighting groups at the event. “It makes you wonder whether they’re serious about doing something,” said Erik Olson, director of the NRDC’s health program. He added he plans to ask EPA and HHS officials about the "suppressed report" at the meeting.
The EPA said it will follow up Tuesday's meeting with another “community engagement event” because the first “quickly reached capacity.”
Chemical manufacturers say that alternatives to PFAS, which are characterized by strong bonds between carbon and fluorine atoms that give the chemicals durability, do not meet all the significant performance standardsin products such as stain-resistant clothing and aircraft-engine lubricants.
Brady Dennis contributed to this report.You are reading The Energy 202, our must-read tipsheet on energy and the environment.Not a regular subscriber?
SIGN UP NOWPOWER PLAYSEnvironmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
— Pruitt watch: Four Senate Democrats are calling on Pruitt to provide more information about the legal defense fund created to defray the cost of dealing with roughly a dozen federal probes surrounding him. In a letter, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and three other Democrats asked Pruitt to provide all documents regarding the formation of the defense fund within 10 days, per the Associated Press. The lawmakers also wanty communication between the defense fund and the agency’s ethics office. During a Senate hearing last week, Pruitt insisted to lawmakers that he was not directly involved with the defense fund, which was created on his behalf.
The West Fertilizer plant burns before it exploded on April 17, 2013. (Katie Campbell)
— "Some things are way, way, way more important than too much regulation:" Leaders in the city of West, Tex. have expressed frustration with the EPA’s decision not to adopt stricter safety measures for chemical facilities, five years after an explosion at the fertilizer plant there killed 15 people. “With all due respect to Scott Pruitt, he’s never lost 15 firefighter friends,” Tommy Muska, mayor of West, Tex., told the Austin American-Statesman. “I’m as pro-business as anyone, but some things are way, way, way more important than too much regulation, and that includes the safety of these chemical plants.” In the announcement late last week, Pruitt said the move would save taxpayers $88 million a year by reducing “unnecessary regulatory burdens.”
Joshua Tree National Park. (GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
— Trump team gives solar farm go-ahead: The Interior Department announced last week it will approve a solar farm planned on public lands outside Joshua Tree National Park. The plan for the 3,100-acre, 500-megawatt power plant was first approved under the Obama administration, and “would be one of the country's largest solar projects, generating enough renewable energy to balance out the planet-warming emissions of 17,000 average Palm Springs homes,” the Desert Sun reports.
Former Massey Energy chief executive Don Blankenship. (AP Photo/Tyler Evert)
— This ship will not go gentle into that good night: Don Blankenship, the former coal executive who lost a bid for the Republican Senate nomination in West Virginia this month, now says that he plans to run as a third-party candidate. Blankenship said in a statement Monday that he has accepted the nomination from the Constitution Party, and reiterated his attacks against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Republican establishment. "This time we won't get surprised by the lying establishment," he said in the statement. "We were assured by White House political staff that they would not interfere in the primary election. Obviously, that turned out not to be true. Now that we know that the establishment will lie and resort to anything else necessary to defeat me, we are better prepared than before.”
The irony: The third-party run, which could split the Republican vote, may ultimately become a boon for one of Blankenship's avowed foes, Democratic incumbant Sen. Joe Manchin III. But first Blankenship "must convince state election officials that his campaign does not run afoul of a “sore loser” law barring candidates who lose in party primaries from later switching their party affiliation to get on the general election ballot, which could be a difficult challenge," The Post's Sean Sullivan reports.
Tourists walk along the sea wall surrounding Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas National Park, about 70 miles west of Key West, Fla. (Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)
— Climate change references restored: The National Park Service released a long-delayed report on climate risk to national parks, restoring references to climate change after a report that drafts of the study censored such mentions.
The Center for Investigative Reporting’s Reveal first reported last monththat the Park Service report deleted all mentions of human-driven climate change. But the report, quietly released Friday, assesses the impact of sea level change on 118 coastal parks and notes that “human activities continue to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm.” It added: “Rising global temperatures cause ice located on land and in the sea to melt."
A black bear sticks its tongue out while sitting in a tree in downtown Juneau, Alaska in 2008. (Brian Wallace/Juneau Empire)
— Trump administration moves to lift restrictions on hunting Alaska's bears and wolves: NPS is planning to reverse Obama-era regulations on hunting bears and wolves in some public lands in Alaska. NPS issued a notice Monday of its intention to change the rules for sport hunting and trapping, the Associated Press reports, to “bring the federal rules in line with Alaska state law.” The proposed changes would allow hunters to hunt black bears with dogs, kill wolves and their pups in dens and also use boats to shoot swimming caribou, per the report.THERMOMETER
A neighborhood near Addicks Reservoir is shown flooded by rain from Tropical Storm Harvey in Houston. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
— More hurricanes like Harvey: A new study has found future hurricanes will be slower and wetter as a result of a warming atmosphere, much like the catastrophic Hurricane Harvey in 2017, which lingered in Southwest Texas for almost a week. “The extra rain can be explained by basic atmospheric principles — warmer air can ‘hold’ more water vapor, which is converted to rain in storms,” The Post’s Angela Fritz reports. “But the storms of the future also moved more slowly, which would lead to more rainfall.” The study, from scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, comes just in time for a new hurricane season that begins oficially on June 1.
People take pictures as lava enters the ocean, generating plumes of steam near Pahoa, Hawaii on Sunday. Kilauea volcano that is oozing, spewing and exploding on Hawaii's Big Island has gotten more hazardous in recent days, with rivers of molten rock pouring into the ocean Sunday and flying lava causing the first major injury. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
— What is laze? The lava from Hawaii’s Kilaueau volcano is pouring into the ocean and causing a chemical reaction. The lava haze, or "laze" is "created when molten rock hits the ocean,” the Associated Press reports, “and marks just the latest hazard from a volcano that has been generating earthquakes and spewing lava, sulfur dioxide and ash since it began erupting in Big Island backyards on May 3.” The haze is dangerous because the clouds contain hydrochloric acid, which is as corrosive as diluted battery acid, and can irritate skin, eyes and lead to breathing problems.
The Eagle Creek wildfire burns on the Oregon side of the Columbia River Gorge near Cascade Locks, Ore., on Sept. 5, 2017. (Genna Martin/seattlepi.com/AP)
— Teenager playing with fireworks hit with $36 million penalty: The 15-year-old teen in Oregon who sparked a massive wildfire near one of the state's most scenic hiking trails must pay more than $36 million restitution, The Post's Marwa Eltagouri reports. “Hood River County Circuit Judge John A. Olson, in an opinion released Monday, acknowledged that the teen could not pay that full amount,” Eltagouri writes. “But the damage caused by the Sept. 2 fire was substantial: After the firework ignited dry bush, a blaze spread to more than 48,000 acres, wrecking many parts of the gorge’s recreation area and costing firefighters at least $20 million.”OIL CHECK
A Shell logo is seen at a gas station in Buenos Aires. (REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci)
— Pressure grows on oil companies: Investors at an annual meeting Tuesday are set to urge Royal Dutch Shell to take more action to help combat climate change. A statement from investors with nearly $8 trillion under management “stops short of throwing full support behind a shareholder resolution that would require the company to set targets aligned with international efforts to limit climate change, but signals strong support among investors for further measures,” the Wall Street Journal reports. The move is a signal of a shift in how investors are approaching the issue, calling on companies to be more transparent about risks associated with global warming, per WSJ.
— Oil firms get a hand from the federal government in climate court cases: The Trump administration is weighing in on the ongoing climate fight between cities and major oil companies. Lawyers from the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division filed a friend of the court brief last week supporting five major oil companies in their effort to get a pair of climate lawsuits in California dismissed, InsideClimate News reports. “The United States has strong economic and national security interests in promoting the development of fossil fuels, among other energy resources,” the brief reads. A U.S. district court judge is scheduled to hear arguments from the companies for dismissing the case on Thursday.
— Putting the "U" in SCOTUS: The Supreme Court said Monday it will take up the issue of whether Virginia has the right to ban a uranium mine, The Post’s Gregory S. Schneider reports. “The massive uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County, at the midpoint of the state’s border with North Carolina, was discovered decades ago, but in the 1980s the General Assembly prohibited mining because of concerns about radioactivity,” per Schneider. “Former governor Terry McAuliffe (D) announced shortly after being elected in 2013 that he would veto any legislation that sought to permit uranium mining. Since then, the company interested in opening a mine has given up on legislation and taken its case to the legal system.”
— "Big flaws:" Tesla, which has been battling with production challenges on its electric Model 3, is planning to produce two high-end versions of the car, the New York Times reports. Tesla’s chief executive noted the upscale version may be critical for profitability. The two new versions include an all-wheel-drive version beginning at $54,000, and a high-performance model at $78,000, per NYT.
Meanwhile, Consumer Reports declared this week that the Model 3 has “big flaws,” including its emergency brakes and “difficult-to-use controls.” “These problems keep the Model 3 from earning a Consumer Reporters recommendation,” the publication said, according to The Post’s Peter Holley.Ivaylo Ivanov@ivanovi_ivaylo20 MayReplying to @elonmusk
Elon can you please release some news on the standard battery..
When would people be able to order the 35$ version of the model 3?
Great specs on the AWD version.
Thank youElon Musk✔@elonmuskWith production, 1st you need achieve target rate & then smooth out flow to achieve target cost. Shipping min cost Model 3 right away wd cause Tesla to lose money & die. Need 3 to 6 months after 5k/wk to ship $35k Tesla & live.6:08 AM - May 21, 2018887193 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacyDAYBOOK
TodayThe House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy holds a hearing on DOE Modernization.The House Appropriations holds a markup of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill for 2019.The House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology and Subcommittee on Energy holds a hearing on empowering veterans through technology.The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands holds a legislative hearing.The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development holds a markup of the 2019 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.A group of oil and natural gas trade associations, led by the American Petroleum Institute, hold a press conference call to highlight efforts the industry is making to prepare for the 2018 hurricane season.
Coming Up
The House Natural Resources Committee holds a markup on Wednesday.The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies holds a hearing on NASA 2019 budget on Wednesday.The Partnership for Advancing an Inclusive Rural Energy Economy holds a livecast on Wednesday.The Environmental and Energy Study Institute and the American Biogas Council hold a briefing on Thursday.The Senate Appropriations Committee holds a markupof Energy and Water Development and Agriculture Appropriations Bills on Thursday.EIA holds its annual 2018 Energy Conference June 4-5.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/05/22/the-energy-202-epa-holds-summit-on-dangerous-chemicals-after-delayed-report/5b02f1f630fb0425887995f1/?utm_term=.9b839e4008c0
-
(ACC Mentioned) US House Democrats Question ACC Role in PFAS Controversy
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Four US House of Representatives Democrats have demanded more information from the EPA on whether the American Chemistry Council influenced agency efforts to "suppress" a toxicological profile on perfluorinated compounds (PFASs).
The request came in a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sent amid the continuing fallout from the release of internal agency emails that show discussion of a potential "public relations nightmare" should the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) release a toxicological profile with "very, very low" minimal risk levels for four PFASs: PFOS, PFOA, PFHX, and PFNA.
The ATSDR, which is housed under the Department of Health and Human Services, has yet to release the profile.
Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee are seeking further details on a 31 January meeting between the ACC and Richard Yamada, deputy assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), entitled ACC Cross-Agency PFAS Effort.
In the letter 's signatories – Frank Pallone, Diana DeGette, Paul Tonko and Kathy Castor – say this "could indicate that Dr Yamada, and potentially other EPA political appointees, were meeting with outside stakeholders from the ACC to discuss the interagency process related to PFAS, and possibly their efforts to suppress the ATSDR assessment."
"We are deeply concerned that these actions appear to indicate that politics, and potentially industry interests, are being placed before public health," they write.
The lawmakers have called on Mr Pruitt to issue documents to help them "fully understand whether communications between EPA political appointees and chemical industry stakeholders were in compliance with all applicable ethics regulations and waivers".
The ACC's director of issues communications, Jon Corley, told Chemical Watch the trade group did participate in the January meeting to discuss the EPA's intra-agency effort to address PFASs. But "ATSDR did not come up in the meeting, and Nancy Beck was not present", he said. Nancy Beck is deputy assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), and a former ACC employee.
The letter comes as the EPA convenes a two-day meeting to address PFASs and is part of an agency initiative – announced in December release – to undertake a "cross-agency effort" to address the substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67095/us-house-democrats-question-acc-role-in-pfas-controversy
-
The Latest: EPA Bars AP, CNN From Summit on Contaminants
May 22, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, NBC News)
The Latest on a hearing with EPA chief Scott Pruitt on a widespread contaminant in drinking water (all times local):
9:55 a.m.
The Environmental Protection Agency is barring The Associated Press, CNN and the environmental-focused news organization E&E from a national summit on harmful water contaminants.
The EPA blocked the news organizations from attending Tuesday's Washington meeting, convened by EPA chief Scott Pruitt.
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox told the barred organizations they were not invited and there was no space for them, but gave no indication of why they specifically were barred.
Pruitt told about 200 people at the meeting that dealing with the contaminants is a "national priority."
Guards barred an AP reporter from passing through a security checkpoint inside the building. When the reporter asked to speak to an EPA public-affairs person, the security guards grabbed the reporter by the shoulders and shoved her forcibly out of the EPA building.
___
9:25 a.m.
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt says dealing with a widespread contaminant in drinking water is a "national priority."
Pruitt spoke Tuesday as he opened a hearing on the contaminants, known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl. The chemicals were used in items like nonstick coating and firefighting foam and have contaminated some water systems nationwide. The compounds are linked to developmental defects and other health problems.
Pruitt has faced criticism in recent weeks over emails showing the EPA sought to intervene in a critical study on the contaminants.
Convening Tuesday's session, Pruitt is pledging to work on establishing a maximum allowable level for the chemicals in drinking water
Representatives of states, tribes, the chemical industry, environmental groups and others are attending the session.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/22/us/politics/ap-us-pruitt-epa-the-latest.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock
-
EPA Bars Reporters from Summit on Politically Toxic Chemicals
May 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt this morning announced a series of concrete steps to address health concerns associated with a class of nonstick chemicals at an event marred by mishandling of the press.
Dubbed the National Leadership Summit on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, or PFAS, the event at EPA headquarters included representatives from states, tribes, federal agencies, congressional offices, industry and public health groups.
EPA guards allowed reporters listed on an email printout to attend the first hour of the two-day event, which was livestreamed on the agency's website, as well.
But reporters from the Associated Press and CNN, news organizations that have been sharply criticized by the EPA press office or President Trump, along with E&E News were not allowed in. The journalist from AP, who tried to enter the event before E&E News arrived, reported she was forcibly removed from the headquarters building by security guards after asking to speak to a public affairs person.
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox claimed in a statement that the reporters were excluded because the room the summit was held in was only "able to accommodate 10 news outlets." The agency has also decided to open the afternoon portion of the event to all reporters.
Inside the headquarters building, Pruitt said "there are concerns about these chemicals across the country because of their persistence, their durability, getting into the environment and impacting communities in an adverse way — that's why we're here today."
To alleviate those concerns, the administrator committed EPA to taking four steps to better regulate the chemicals, which have been linked to cancer and developmental problems.
First, he pledged to consider establishing a binding maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perfluorooctanesulfonic and perfluorooctanoic acids, or PFOS and PFOA.
EPA has already set a health advisory for those two types of PFAS, which U.S. manufacturers voluntarily phased out the use of in 2015. But PFOA and PFOS can still be found in products imported from China and other countries.
"The process needs to begin," Pruitt said. "The determination of an MCL is something that we will begin in earnest post this meeting, and I look forward to your contribution to that very important issue in the next day and a half."
Pruitt also committed the agency to developing groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFAS "by the fall of this year." Those will help guide the remediation of several Superfund sites and other areas contaminated by the chemicals.
A related promise is to start "the necessary steps ... to declare PFAS, PFOA as a hazardous substance," Pruitt said. That would allow EPA to hold companies liable for polluting lands and waters with those chemicals.
Finally, the administrator said EPA is "going to take action in close collaboration with our federal and state partners to develop toxicity values for GenX and PFBS," two other types of PFAS. "That should be done by December of this year."
After the summit is concluded, top EPA officials plan to visit Michigan, New Hampshire and other states affected by PFAS contamination. A study released today from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group estimates that more than 1,500 drinking water systems, serving up to 110 million customers across the country, may be contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and similar chemicals.
"We will take the information we've gleaned from both the summit today and the community visits over the next month and a half ... to draft a national PFAS management plan," Pruitt said. "And that will be done by the fall of this year.
"It's an historical day because we are coming together as state and federal partners, local communities recognizing that this should be and must be a national priority and that we are going to be taking concrete steps as an agency to address that along with you at the state and local level," the administrator concluded. "So I'm looking forward to the outcomes."
Not mentioned by the administrator or any of the speakers who followed him before the livestream ended was a delayed toxicology study of four PFAS chemicals that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry earlier this year was poised to conclude were more harmful than previously thought.
That set off alarm bells on Jan. 30 in the White House and EPA, which met with the chemical industry to discuss PFAS the following day. The delayed report, news of which has prompted bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill, has still not been released (E&E News PM, May 21).
The summit has so far done little to alleviate some lawmakers' concerns. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.), for instance, slammed EPA for its handling of both the delayed PFAS health study and some reporters at today's event.
"Our communities deserve answers, and the EPA seems to be doing everything in its control to block the public from getting them," she said. "It's reprehensible. The EPA needs to open this summit to reporters and the public so they can ask important questions about the EPA's response to the unacceptable groundwater contamination that is affecting our communities nationwide. The administration needs to release the [ATSDR] study immediately."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/22/stories/1060082387
-
EPA Reverses Course, Lets Reporters Into Hearing After Outcry
May 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388812-epa-reverses-course-lets-reporters-into-hearing-after-outcry
-
Pruitt’s Limits on Science May Hamstring Response to Chemical Crisis
May 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
When EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt convenes a “leadership summit” on a set of toxic chemicals found in 98 percent of Americans’ blood, he and state regulators won’t be hearing from the scientists responsible for the lion’s share of what is known about the chemicals’ impact on human health.
And even if those scientists were in the room for the two-day meeting, which begins Tuesday, their findings would likely not be of much use to Pruitt, who has separately sought to put the brakes on EPA’s use of studies that keep participants’ health data anonymous, such as the basis of their research.
Questions over Pruitt’s commitment to addressing the public health threat have intensified in the wake of news that senior EPA officials sought to block the release of an HHS study that would have increased warnings about the chemicals, known as perfluorinatedcompounds or PFAS. The head of the HHS agency that conducted the suppressed study will be on one of the panels alongside a representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“I will be watching to see what if any commitments EPA (and DOD and FDA), and states make to taking action to find PFASs in water, food, and the environment, and to actually doing something about it,” says Erik Olson, a senior director for health and food policy at NRDC. Olson said he plans to demand the study be made public.
Environmentalists also say they are worried to see EPA’s guest list does not include the most accomplished independent scientists who have researched one such chemical as part of a 2005 legal settlement with DuPont.
“No, I wasn’t invited,” said one of the scientists, Kyle Steenland, a professor of environmental health and epidemiology at Emory University. “My understanding is it’s mostly political people and administrators, more like that. I certainly don’t know anyone who was invited.”
Steenland helped conduct a suite of studies on the impact of the chemical PFOA on the health of 69,000 people living near DuPont’s plant in Parkersburg, W.Va., that ultimately linked the chemical with immune disorders, thyroid disease and testicular and kidney cancer. The other two academics chosen to oversee the research, Tony Fletcher and David Savitz, also say they were not invited to the summit.
Although several career staffers and a handful of public health advocates will be in attendance, critics say the exclusion of pre-eminent scientists working on the chemicals undercuts Pruitt’s argument that he is addressing the dangers of the class of widely used chemicals, particularly when industry representatives will be speaking from the dais. The chemical industry’s main trade group has said they are open to addressing the PFAS chemicals that have been phased out of production, but have disputed that ones currently in use pose health dangers.
State and local drinking water managers say one of the things they need most from EPA is more information about the chemicals, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, who was invited and plans to attend, said the exclusion of the scientists behind the C8 studies may lead to a one-sided agenda. The DuPont studies on PFOA are also known as the C8 studies.
“The industry are there and they will be raising, I’m sure, scientific concerns [about research showing the chemicals’ danger], and there won’t be those independent scientists with the expertise and experience to balance that,” Neltner said.
Pruitt has said EPA will be releasing an action plan for PFAS later this year, and he has left the door open to possible regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act or Superfund law.
But those actions, too, would be limited by Pruitt’s proposed requirement that EPA consider studies only for which the raw data are publicly available when crafting new regulations. That would exclude a great deal of epidemiological research on the effects of pollution on human health, including the C8 studies.
The researchers, who were chosen by DuPont and plaintiffs’ lawyers jointly after the 2005 settlement, assured participants that their information “would not be released to anyone else and that the information would only be used for the purposes of our research,” Savitz, a professor at Brown University, said by email. While the raw data informing the research are available, they have not been scrubbed of personal information, and doing so would take “extensive effort,” Savitz said.
Scientists say it would be a major loss if EPA could not consider that body of work as it develops its path forward on the chemicals. The health advisory for PFOA and PFOS that EPA released in 2016 was based on modeling and results from lab tests involving animals, but the agency scientists then checked their results against the results from the C8 studies, according to Betsy Southerland, the career EPA scientist who oversaw work on the health advisory.
In the end, the health advisory level EPA set was designed to protect nursing mothers, who EPA concluded would be most harmed by exposure to the chemicals — based on information that Southerland said came from the research in West Virginia.
“That’s how we got all this horrible information that it’s passed through the cord blood as well as the breast milk,” said Southerland, who resigned last year and has been fiercely critical of the Trump administration.
Tuesday’s summit comes as public concern is rising over the prevalence and effect of the class of PFAS chemicals, and as state regulators and others demand that EPA address the problem at its root, before it contaminates drinking water.
The scope of the contamination problem is still coming to light. In addition to leaching into groundwater supplies near chemicals manufacturing sites, they could affect water near military bases where firefighting foam containing PFAS has been used.
The Environmental Defense Fund said Monday that dozens of paper mills across the country that use the chemicals in food packaging may be dumping them into waterways without regulation, according to records obtained by the group under the Freedom of Information Act.
That could send concentrations in rivers well above EPA’s suggested limit for PFOA in drinking water, EDF warned. But those discharges are largely unregulated, meaning states or drinking water utilities would not know which facilities are dumping the chemicals into rivers.
“By the time it hits our guys, it’s way too late,” said Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, who plans to attend Tuesday’s meeting.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/05/pruitts-limits-on-science-may-hamstring-response-to-chemical-crisis-558793
-
Would Firing Scott Pruitt Save the EPA?
May 22, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Leif Fredrickson, Jennifer Liss Ohayon and Christopher Sellers
So many different scandals have engulfed Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that multiple publications have created trackers to help readers sort them out. Pruitt’s excessive spendingand his fraternization with lobbyists and controversial figures may eventually force him to step down. But the focus on his flawed personal ethics risks obscuring his broader mission: the dismantling of his own agency.
That effort relies on tactics deployed by two previous Republican presidents— Ronald Reagan, who staged a frontal assault on the EPA early in his presidency, and George W. Bush, who worked to undermine the science underpinning the EPA’s actions — and constitutes an all-out war on the agency. Yet it is not clear whether Pruitt’s departure would alter this trajectory, or whether the Trump administration will continue down this path, inflicting irreparable damage on one of our most important governmental agencies.
Back in 1980, Reagan galloped into office with a campaign that, like Trump’s, decried government “overreach.” Once in office, Reagan selected an EPA head hostile to the agency’s initiatives: Anne Gorsuch (mother of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch). As a corporate lawyer and Colorado lawmaker, Gorsuch had opposed the Clean Air Act, water quality rules and hazardous waste protections. Other EPA appointees came from regulated industries and companies, including Exxon and Aerojet.
Once in office, Gorsuch shrank EPA staff levels by 21 percent between 1981 and 1983, slashed the agency’s budget and dissolved its Office of Enforcement. In the first year of the new administration, civil enforcement cases plummeted by about 75 percent.
Gorsuch’s assault on the EPA was ultimately cut short. EPA career staff gathered in bars to plot strategies of resistance and unionized themselves to promote job security and scientific integrity. Leaks from the agency and subsequent headlines led the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to launch investigations. Major corruption and misconduct were uncovered in the Superfund cleanup program, with its head, Rita Lavelle (plucked from Aerojet), jailed for perjury.
When Gorsuch shrugged off a congressional subpoena, 55 House Republicans joined Democrats to charge her with contempt. The White House turned against her, driving Gorsuch and a score of other political appointees out. Reagan then appointed William Ruckelshaus, the EPA’s first administrator and a strong advocate of its mission, to lead the agency. Ruckelshaus helped revitalize staff morale and bipartisan support for the EPA.
After Gorsuch’s ouster, the Republican siege of the EPA abated for 17 years. In fact, Reagan’s successor, President George H.W. Bush, appointed the “first professional environmentalist,” William Reilly, to lead the EPA and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, acknowledging the human role in climate disruption. But Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, resumed the charge, in a more sophisticated and less overtly confrontational manner than Reagan.
Bush’s first EPA administrator, former New Jersey governor Christie Whitman, was more in the mold of Ruckelshaus and Reilly. Nonetheless, more systematically than ever before, Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney nurtured a political climate that challenged the science undergirding EPA actions. Climate change science was the biggest victim. Political appointees required reports to include language about the uncertainty of climate change, and EPA employees were prohibited from discussing the topic.
These moves gave Bush, Cheney and their allies the cover to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol talks, promote fossil fuel development, exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act and downplay renewable energy and energy conservation. In response to being incessantly undermined by Cheney, a frustrated Whitman eventually quit.
These past attacks have done damage to our environment and climate. But the EPA survived and has even been able to adapt its regulations to new science, despite ongoing industry pressure and relatively stagnant budgets. It now faces a historically unparalleled threat.
Trump and Pruitt have combined the overt attacks pioneered by Reagan and Gorsuch to the more sophisticated Bush strategy of corroding the science driving the EPA’s activities.
Like Reagan’s team, Trump’s top EPA appointees, Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler, built their careers fighting the EPA, as Oklahoma’s attorney general and a coal company lawyer, respectively. Lower-level appointments are exemplified by Nancy Beck, who is leveraging years of experience as an industry lobbyist to rewrite chemical safety rules.
Similarly, Pruitt has reduced EPA staff levels to numbers not seen since Reagan. Thanks to voluntary buyouts and a hostile work environment, more than 700 employees have left the agency and another 2,000 positions are vulnerable. The consequences for EPA enforcement were evident after Trump’s first nine months in office: It filed one-third fewer civil cases against polluters than under Barack Obama and a quarter fewer than under George W. Bush.
Like Bush, Trump and Pruitt’s team has controlled and manipulated EPA science. Climate change information has been scrubbed from websites. The administration dismissed many academics on scientific advisory committees, allowing — for the first time — lobbyists to sit on these boards. Pruitt is also trying to limit the ability of the EPA to rely on the studies that justify pollution controls.
These efforts to silence science are more significant, more ambitious and more overt than those undertaken by Pruitt’s predecessors.
Most significantly, Pruitt’s efforts enjoy unprecedented support from the White House. Trump, who campaigned on reducing the EPA to “little bits,” issued a flurry of executive orders to undermine existing environmental protections in his first weeks in office that exceeded both Reagan’s and Bush’s in their number and scope. As a veteran from the Reagan years reflected, by the time Trump’s administration is done slicing, the EPA will be “a much smaller and probably much more passive operation than what you’ve got now.”
Just as under Reagan, EPA career staffs are fighting back, leaking damaging information to the media. While leaks and bad news coverage were preconditions for toppling Gorsuch, they are unlikely to trigger similar corrective action from a president and a party that has increasingly embraced anti-environmentalist.
Part of the tide turning on Gorsuch was Republicans abandoning her. But that hasn’t happened to Pruitt. He recently fielded softball questions from congressional Republicans during a hearing on Capitol Hill. Indeed, congressional Republicans continue to laud his efforts to undo Obama-era regulations. They are bolstered by an array of highly conservative media voices — something that did not exist in the early 1980s — who praise Pruitt’s attacks on the agency.
Even if Pruitt gets pushed out, Trump’s continued strong support for his actions indicates his replacement is likely to be someone equally committed to Trump’s vision of a dramatically smaller, less effective EPA.
There are some checks that will limit this project. Democrats, with support from some Republicans, provided insulation against the deep EPA budget cuts proposed by Trump. If Democrats gain control of the House in November, they will probably go on the offensive, trying to undermine these efforts through investigations and the power of the purse.
At the state level, attorneys general are already suing Pruitt’s EPA for failing to expand ozone regulations and for walking back fuel efficiency standards. Many are adopting stronger state regulations on issues from climate change to regulating toxic substances.
In the absence of federal leadership, however, state initiatives are crucial but insufficient. The EPA was created to address an uneven, and often ineffective, patchwork of state laws. While Pruitt’s fate may be uncertain, his ouster would not undo the damage that he is inflicting on the EPA unless his initiatives are also reversed. This means reviving its budget and staff numbers, restoring the agency’s reliance on science and ridding its hallways of those whose industry ties deeply compromise their decisions and judgments.
The research underlying this article comes from the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI), an organization addressing threats to federal environmental policy and data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/05/22/would-firing-scott-pruitt-save-the-epa/?utm_term=.8748f6ea890a
-
Senior Lawyer Gets Key Chemicals Post
May 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Erik Baptist, one of EPA's top lawyers, is moving elsewhere in the agency.
Baptist, a President Trump appointee, will leave EPA's Office of General Counsel to join its Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, sources tell E&E News.
He'll be senior counsel and a deputy assistant administrator alongside Nancy Beck in the chemicals office. In his new role, Baptist will work to fulfill the requirements of various laws, including new reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Baptist was a senior deputy general counsel in EPA's legal office. He joined the agency last year from the American Petroleum Institute where he was senior counsel.
Baptist, who was registered to lobby for the oil and gas trade group for several years, was given a limited waiver from Trump's ethics pledge. He received that waiver so he could participate in EPA discussions on the renewable fuel standard (E&E News PM, Oct. 3, 2017).
Beck and Baptist will be the highest-level political appointees in EPA's chemicals office, which is still without a Senate-confirmed assistant administrator.
Trump picked Michael Dourson for the role, but Dourson withdrew his nomination last December after running into opposition from both Democratic and Republican senators. The president has not submitted a new nominee since to lead EPA's chemicals office.Other job moves
Brittany Bolen. House Oversight Committee
Other Trump appointees have been shifted around at the agency. EPA now has an interim chief running its policy shop.
Brittany Bolen is the acting associate administrator for the Office of Policy, as listed on EPA's website.
Bolen, a former aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), had been deputy associate administrator in the office since last year. Samantha Dravis, the policy shop's previous head who was considered a close aide to Administrator Scott Pruitt, resigned from EPA last month.
EPA hasn't yet named an acting public affairs chief after its last head left the agency more than a week ago.
Liz Bowman, who held the top press job at the agency, left EPA on May 11 to join the office of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) as its communications director.
Others are staying put in the press shop.
John Konkus, a deputy associate administrator, is no longer leaving EPA and remains at the agency for the time being, sources tell E&E News. It was reported earlier this month that Konkus would join the Small Business Administration to lead its communications (Greenwire, May 4).
EPA will also have a new director for its Office of Civil Rights.
Vicki Anderson Simons, a career official, will lead the office starting May 27, according to an internal email sent last week to EPA employees by Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson.
Anderson Simons is currently a senior adviser at the water office. She also served as the civil rights office's acting deputy director and director from 2011 to 2014.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/22/stories/1060082371
-
EPA Cautioned Over Linking Safer Choice, TSCA Prioritisation
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Attempting to tie a US EPA programme for encouraging the safer use of chemical ingredients to prioritisation under TSCA could be dangerous for Safer Choice and manufacturers who participate in it, participants at a recent stakeholder event have said.
TSCA's 2016 amendments require the EPA to designate high priority chemicals for risk evaluation, and also identify "low priority" chemicals where assessment is not immediately warranted.
At the 14 May conference for stakeholders in the agency’s Safer Choice programme, the agency said it is considering identifying these low priority substances from the safer chemicals ingredients list (Scil). This is an inventory of 'safer' chemicals, cleared for use in household products seeking Safer Choice accreditation.
But while the participants at the third Safer Choice Partner & Stakeholder Summit conference, in Maryland, agreed the EPA should use Scil as a starting point, they advised against relying on it too heavily.
TSCA has criteria that Safer Choice does not consider, such as storage near drinking water, they said.
"Scil was not developed with TSCA in mind," said Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney for the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
And industry representatives raised concerns that consideration of a Scil ingredient could prove dangerous and costly if it resulted in the ingredient being entered into the formal TSCA prioritisation process.
Under the recently amended law, if a substance enters prioritisation and does not meet low priority criteria – which can occur if it lacks sufficient data, for example – then it becomes a high priority chemical. Such a designation launches mandatory risk evaluation timelines.
Lauren Sweet, who works on Safer Choice in the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention, said the agency will work with manufacturers to ensure that chemicals viewed as relatively safe do not enter the formal prioritisation process unless sufficient data is available.
"We want to be sure a low priority chemical is designated a low priority chemical," Ms Sweet said. Such an identification "can create certainty and additional market value", she added.
But Butch Dery, manager of technical service and product development at chemical manufacturer AkzoNobel, said that until consumers start demanding low priority substances, "the risk outweighs the benefits".
He added that this risk is magnified if nominating a Scil chemical for low-priority designation is deemed to be a ‘manufacturer requested’ risk evaluation. In such a scenario, should the substance fail to meet low-priority criteria, then not only would the EPA launch a risk evaluation, but it could charge companies a higher fee for having initiated the review.Taken over by TSCA?
Stakeholders also expressed fears that Safer Choice’s mission could be threatened if the programme’s focus turns to TSCA.
"I wouldn’t want to see the programme become just a place where low priority chemicals are designated," Ms Benesh said.
Roger McFadden, vice president for sustainability at Canberra Corporation, said that linking the programmes could discourage Safer Choice participation if companies feared nominating substances could enter them into TSCA prioritisation.
And even if the EPA could ensure this does not happen, failure to meet Scil criteria could create a perception that the substance, in turn, is a TSCA high priority substance, added Mr McFadden.
But Clive Davis, Safer Choice director, told attendees the agency has "no intention of stopping our review of chemicals for the Safer Choice programme."
"It’s not going to be a zero sum game," he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67039/epa-cautioned-over-linking-safer-choice-tsca-prioritisation
-
Pruitt: Dealing With Water Contaminant a 'National Priority'
May 22, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
Dealing with a slate of toxic chemicals contaminating some drinking water systems around the country is a national priority, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said Tuesday.
Pruitt, who drew scrutiny from lawmakers after EPA emails released this month showed that the agency had intervened in the publication of a new government study on the contaminants, convened what he called a national summit on the chemicals.
The chemicals are as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl. Used in some nonstick coatings, in firefighting foam and elsewhere, the chemicals can cause developmental defects and other health problems. Authorities say the contaminants are present in dangerous levels in some water systems, including several near military bases and industries.
Pruitt drew questions from Republican and Democratic lawmakers last week after emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed an unidentified White House official calling a pending federal toxicological report on the chemical a "potential public-relations nightmare."
The emails also revealed EPA officials intervening in the release of the study, which remains unpublished. Politico first reported on the emails.
Pruitt, formerly the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, invited what the EPA said were 200 people to Tuesday's Washington session on the chemicals.
The people attending represented states, tribes, the chemical industry and other sectors, along with some environmental representatives.
"It's clear this issue is a national priority," Pruitt said, opening the session.
He pledged to start work toward establishing a legal maximum limit for the contaminants in drinking water systems.
The EPA would reach out to communities with drinking water contaminated by the chemicals over the summer, agency officials said.
The EPA is "very focused upon action," Pruitt said. "We want to hear from all of you as we take the next step."
Environmental groups and some lawmakers have accused Pruitt of meeting more often with industry representatives, conservative political groups and lobbyists than with ordinary people affected by dangers that the EPA regulates.
The EPA barred some news organizations, including The Associated Press, from Tuesday's meeting. EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said the session was invitation-only and there was no room for the AP, but did not say what criteria were used in determining which media the agency invited.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/22/us/politics/ap-us-pruitt-epa.html
-
EPA to Formally Consider Drinking Water Regulation of PFAS
May 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said this morning that EPA will formally consider whether to set a limit on the amount of the chemicals PFOA and PFOS allowed in drinking water, the first step under the law toward regulation.
"We will take the next step under the Safe Drinking Water Act process to evaluate the need for a Maximum Contaminant Level for PFOA and PFOS," Pruitt said in opening remarks to a two-day summit on the chemicals.
"It’s something that has been talked about for a number of years. The process needs to begin," he said.
Under the federal drinking water law, EPA must consider not just the dangers of a contaminant, but also how widespread it is in drinking water supplies and the costs of treating water to remove it before it can set a limit. The agency has not successfully regulated a new contaminant under the law in more than two decades, when Congress placed additional requirements on the agency for setting new regulations.
Making a regulatory determination for PFOA and PFOS was one of several steps Pruitt said the agency plans to take on the chemicals. Additionally, he said EPA is developing groundwater cleanup regulations for the two chemicals for contaminated sites, and taking steps to establish liability under the Superfund law so responsible parties can be held liable for cleanup.
Pruitt also said the agency will establish toxicity values for two other PFAS chemicals, including GenX. That work will be completed this summer.
WHAT'S NEXT: Pruitt said the agency will travel to affected communities after the summit as it drafts a national management plan for the class of chemicals.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Sweden Plans Bisphenol Candidate List Proposal
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency intends to nominate 2,2-bis(4'-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane for addition to the REACH candidate list of SVHCs.
Kemi says it will make its proposal for the bisphenol – also known as 4,4'-isobutylethylidenediphenol – to Echa in August. The substance is classified as a category 1B reproductive toxicant.
In a recent risk management option analysis(RMOA) conclusion document, included on Echa's public activities coordination tool (PACT) webpage, Kemi says candidate listing "might be useful" for providing further information on the potential presence of the substance in articles that are produced in, or imported to the EU, due to the information requirements in REACH Article 33.
This requires companies to respond to a request for information if a product contains any such chemical above a concentration of 0.1%. They must provide this free of charge and within 45 days.
Such information from a candidate listing could be useful, Kemi says, when assessing whether a restriction of the substance is justified as an additional risk management measure.Grouping assessment
Kemi says 2,2-bis(4'-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane is "very similar" to bisphenol A (BPA), which is on the candidate list on three counts. Not only is it toxic to reproduction, but it also has endocrine-disrupting properties which cause probable serious effects to human health and the environment.
BPA is used in thermal paper till receipts – although facing a restriction from 2020 – as well as polycarbonate water bottles and food can linings.
2,2-bis(4'-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane could be used in future as an alternative to BPA in thermal paper, Kemi said.
Based on structural similarity and similar uses to BPA, a grouping approach is considered "appropriate", Kemi says, in order to prevent inappropriate substitution of BPA and other similar bisphenols with 2,2-bis(4'-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane.
Stakeholders are increasingly calling for group assessments. At the end of March, UK-based NGO CHEM Trust called on EU regulators to "phase out" the use of groups of similar chemicals to prevent substitution of one hazardous substance with a related one that has similar properties.
National screening
Last year Kemi used a new screening method to identify more than 200 substances potentially on the EU market with a chemical structure similar to BPA.
2,2-bis(4'-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane was one of six of the bisphenols, it said, that have properties and uses that should be the focus of regulatory action because they could be "problematic" from a risk perspective. The others are:bisphenol A;bisphenol F;bisphenol M;bisphenol S; andbenzophenone-2.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67113/sweden-plans-bisphenol-candidate-list-proposal
-
Permian Associated Natural Gas in Early 2020s Could Supply U.S. Demand, Says Bernstein
May 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
U.S. natural gas markets are no longer self-correcting as supply surges from onshore unconventional oil-associated wells, particularly the Permian Basin, while demand is maxing out even with exports, according to an analysis by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC.
Gas price moves are sluggish, and “long periods of low gas prices” are likely if oil prices are constructive to U.S. growth, said Bernstein analyst Jean Ann Salisbury and her colleagues. “We are gas bears and believe that we have seen the end of $3.00/MMBtu gas prices for at least seven years.”
The thesis has three legs. First, demand only can grow as fast as gas exports and it is seen flattening after 2020, despite liquefied natural gas (LNG) export growth and pipelined gas to Mexico.
No. 2, associated gas is making up an increasingly larger share of supply, enough to take care of domestic demand for years. The mighty Permian has upended the markets as more efficient oil wells means more “free” gas.
From 2021-2025, associated gas from the Permian alone could meet most domestic demand, “leaving little room for gas-driven basins like the Marcellus or Haynesville,” according to Bernstein.
The third leg of the thesis, the “sunk cost curse,” could spread to Appalachia as more pipeline capacity comes online and exploration and production (E&P) companies fulfill midstream take-or-pay contracts, no matter the price.
The buildout of pipelines in Appalachia may lead Marcellus/Utica players with midstream contracts to produce at price levels that could be “well below the full-cycle cost.” Midstream costs in many basins are running around 50-80 cents for a commodity that’s “worth under $3.00/MMBtu,” Salisbury noted.
“Over the past five years, we have seen that this ‘curse’ acts as a weight on gas prices, with many marginal operators producing at less than their fully loaded return price.”
Many onshore E&Ps have renegotiated their midstream contracts in the Barnett, Haynesville and in the Midcontinent plays. However, with limited pipeline capacity, issues have not yet arisen in Appalachia. However, as more capacity comes online, Appalachia E&Ps could face marginal prices for their gas.
The sunk cost thesis is in part based on Bernstein’s medium-term gas outlook for prices to average $2.50/Mcf through 2020 and $2.25 beyond 2020.
E&Ps in high-cost, flat-to-declining basins, such as the Barnett, Fayetteville and Haynesville “are correctly treating the $1.00/Mcf of gathering and local transport costs as sunk,” according to analysts.
That effectively lowers the cost curve of the marginal players “to levels that are competitive with higher quality basins,” which require “full-cycle investments for new gathering and takeaway “and are punished by transport differentials,” such as the Marcellus and Utica.
Meanwhile, significant domestic gas demand was expected to 2020, driven by two things: Mexico’s rising consumption and LNG exports. However, all of the current LNG export capacity in final investment decision stages is scheduled to be online by 2020, and little new capacity is expected before 2025.
The global LNG market now should be over-supplied until 2020, and the expected ramp in exports from Qatar and Mozambique should fill most of the gap through 2025, according to Bernstein.
“This leaves less than 1 Bcf/d of demand for U.S. LNG” after 2020, Salisbury said. “Post 2025, there will likely be more start-ups, but that is unlikely to help for awhile.”
Mexico’s gas potential also is not as big as expected. The country is an 8 Bcf/d market, “and the U.S. is already filling 4.5 Bcf/d of this demand,” Salisbury said. “So, while it may grow, the overall market can only grow so fast, and most of the ‘gasification’ is slated to occur by 2020 and then slow down.”
The massive pipeline infrastructure build underway to the Mexico border, estimated at 14 Bcf/d of capacity, “represents far more capacity than imports by Mexico will need, meaning that these pipes will be, on average, 60% full.”
Through 2020, gas demand in Mexico is forecast to grow by 2.5 Bcf/d, and through 2025, demand is estimated at 1.4 Bcf/d, with “no immediate path to much more than this, as gas will represent more than 50% of the power stack at that point.”
The Bernstein thesis isn’t set in stone, as there are threats from lower oil prices and Permian degradation.
“First, we believe that in the low $40s, U.S. oil production would be flat,” Salisbury said. “Gas prices would need to move to $4.00/MMBtu to replace this supply from gas basins. Second, if the average Permian well gets worse, it will open up the space for the gas basins and increase prices.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114458-permian-associated-natural-gas-in-early-2020s-could-supply-us-demand-says-bernstein
-
U.S. Oil Export Boom No Slam Dunk After U.S.-China Cease-Fire
May 22, 2018 | Reuters (In E&E Energywire)
With a trade war with China put "on hold," the Trump administration wants to export more oil and gas.
But analysts say infrastructure bottlenecks could constrain an export expansion. U.S. oil export terminals are too small to serve a big expansion, and very large crude carriers are too big to cross through the Panama Canal, meaning they have to make a costly detour around Africa that puts them at a disadvantage.
When it comes to liquefied natural gas (LNG), U.S. export capacity is limited, too. Just two such terminals exist, with most of their supplies already contracted out. China also lacks the pipeline and terminal capacity to import LNG in quantities that would make strides toward the U.S. deficit-reduction goal of $200 billion.
For China, the agreement to buy more energy products would help it find a replacement for Iran's oil supply following the reinstatement of U.S. sanctions.
"Buying U.S. crude would help with the Iranian situation in that these barrels from the U.S. would provide additional supplies at a time when buyers will be expected to cut Iranian volumes," said Michal Meidan, an Asia analyst at consultancy Energy Aspects.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/22/stories/1060082289
-
Exelon Drags LNG Imports Into Push for Federal Bailout
May 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
Typically, when a power plant announces its retirement, the local grid operator issues a short, dry document that amounts to a laconic goodbye.
Not in New England, where grid manager ISO New England is urging federal regulators to act quickly on a proposal to rescue four fossil-fired power plants in the Boston metropolitan area.
Why the haste? Fuel security.
In March, Exelon Corp. announced a full shutdown of the Mystic Generating Station, a combination of oil and gas generators with about 1,700 megawatts of winter capacity. Exelon said these units weren't getting paid for the fuel security they provided to the grid.
This month, ISO-NE responded with an urgent request to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Without Mystic, it said, New England could also lose the major liquefied natural gas terminal that supplies it — a double whammy posing "unacceptable fuel security risks."
ISO-NE is asking FERC for permission to temporarily charge New England ratepayers for the cash needed to keep Mystic's natural gas units running, until the region finds a permanent solution for its fuel problems. Last week, Exelon submitted a filing containing its plan to do so.
The case illuminates all of the issues that have yet to get worked out in New England, as stakeholders continue to debate which fuels are to be part of the region's energy transition. Some believe the region needs more pipelines to partake of the shale gas revolution; others believe pipelines would stifle renewable energy. Some think nuclear is part of the solution; others don't.
The debate echoes Energy Secretary Rick Perry's view that generators with on-site fuel, such as nuclear and coal, deserve special compensation. That's a particularly salient problem in New England, which tends to run short on fuel each winter.
Worsening the issue, with coal, oil and nuclear units retiring in the near term, there isn't a lot of time to decide. In January, ISO-NE put out a report warning that the region needs a long-term solution to its fuel woes or else rolling blackouts could be in store.
That might be the only thing everyone agrees on: that what's needed is a durable market model that says what's valued — reliability, carbon, security — and what each value is.Tough choices
As Mystic shows, the problem they're trying to solve is already here in some ways and already forcing uncomfortable choices.
Dan Dolan, the president of the New England Power Generators Association, wouldn't opine on the merits of the Mystic application. "But if this type of a waiver is going to be granted by FERC, I want to ensure there isn't a need to do this again next year for more plants," he said.
Mark LeBel, a staff attorney at the Acadia Center, didn't take a position on the Mystic application, but he warned that the region needs to handle the fuel issue systematically, not a la carte.
"There are a lot of important questions around this. We don't want nuclear generators in the region to threaten to retire in order to get similar treatment," he said. "We want to find a fair, technology-neutral, market-based approach in order to meet our reliability needs."
Often, the loss of an individual power plant can be absorbed by the rest of the grid, especially in a place like New England, where electricity demand is flat to falling. But Mystic has taken on outsize importance, according to ISO-NE.
The reason is that Mystic gets all of its gas from a single LNG import terminal in Everett, Mass. If Mystic were to close, ISO-NE has said, this LNG terminal would lose its largest customer. That would cast its own future into doubt, meaning that a region that is already fuel-constrained would be at risk of losing not one, but two of its major energy sources at the same time.
According to ISO-NE's reference model, that could mean "load shedding" throughout the grid for a week. But some critics describe ISO-NE's modeling as too conservative, saying that the worst scenarios are unlikely and that clean energy sources are given short shrift.
For now, ISO-NE is arguing to FERC for urgent support. The grid operator is asking FERC for permission to authorize tariffs in the name of reliability issues tied to fuel security — an authority it does not currently have.
With a two-year bridge, ISO-NE said, stakeholders can devise a "market-based fuel security solution for the region." It has asked FERC to act by July.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/22/stories/1060082329
-
Wehrum Touts Air Quality Benefits from Ending 'Always In' MACT Policy
May 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA air chief William Wehrum says the agency's controversial decision to end the longstanding “once in, always in” policy that required facilities to meet strict air toxics limits regardless of whether they lowered emissions will have air quality benefits, pushing back on critics' claims that it will allow facilities to emit more air pollution.
“Ultimately, this policy is going to produce emissions reductions,” he told a recent House Energy & Commerce Committee energy panel hearing. He argued that scrapping the policy will serve as motivation for plants to reduce their pollution to below the “major source” thresholds.
Wehrum issued a Jan. 25 memo ending EPA's 1995 policy that said that once an industrial facility is regulated under a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics standard, the facility must retain MACT emissions limits even if it reduces its emissions to below the major source threshold that triggers regulation. Sources emitting more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs are classed as major.
Testifying at the May 16 House hearing -- on draft legislation to reform the Clean Air Act new source review program -- Wehrum faced hostile questioning from Democrats concerned that ending the policy will result in pollution hikes. The concern is that facilities that reduce emissions below the MACT threshold will no longer be subject to the MACT limits, and relax their emissions controls, leading to air pollution increases.
Democrats and environmentalists argue that the shift will allow facilities to reduce their emissions to just below the major source thresholds, in order to remove their MACT controls, in effect increasing toxic pollution. Several state air officials also fear it will lead to uneven air toxics pollution levels across the country.
But Wehrum argued that these claims are false. He told a a skeptical Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) that studies showing huge emissions increases “are just shoddy.” If EPA offered such studies to support rules under judicial review, “we would be laughed out of court,” he said.
When Green pressed Wehrum on whether EPA conducted any new scientific studies on air toxics emissions to justify ending the policy, Wehrum said the agency took a “hard look” at public comments received on his prior effort to achieve the policy shift through a formal regulation.
Wehrum unsuccessfully tried the change to the once in, always in policy while serving as an air official at EPA during the George W. Bush administration. But the “abundant” public comments received on that proposed rule provided a “preponderance of information” to suggest the move would result in emissions cuts, rather than increases, he told Green. Nonetheless, “there is no way to comprehensively analyze” the emissions impact of the policy shift, given the “broad, broad applicability of the program,” Wehrum conceded.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) pressed Wehrum on claims by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that the Office of Air And Radiation, which Wehrum heads, did not make the decision to end “once in, always in.”
“I signed the memo” Wehrum said, but added that Pruitt was highly involved in the decision, which reflects agency policy. Dingell pressed Wehrum to make data available that EPA relied on to show the impact of the policy change. In response, Wehrum noted that EPA intends to enshrine the policy in a formal rule, and that the record for the rule will outline the agency's justification for the policy change.
Environmentalists and the state of California have sued EPA in federal court over the policy change, even though it is not a formal rule and therefore may not be considered “final agency action” subject to judicial review. One likely argument that could be made in the litigation is that EPA failed to properly analyze the impact on air emissions and public health of ending the policy.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wehrum-touts-air-quality-benefits-ending-always-mact-policy
-
Chemical-Plant Explosions Continue as EPA Pursues Weaker Safety Rules
May 22, 2018 | Business Insurance
By Gloria Gonzalez
A new proposed rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would gut an effort to improve the safety of chemical facilities launched under the Obama administration even as incidents at these facilities continue to occur, according to some experts.
In the latest incident, a fire at the Pasadena, Texas, facility of Houston-based chemical company Kuraray America Inc. injured 21 workers on Saturday. Preliminary findings indicate a pressure safety valve released ethylene, causing a flash fire in one of its process units, according to a company statement on Saturday. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is deploying a four-person investigative team to the scene, the agency said in a statement on Monday.
On Thursday, the EPA issued a proposed rule that would rescind changes to the agency’s Risk Management Program proposed by the Obama administration in January 2017, including requirements for third-party audits and incident investigations at chemical facilities regulated by the agency.
“Make no mistake — a third-party audit of a complex facility is an extraordinarily expensive undertaking,” said Shannon Broome, San Francisco-based attorney with Hunton Andrews Kurth L.L.P. “That kind of additional expense needs to be thoughtfully considered when you already have a requirement in the rule for compliance auditing on a regular basis.”
“The EPA is supposed to enforce its rules,” said Ms. Broome, who represented industry groups intervening on EPA’s behalf in litigation over the agency’s rule to delay the regulation. “It’s not supposed to outsource that and create a third-party auditing industry.”
The EPA is also planning to modify planned amendments relating to local emergency coordination, emergency exercises and public meetings and to change the compliance dates for these provisions, according to an agency statement on Thursday.
“It is a near-full revocation of that final rule,” said Micah Smith, Washington-based of counsel with Conn Maciel Carey L.L.P.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had opposed the rule in his position as attorney general in Oklahoma prior to being named the head of the agency.
“Basically, it shows that Pruitt is caving in to the chemical industry,” said Jordan Barab, former deputy assistant secretary of U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration under the Obama administration and founder of the Confined Space safety and health newsletter. “It’s not just rescinding some of the provisions of the Obama regulation. It’s pretty much rescinding everything significant in the regulation and significantly weakening those remaining parts of the original regulation.”
The agency said it is proposing these changes to address potential security risks associated with new information disclosure requirements and address concerns about unnecessary regulations and regulatory costs and a lack coordination between the EPA and OSHA, which has engaged in similar rule-making.
OSHA’s process safety management regulation remains on the Trump administration’s long-term action list, meaning that activity on the regulation is not expected for the next 12 months following publication of the agenda.
“One of the excuses that Pruitt uses to justify rescinding this regulation and all the protections in this regulation is that EPA didn’t sufficiently coordinate with OSHA and that EPA really has to wait for OSHA to act at the same time,” Mr. Barab said. “What that is basically saying is that EPA will never act because under this administration OSHA will never issue a process safety management standard.”
Even if OSHA were to begin work to finalize a process safety management regulation, it would conflict with President Trump’s two-for-one executive order, which stated that for every new regulation proposed by an agency, two rules would have to be rescinded, he said.
“OSHA’s PSM standard is going to be very expensive, and the agency will never be able to figure out what two worker protections of equal cost it’s going to repeal to issue a PSM update,” Mr. Barab said. “The bottom line is you’re never going to see that as long as Trump is president.”
The Obama-era proposal was adopted in the wake of the West, Texas, fertilizer disaster that killed 15 people. But the agency said its new proposal related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ finding that the West Fertilizer incident was caused by arson and not an accidental chemical incident. The fire and explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. killed 12 emergency responders and three civilians and injured more than 300 other people.
“I think it’s a very convenient fact for them, given that this process started with the executive order that was issued after that West, Texas, incident,” Mr. Smith said. “It’s certainly entirely too narrow-minded. If you’re paying attention, there are other incidents in the news.”
The critical issue with the West fire was not how it started, but why it led to such a catastrophic explosion, Mr. Barab said.
“That’s where process safety management and chemical safety becomes important — preventing small fires from becoming catastrophic explosions,” he said. “Even if the fire was arson … it still does not justify EPA weakening this regulation or EPA further restricting the amount of information that’s going to go to the community.”
The West, Texas, disaster led to then-President Barack Obama’s April 2013 executive order directing agencies such as the EPA to strengthen their preparation and response to chemical safety incidents, which culminated in the proposed EPA Risk Management Program amendments and other actions.
But the Trump administration delayed enforcement as it pored over reconsideration petitions, which led a group of 11 state attorneys general to sue the EPA in July 2017 over the delay.
Legal experts expect litigation over the new proposal but not immediately, as the rule has not yet been finalized. The proposed rule will be available for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
“The short answer is yes — you can expect litigation,” said Brittany Barrientos, a Kansas City, Missouri-based partner with Stinson Leonard Street L.L.P. “I always say that EPA is in the terrible position of the enemy of all. You don’t see many rules get through EPA promulgation unchallenged, and this one will be no different.”
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20180522/NEWS06/912321429/Chemical-plant-explosions-continue-as-EPA-pursues-weaker-safety-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned) Center for LNG Joins TRANSCAER Sponsors
May 22, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Center for LNG has become the newest sponsor of TRANSCAER®, which provides hazardous materials education and training to first responders.
The center represents the full liquefied natural gas (LNG) value chain, including producers, shippers, terminal operators and developers.
That representation will provide the National TRANSCAER Task Group with "unique insight into the ways LNG is used and transported" in the United States and around the world, TRANSCAER officials said in a press release.
TRANSCAER's education and training helps to prepare first responders for responding to a possible hazardous material transportation incident. The Center for LNG advocates for public policies that advance the use of LNG in the United States and its export internationally.
"We look forward to sharing information and best practices in the LNG industry that will help first responders do their jobs with greater safety," said Charlie Riedl, the center's executive director.
Other national TRANSCAER sponsors include the Association of American Railroads, American Chemistry Council, API, CHEMTREC, Industrial Steel Drum Institute, Renewable Fuels Association, The Chlorine Institute and The Fertilizer Institute.
TRANSCAER stands for Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/shippers/news/Center-for-LNG-joins-TRANSCAER-sponsors--54722
-
As Deadline Nears, FRA Issues $250M Funding Opportunity for PTC Projects
May 22, 2018 | Transport Security World
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for $250 million in Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems Grants.
“These funds are part of the Department’s ongoing efforts to strengthen our country’s rail safety by helping railroads to more rapidly deploy positive train control systems,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao.
The purpose of the NOFO is to solicit applications for $250 million in PTC Systems Grants to fund the deployment of PTC system technology for intercity passenger rail transportation, freight rail transportation and/or commuter rail passenger transportation.
Eligible projects include:Back office systems.Wayside, communications and onboard hardware equipment.Software.Equipment installation.Spectrum.Any component, testing and training for the implementation of PTC systems.
Interoperability.
Applications for PTC systems deployment funding under this solicitation are due no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT, 45 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
These grants form part of the funding available under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program.
In addition, the FRA today released the 2018 Quarter 1 (Q1) status update on railroads’ self-reported progress toward implementing PTC systems. These reports were initiated by FRA to maintain transparency throughout the PTC implementation process.
“The railroads are making progress towards meeting the congressionally mandated PTC requirement, but there is still work to be done. The FRA will continue to work with railroads and suppliers to assist in fully implementing PTC" said FRA Administrator Ronald L. Batory (pictured right).
Fourteen railroads report they have installed 100 percent of the hardware necessary for PTC system implementation, as of March 31, 2018. Railroads’ self-reported data indicates that during Q1 of 2018, six other railroads—i.e., Altamont Corridor Express, Central Florida Rail Corridor (Sunrail), Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC), Metro-North Commuter Railroad, and South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-rail)—increased their percentage of hardware installation by more than 10 percent, compared to Quarter 4 of 2017.
The latest data, current as of March 31, 2018, shows PTC systems are in operation on approximately 60 percent of freight railroads’ route miles that are required to be governed by PTC systems—up from 56 percent last quarter and 16 percent on December 31, 2016.
Passenger railroads have made less progress—with PTC systems in operation on only 25 percent of required route miles, up one percent from the previous quarter.
Why attend SafeRail (Washington 11th - 12th June, 2018) ? Find out how you can overcome PTC interoperability issues / Learn how you can develop a safety culture to protect your workforce / Hear how your industry colleagues are preventing deaths by trespassing and suicide / Keep up to date with federal safety regulations / Safeguard your staff and customers from dangerous railroad conditions / And much more.
http://www.transportsecurityworld.com/as-deadline-nears-fra-issues-250m-funding-opportunity-for-ptc-projects
-
Committee Advances WRDA with Contentious Finance Amendment
May 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously advanced a modified version of a water infrastructure bill today.
The "America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018," S. 2800, includes many reforms to the water infrastructure authorization process.
"Our committee has taken an important step towards improving America's water infrastructure," EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said in a statement. "This legislation will cut Washington red tape, create jobs, and grow our economy. America's Water Infrastructure Act will increase water storage in the West, protect communities from dangerous floods, and upgrade old drinking water systems."
The bipartisan bill has been largely without controversy, but the manager's amendment passed by the committee could change that.
It includes a modified version of a bill that water utilities had expressly asked lawmakers to exclude from the water infrastructure reauthorization: The "Securing Required Funding for Water Infrastructure Now Act," or "SRF WIN Act," S. 2364.
The "SRF WIN Act" would authorize $200 million annually over five years to support state revolving fund (SRF) projects and encourage states to bundle their projects by waiving the $100,000 application fee and streamlining the application projects to a maximum 180-day turnaround.
The bill would also simplify the federal approval process by allowing thousands of vetted drinking water and wastewater projects to receive funding, eliminating the need for EPA to process additional loan applications.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), has received the support of a number of organizations, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Ducks Unlimited, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.
In a letter last week, they wrote that the language "will make a good bill even better," noting that states currently have "thousands of vetted water infrastructure projects awaiting SRF funding."
But water utility groups, including the Water Environment Federation, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and American Water Works Association, have asked the Environment and Public Works Committee not to combine S. 2800 with the "SRF WIN Act," which they say is a "fundamentally flawed proposal."
They noted that the proposal has not had its own hearings in committee, and said it could pose a "severe threat to the viability of the WIFIA program."
The utilities also called the bill "inequitable" because it would expedite the processing of infrastructure funding through the state revolving funds, which, they say, could in turn slow processing requests under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) low-interest loan program.
The version of the "SRF WIN Act" added to S. 2800 today was modified from its original form. One new provision would allow projects to apply for WIFIA financing either through the SRF bundle or separately.
State infrastructure authorities would still have to choose one mechanism from which to receive funding and would have to withdraw from financing authorities it does not select.
It is unclear whether the modifications will appease the utility groups.
During the markup, Barrasso described the provision as helping "smaller rural communities leverage WIFIA dollars so that they can help complete needed infrastructure projects."
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a co-sponsor of the "SRF WIN Act," said he was "proud" that the provision was included in the broader infrastructure package, saying it "will help states fund bundles of water infrastructure projects that are construction-ready but often lack the funding to move forward."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) also praised the language, saying that WIFIA, as it is currently operated, "is simply not useful to Rhode Island."
"It operates at a scale and with interest costs that simply make it noncompetitive, and I think Sen. Boozman's amendment that would open up the WIFIA program to states like mine is potentially a game changer for us," he said.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure version of its water infrastructure authorization bill does not contain any similar provisions.
Senators today also added a provision to S. 2800 directing the Army Corps of Engineers and the Energy and Interior departments to study barriers to offshore wind development in New England and the Mid-Atlantic. The study, the legislation says, should ultimately make "recommendations on further research needed to improve ports in the United States for offshore wind facility development and deployment."
Another amendment would create new positions at each EPA regional office to act as "liaisons" for minority, tribal and low-income communities.
The bill, as amended, would confirm that tribes recognized by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act can participate in water infrastructure projects as non-federal sponsors.
Another provision would require the Army Corps to submit a report to Congress identifying the ongoing and recently completed projects in coastal states and how those projects correspond to states' coastal plans.
Barrasso also indicated that he would work with Booker to support an amendment during floor debate to provide grants to low- and moderate-income households to help them connect to existing wastewater infrastructure.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/22/stories/1060082389
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested