Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/8/18

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) New Bills Would Mandate Science-Based Consumer Warning Labels
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Scientific, risk-based criteria would have to be met before federal, state, or local agencies could require consumer product manufacturers to slap warnings on their goods, according to new legislation backed by a diverse coalition of industry groups.
(ACC Mentioned) Accurate Labels Act Introduced In
Jun 8, 2018 | The Poultry Site

USA - Bipartisan legislation would provide consumers with clear, accurate, meaningful information on packaging labels
(ACC Mentioned) Labeling Law Would Eliminate Non-Credible Food Labels
Jun 8, 2018 | Feedstuffs

ALA offers a bipartisan solution to this labeling chaos and misinformation that is creating consumer confusion.
(ACC Mentioned) Business Groups Praise Corker Amendment, But Will It Go Anywhere?
Jun 7, 2018 | Politico
By Marianne LeVine and Marianne LeVine

There’s no shortage of businesses and trade associations getting behind a proposal from Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that would allow Congress to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs by setting up a fast-track process for Congress to sign off on tariffs linked to national security.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Spokesman Called AP Journalist An ‘Anti-Trump Reporter’
Jun 7, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Erik Wemple

Michael Biesecker is an investigative reporter for the Associated Press. But to Jahan Wilcox, the pointlessly combative spokesman who works under Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, he’s something else altogether: an “anti-Trump reporter.”
(ACC Mentioned) Blackstone's Byron Wien: Recession Won't Strike US Until 2021
Jun 8, 2018 | Newsmax
By F MCGuire

Investment guru Byron Wien warns market players that there are a few years left before the seemingly endless bull-run stock rally ends and the nation plunges back into another recession.
More Than 100 Bipartisan Lawmakers Urge Pruitt To Scrap 'Secret Science' Rule
Jun 8, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green

Bipartisan members of the House are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw a recently proposed rule aiming to increase transparency that some fear will limit science used in the regulation process.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) The Chemical Industry Scores a Big Win at the E.P.A.
Jun 7, 2018 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton

The Trump administration, after heavy lobbying by the chemical industry, is scaling back the way the federal government determines health and safety risks associated with the most dangerous chemicals on the market, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency show.
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Scales Back EPA’s Mandate To Evaluate Hundreds Of Toxic Chemicals
Jun 8, 2018 | Fast Company
By Michael Grothaus

The president is scaling back the way the government agency was set to determine whether hundred of chemicals were potentially toxic, reports the New York Times.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) UN Cancer Agency’s Science Update Offers Reform Opportunity: Critics
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

An international cancer research agency that caused upheaval over its finding that the world’s most widely-used herbicide is likely carcinogenic could use a planned update to its scientific principles to avoid future strife, chemical industry representatives told Bloomberg Environment.
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Will No Longer Evaluate the Health Risks of Asbestos Because Trump Believes it's 100-Percent Safe
Jun 8, 2018 | Paste Magazine
By Allison Bolt

The Environmental Protection Agency will no longer evaluate asbestos in homes and businesses as a danger or health risk, as Newsweek reports. Scott Pruitt announced the decision last Friday under President Trump, who believes asbestos is “100 percent safe, once applied.”
EPA to Increase Transparency of Detergent Chemicals Releases
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan

EPA is boosting its mandatory list of chemicals that companies must report by adding 13 compounds used in cleaners and detergents.
EPA Spotlights Many Industries’ Chemical Uses, Disposal Methods
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Companies that make, import, distribute, use, and dispose of any of 10 chemicals under the EPA’s spotlight should understand whether agency assumptions about their business practices threaten critical products or services they offer, industry advisers say.
Over 60 Public Interest Groups Urge Release Of Health Study
Jun 7, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar

A broad coalition of environmental outfits, health advocacy groups and universities this afternoon asked the Department of Health and Human Services to release a delayed health review of toxic nonstick chemicals.
EPA Requires TRI Reporting For Detergent Chemicals
Jun 7, 2018 | Inside EPA

Despite opposition from chemical manufacturers, EPA is requiring industrial facilities to report releases of 13 nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) -- chemicals used in detergents -- to its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Dustin White: Petrochemical Complex Not Good For WV (Gazette)
Jun 8, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Dustin White

Recently, we’ve been seeing a lot of opinion pieces and articles in the local media telling us how great the proposed Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub will be for our economy.
(ACC Mentioned) Advantage, U.S. Chemical Industry, Due To Shale Gas: ACC
Jun 8, 2018 | Kallanish Energy

Strong global growth prospects, rising exports, increased manufacturing, balanced inventories, healthy demand, and sufficient, inexpensive shale gas combined suggest positive growth this year for the U.S. chemical industry, the American Chemistry Council’s mid-year outlook states.

Chemical Security News

‘Matter of Time’ Before Cyberattack on Grid: Energy Official
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern

The U.S. electric grid will be vulnerable to successful penetration when attacks get more sophisticated, the head of the Energy Department’s Office of Electricity said June 7.
Cyberthreats Justify Federal Intervention, DOE Tells Panel
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Peter Behr

Energy Department Assistant Secretary Bruce Walker yesterday on Capitol Hill singled out cybersecurity threats to pipelines that supply gas-fired power plants in defending the department's polarizing proposal to channel payments to at-risk coal and nuclear plants to prevent their retirements.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

House Spending Bill Strikes at Piece of Trump Infrastructure Plan
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz

A bipartisan amendment added to a federal spending bill June 7 would block the Trump administration from fulfilling one of the items on its proposed $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan.
Schumer Calls For Crude-By-Rail Standards
Jun 8, 2018 | Progressive Railroading

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday urged the U.S. Department of Transportation and Department of Energy to finalize volatility standards for crude oil before it's shipped by rail.
For KCS Leaders, A Sharper Technological Acumen Plus PTC Will Equal A More Data-Driven Organization
Jun 7, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
By Jeff Stagl

In May, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) released a white paper that highlights how freight railroads’ ongoing technological pursuits are boosting their safety, efficiency and reliability.

Environment News

Cost-Benefit Reform at the EPA
Jun 7, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board

Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency jammed through an average of 565 new rules each year during the Obama Presidency, imposing the highest regulatory costs of any agency.
Agency Unveils Controversial Cost-Benefit Proposal
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow

EPA is seeking public input on a proposal to alter the way it considers costs and benefits in rulemaking, which is setting off a flood of concern from public interest groups and praise from industry.
EPA To Alter Cost Calculations As Industry Criticizes ‘Inflated’ Benefits (1)
Jun 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The EPA took its first step to alter how it tallies the costs and benefits of pollution rules, in a bid to address concerns from regulated industries. That includes how it accounts for the benefits from pollutants that aren’t directly regulated.
Scrubbing Carbon Dioxide from the Air Could Be Cheaper Than Thought
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill

Scrubbing carbon dioxide from the ambient air might be a cheaper gamble than previously thought, possibly boosting a potential solution to climate change that has been criticized as unrealistic, according to new research by a Canadian company developing direct-air-capture technology.
EPA Shies Away From Forcing States to Curb Smog-Forming Pollution (1)
Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA doesn’t want to force upwind states to curb smog-forming pollution from power plants, despite several Northeast states’ pleas for help.
New York Eyes 'Contingency' Policies To Counter Rollbacks Of EPA Rules
Jun 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss

New York's environment commissioner is crafting “contingency plans” to promote environmental protection to help balance out potential pollution increases associated with EPA rule rollbacks, including a state push for zero-emission and electric vehicles (ZEVs) to counter any weakening of federal mobile source standards.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) New Bills Would Mandate Science-Based Consumer Warning Labels

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Warnings would have to be based on risk, meet scientific criteria
House, Senate bills introduced, backed by diverse coalition of industry groups
Scientific, risk-based criteria would have to be met before federal, state, or local agencies could require consumer product manufacturers to slap warnings on their goods, according to new legislation backed by a diverse coalition of industry groups.
Any warning requirement would have to be based on a risk-based analysis that concludes a product has the potential to cause harm or disease. That analysis must use “best available science” and a systematic, objective, “weight of evidence” approach to reach its conclusions, according to the Accurate Labels Act (H.R. 2022and S. 5301).
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced the bill in the Senate June 7 and Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) introduced the House bill June 6 but announced it on June 7.
Amends Existing Labeling Act
The legislation would amend the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which is administered by the Federal Trade Commission.
“A growing number of states and localities are requiring labels that imply risks when none exist,” Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement backing the legislation. “Consumers have a right to accurate, common sense labels that reflect the best available science,” he said.
The Accurate Labels Act “offers a bipartisan solution to this labeling chaos and misinformation that is creating consumer confusion, driving up costs, and creating unreasonable regulatory burdens for farmers, manufacturers, and small businesses,” Dooley said on behalf of the newly formed Coalition for Accurate Product Labels.
Range of Warnings Covered
The bill’s requirements would apply to warnings that say a chemical in or a component of a product causes harm or disease. This would include claims that the product emits radiation.
It would prohibit such warnings if the product posed a minor or “de minimis” risk, which it defines in various ways. For example, one definition would not allow warnings if the risk was less than one person out of 1,000 having their reproductive potential or growth and development harmed.
The types of warnings covered by the legislation include statements on labels, pictograms, and content on signs, pamphlets, and websites.
The House bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), and Filemon Vela (D-Texas).
The coalition represents trade associations, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Auto Care Association, Consumer Technology Association, Independent Bakers Association, National Candle Association, National Retail Federation, Pavement Coatings Technology Council, and Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-bills-would-mandate-science-based-consumer-warning-labels

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Accurate Labels Act Introduced In

Jun 8, 2018 | The Poultry Site

USA - Bipartisan legislation would provide consumers with clear, accurate, meaningful information on packaging labels
US Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, and US Representatives Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) today introduced the Accurate Labels Act, bipartisan legislation to provide American consumers nationwide with clear, accurate, meaningful nutrition information and prevent the issuance of inaccurate labels that mislead consumers and drive up prices. The Accurate Labels Act would amend the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to ensure consumers continue to benefit from the nutritional and allergy information on packaging today.
“Congress has an important role to play in making certain Americans have the best possible information when making purchasing decisions,” said Sen. Moran. “Our labeling requirements on the federal, state and local levels must be based on credible science so we can provide consumers with accurate, relevant and critical information pertaining to nutritional facts. Not only do inaccurate labels confuse consumers, they increase prices at the point of sale and create unnecessary new regulatory burdens placed on farmers and small businesses.”
“Consumers deserve full transparency on the products they’re buying, no matter where they live or shop. Often times, due to various state laws, items are incorrectly labeled with warnings about harms that do not exist. This inaccuracy creates confusion and fear for the consumers, desensitizes the public from heeding serious warnings on health risks, and imposes unnecessary and costly regulatory burdens for producers,” said Rep. Kinzinger. “Today, I’m proud to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleagues, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), that establishes science-based criteria for labeling requirements, but also ensures that legitimate risks are taken seriously. The Accurate Labels Act is a commonsense measure to ensure consumers have clear and accurate product labels.”
“It’s time to bring science and reason back into the way we label products for the benefit of the American people,” said Rep. Schrader. “When we have mandatory cancer warnings on a cup of coffee, something has gone seriously wrong with the process. We now have so many warnings unrelated to the actual health risk posed to consumers, that most people just ignore them. Enough is enough. We have a responsibility to ensure that consumers are presented with accurate information that is consistent, based on science, and provides a real value to the public to help make informed decisions on the safety of what they can consume.”
US Representatives Buddy Carter (R-Georgia), Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Filemon Vela (D-Texas) and Jim Costa (D-Calif.) joined in introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House, H.R. 6022.
The Accurate Labels Act ensures that consumers have access to accurate and easy-to-understand product information by:
Establishing science-based criteria for all additional state and local labeling requirements;
Allowing state-mandated product information to be provided through smartphone-enabled “smart labels” and on websites, where consumers can find up-to-date, relevant ingredients and warnings; and ensuring that covered product information is risk-based.
This legislation is supported by the American Chemistry Council, the Coalition for Accurate Product Labels, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
"The Accurate Labels Act is urgently needed legislation to require states to ‘show their work’ and document the science behind labeling mandates," said President and CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Chuck Conner. "State labeling requirements are confusing consumers and hurting farmers, manufacturers and small businesses. The Accurate Labels Act is a win for anyone interested in accurate, science-based product labeling.”
Text of the legislation, S. 3019, is available here
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/40130/accurate-labels-act-introduced-in/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Labeling Law Would Eliminate Non-Credible Food Labels

Jun 8, 2018 | Feedstuffs

ALA offers a bipartisan solution to this labeling chaos and misinformation that is creating consumer confusion.
In another step of trying to ensure consumers have clear labels, legislation on both the House and Senate side looks to help ensure that food labels are consistent, clear and credible.
More than 60 organizations, representing farmers, manufacturers, small businesses and retailers announced the creation of the Coalition for Accurate Product Labels (www.accuratelabels.com), which advocates for meaningful, science-based information about the products consumers buy and use.
The Coalition for Accurate Product Labels supports the Accurate Labels Act, introduced by Sen. Jerry Moran (R., Kan.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R., Ill.) and Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.). The legislation will amend the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to:Ensure consumers have access to clear, accurate and meaningful product labels;Establish science-based criteria for all state and local labeling requirements that exceed current federal standards;Allow state-mandated product information to be provided through smartphone-enabled “smart labels” and on websites;Ensure that covered product information is risk-based; andWill leave unchanged current federal laws related to allergens, nutrition facts and medicines.
“Consumers have a right to accurate, common sense labels that reflect the best available science,” said Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council. “However, a growing number of states and localities are requiring labels that imply risks when none exist. The bipartisan Accurate Labels Act offers a solution to this labeling chaos and misinformation that is creating consumer confusion, driving up costs and creating unreasonable regulatory burdens for farmers, manufacturers and small businesses.”
The Coalition for Accurate Product Labels noted that in 2017 and 2018, there were 30 proposals in 11 different states that would require warning labels or ingredient listings that go beyond national standards, which are not supported by the best available science.New York, San Francisco and Baltimore have proposed warning labels on all sweetened beverages even though the Food and Drug Administration says sugar “can be a part of a healthy dietary pattern…”Several states and cities, such as Hawaii, have required or proposed warning labels on cell phones despite the weight of scientific evidence that cell phone use is safe.California requires warning labels on a variety of everyday products, including coffee, that contain nearly 900 substances, often relying on questionable science and unrealistic exposure rates.
“Fewer than 18% of Americans believe states and cities should be able to impose whatever regulations they want,” said Chuck Conner, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. “States should be required to ‘show their work’ and document the science behind their proposed labeling mandates. The Accurate Labels Act will give consumers transparent and reliable information about product ingredients, while giving farmers and food producers the certainty they need to continue providing safe products for American families,” said Conner.
“When it comes to making choices about the products they buy, American families need access to clear and accurate information no matter where they live or shop,” said Pamela G. Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
“As consumers are increasingly interested in more product information, digital access through initiatives such as SmartLabel® (www.smartlabel.org) are an important part of being able to provide accurate product information and ingredients to consumers. More than four in five (83%) of Americans support using digital disclosure through smart phones or web sites as a transparent way to access accurate, detailed information on the products they use. Currently, nearly 26,000 food, beverage, personal care and household products are disclosing more information than could ever fit on a package label through SmartLabel®,” Bailey said.
http://www.feedstuffs.com/news/labeling-law-would-eliminate-non-credible-food-labels

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Business Groups Praise Corker Amendment, But Will It Go Anywhere?

Jun 7, 2018 | Politico

By Marianne LeVine and Marianne LeVine

BUSINESS GROUPS PRAISE CORKER AMENDMENT, BUT WILL IT GO ANYWHERE? There’s no shortage of businesses and trade associations getting behind a proposal from Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that would allow Congress to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs by setting up a fast-track process for Congress to sign off on tariffs linked to national security. Philip Ellender, president of government and public affairs for Koch Industries, said in a statement that the legislation “helps restore Congress’ constitutional authority on matters of trade.” Neil Bradley, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, said in a statement that “this modest proposal to clarify congressional prerogatives is welcome and long overdue.”
— Other groups have come out in favor of the bill, including the American International Automobile Dealers Association; Here for America, an initiative of the Association of Global Automakers; the National Retail Federation; the American Chemistry Council; and the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association.
— Hun Quach, vice president for international trade for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, told PI that the legislation’s introduction brings more transparency and awareness on the effect of the tariffs. But some trade lobbyists are skeptical the legislation will go anywhere. One lobbyist noted that Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) and House Speaker Paul Ryan already appear skeptical that the legislation would get through and questioned whether Democrats would get behind any measure that would weaken Trump’s power on trade. “Even if that was plausible, it gets vetoed,” the lobbyist said. “All this would take many months if even possible, which is more than enough time for Trump to get the impact he’s seeking ... anyway.” Another lobbyist who works on trade issues said that many on K Street are more focused on persuading the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee to hold hearings on the tariffs.
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. To tip or not to tip? That shouldn’t even be a question. Please send us your most incendiary tips: mlevine@politico.comand tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow us on Twitter: @theodoricmeyerand @marianne_levine.
Join the Global Public Affairs Club, a new global community dedicated to C-level public affairs professionals launched by POLITICO’s sister company, DII. Members receive the GPAC weekly newsletter, including original reporting and analysis on new transparency standards, recent lobbying regulation, risk management and industry best practices. In addition, members have access to the Global Public Affairs Forum on Sept. 28 in Paris. For additional information on GPAC, email Chloé Mimault-Talagrand at cmimault@dii.eu.
AHEAD OF THE FILINGS: AKIN GUMP SIGNS FIVE, INCLUDING AMAZON: Akin Gump has five new clients, including Amazon. (POLITICO Playbook noted in March that Amazon nixed its contract with the firm, which was working on online sales tax issues.) According to the new registration, former Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.), Ryan Thompson and Ed Pagano will work on “legislation related to information infrastructure and data technology.” In addition to Amazon, Akin registered to lobby on behalf of Cranemasters Inc. on the “hours of service regulations exemption” as well as CTIA, Exelon and PrecisionHawk on the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bills.
— In other notable filing news, Monument Policy Group will lobby for Feeding America, an anti-hunger association, on the farm bill and appropriations.
MUELLER PROBE APPEARS TO LINK MANAFORT, EUROPEAN FIRM: “Individuals connected to a now-defunct European public affairs firm appear to have been the targets of what prosecutors contend was a witness-tampering effort by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort,” POLITICO’s Josh Gerstein and Theodoric Meyer report. “Special counsel Robert Mueller's office alleged in a court filing Monday night that Manafort reached out earlier this year in an improper effort to influence the testimony of two unnamed individuals he worked with between 2011 and 2014 on a public relations campaign aimed at burnishing the image of Ukraine's government and then-President Viktor Yanukovych. The name of the company involved and some other facts were deleted from a contract Mueller’s team submitted describing the pro-Ukraine work. But some potentially identifying details were left visible in the public filing.
— “The contract says that, in addition to working with reporters on news stories and interacting with Ukrainian blogs, the company could ensure ‘guaranteed TV report’ from a program called ‘World Business.’ ‘World Business,’ a series of half-hour features that aired on CNBC in Europe, was produced at the time by the public relations company FBC Media. It was canceled after reports that FBC was working for governments with checkered human-rights records at the same time that it produced TV segments related to those governments. A person familiar with the media company told POLITICO the document filed by prosecutors matched other contracts drafted by FBC and its successor firms.” Full story.
** A message from the National Confectioners Association – #AlwaysATreat:Leading global chocolate and candy companies are coming together to provide more information, options, and support as consumers enjoy their favorite treats. It’s the first step on our journey to help people manage their sugar intake and ensure that they feel empowered to make informed choices. Learn more at AlwaysATreat.com. **
TRADE ASSOCIATION TURMOIL: Roll Call’s Kate Ackley takes a look at the challenges facing Washington trade groups, several of which have lost their leaders in recent months. “These multimillion-dollar organizations are clamoring for ways to boost membership, and sometimes even keep their doors open, as they work to stay relevant amid the political and policy uncertainty of Washington during the era of President Donald Trump. ‘There are some organizations struggling with advocacy with this new administration,’ said JP Moery, the founder and president of The Moery Company, which offers management advice to some of the nation’s best-known trade associations. ‘The old playbook may need to be updated for this administration and moving forward.’” Full story.
SPEAKING OF TRADE ASSOCIATIONS — MBA NAMES NEW PRESIDENT: “The Mortgage Bankers Association today announced it has chosen Robert Broeksmit as its next president and CEO,” POLITICO’s Katy O’Donnell reports. “Broeksmit starts Aug. 20; he will overlap with current CEO David Stevens, whose last day is Sept. 30. POLITICO caught up with Broeksmit, who said his three top policy priorities are reforming the government-sponsored enterprises, working to make sure the Federal Housing Administration is ‘stable over the long term,’ and ‘working with the administration to make sure there’s clarity and certainty for lenders.’ He said he plans to lobby the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in particular ‘for more specific guidance to lenders.’ As for GSE reform, Broeksmit said that while he’s ‘not optimistic about legislative action in 2018,’ MBA will advocate administrative reform and “do the spade work in the event the climate improves in 2019” for a congressional fix. He said he has no plans to change the way the MBA operates.” Spencer Stuart assisted with the search.
SPRINT TAPS ANTITRUST LOBBYIST ON T-MOBILE MERGER: “Sprint has retained Seth Bloom to lobby on its pending merger with T-Mobile, disclosure documents show, as the telecom giants hustle to move their deal through Washington's regulatory machine,” POLITICO’s Steven Overly reports. “Bloom spent nearly 14 years on the Senate's antitrust subcommittee, including several years as general counsel, before starting Bloom Strategic Counsel in 2013. Before that, he was a trial attorney in the Justice Department's antitrust division. He represented Amazon during its acquisition of Whole Foods, Aetna in its unsuccessful merger with Humana and Pfizer during its abandoned deal with Allergan. Yelp and Comcast are among Bloom's other clients. This is Bloom's second stint with Sprint. He previously lobbied for the firm from 2013 to 2015 on ‘competition issues in the wireless industry’ and other telecommunications regulations, records show.” Full story.
KEY FIGURES IN GULF CRISIS SEVER TIES WITH QATAR: “A New York businessman who played a crucial role in Qatar’s efforts to win influence in the United States has terminated his relationship with the Persian Gulf nation and is now condemning it as a threat to Middle East peace,” POLITICO’s Ben Schreckinger reports. “Joey Allaham, a Syrian-born restaurateur and entrepreneur who had been helping Qatar make politically useful investments and curry favor with the American Jewish community, told POLITICO that he has recently cut ties with the country. ‘Qatar enjoys portraying themselves as the purveyor of peace in the region, but this could not be further from the truth,’ Allaham said in a sharp reversal from his past position. His defection comes at the same time that another top Qatari agent, Nick Muzin, a former adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), is also stopping work for the wealthy monarchy.
— “Their work and other Qatari efforts had been paying off, with the Trump administration softening its stance toward the country in recent months. The loss of their services is a setback to Qatar’s efforts to resolve a yearlong diplomatic crisis in the Persian Gulf and improve its standing in the U.S.” Full story.
FLYING IN: AdvaMed is in town today, pushing one of its longtime priorities: killing off the Affordable Care Act’s medical device tax, which was delayed for two years in January as part of a spending deal. Executives will meet with lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), as well as HHS Secretary Alex Azar and Seema Verma, the CMS administrator.
JOBS REPORT
— Jon Berroya has joined the Internet Association as senior vice president and general counsel. He was previously the Entertainment Software Association’s vice president for legal affairs.
— Jonathan Harris is executive director of the Israeli-American Coalition for Action. He was previously senior policy director at AIPAC.
— Robin Carnahan of 18F; Brett Loper of American Express; Kristen Soltis Anderson of Echelon Insights; Francis Fukuyama of Stanford University; Lanhee Chen of Stanford University; Cherie Harder of the Trinity Forum; Lisa Leingang of First Look Media; Kierna Mayo of iOne Digital Inc.; Melissa Mark-Viverito of the Latino Victory Fund; Raju Narisetti of Columbia Journalism School; Chip Sullivan of NBC Entertainment; Sonal Shah of Georgetown University; Anthea Watson Strong of Google; Charlie Sykes of the Weekly Standard and NBC/MSNBC; Geneva Overholser, a fellow at USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy; and Starsky Wilson of Saint John’s Church are now on the Democracy Fund’s National Advisory Committee.
SPOTTED: At K&L Gates’ bash celebrating its 45th anniversary on Wednesday night at the Reserve Officers Association, according to a PI tipster: Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Mark Warner (D-Va.); Reps. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), Emanuel Cleaver(D-Mo.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.), Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Ron Estes (R-Kan.) and Tim Walberg (R-Mich.); and Jim Segerdahl, Michael Caccese and Barclay Collins of K&L Gates.
NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS:
Minnesota Second District Victory Fund 2018 (Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Angie Craig for Congress)
NEW PACs:
None
NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS:
Alpine Group Inc.: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP on behalf of BETA Operating Company
Atlas Crossing: Invariant (on behalf of S.H.I.P Coalition)
Daniel Delich: Fort Bend County LID #2
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP (formerly Hunton & Williams LLP): Fairfax County Water Authority
Lavender Consultants: Mid-Size Bank Coalition of America
Miller & Chevalier, Chtd: Alight Solutions
Monument Policy Group LLC: Feeding America
Mountain Moving Strategies Inc.: B & H Foto & Electronics Corp.
Polaris Government Relations LLC: The Carlyle Group
Taylor English Decisions LLC: Gresham Transportation Services LLC
NEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS:
None
** A message from the National Confectioners Association – #AlwaysATreat: We’ve always created transparent, fun, and great-tasting treats. By 2022, Mars Wrigley Confectionery, Nestlé USA, Ferrero, Lindt, Ghirardelli, Russell Stover, and Ferrara Candy Company will work together to make half of their individually wrapped products available in sizes that contain 200 calories or less per pack. And, 90 percent of the best-selling treats made by these companies will have calorie information printed right on the front of the pack. During the same time period, the newly established AlwaysATreat.com will evolve into a digital resource full of easy-to-use information for consumers to better understand the unique role that chocolate and candy can play in a happy, balanced lifestyle. Learn more at AlwaysATreat.com. **
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2018/06/07/business-groups-praise-corker-amendment-but-will-it-go-anywhere-245842

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Spokesman Called AP Journalist An ‘Anti-Trump Reporter’

Jun 7, 2018 | The Washington Post

By Erik Wemple

Michael Biesecker is an investigative reporter for the Associated Press. But to Jahan Wilcox, the pointlessly combative spokesman who works under Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, he’s something else altogether: an “anti-Trump reporter.”
An odd allegation, to be sure, to unleash against someone who focuses on the environment, clean energy and the like. Biesecker, after all, doesn’t dwell in the White House briefing room, hammering Trump emissaries with question after question. He prefers Superfund sites. It was Biesecker and a colleague, for instance, who scrutinized whether the EPA was forcefully responding to flooded toxic sites around Houston — long a petrochemical hub — in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.
The original headline: “AP EXCLUSIVE: Toxic waste sites flooded, EPA not on scene.”
The EPA responded with a news release that also released an ad hominem attack: “Yesterday, the Associated Press’ Michael Biesecker wrote an incredibly misleading story about toxic land sites that are under water,” it read, in part. The EPA also scrapped with Biesecker a year ago over Pruitt and the CEO of Dow Chemical.
A great number of stories about Pruitt’s travel expenses, ethics, expenditures, housing, use of staff and other matters have since spun out of the presses, helping to launch a dozen federal probes of the administrator’s actions. Last weekend, Biesecker tugged on a strand of that accountability reporting, asking some questions about expenses for Pruitt’s trip to Kiawah Island, S.C., in November 2017 for a meeting of the American Chemistry Council. The exchange got testy.
In one of his emails — obtained by the Erik Wemple Blog — Wilcox told Biesecker:
Michael –
If you read the email, I said you are an anti-Trump reporter, not the questions. Folks know you are a dishonest reporter and it could be why the Associated Press moves you from beat to beat.
In the past five months, we have done extensive interviews with the New York Times, CBS News, Bloomberg, Reuters and other outlets in Washington.
Here is our statement:
“Administrator Pruitt did not spend the night at the American Chemistry Council’s conference. His outbound flight left on November 9, 2017 at 5:20 AM and his return flight departed on November 9, 2017 at 12:00 PM.”
Jahan
Ted Bridis, editor of AP’s Washington-based investigative team, brushed back Wilcox:
Thank you for answering our inquiry factually, Jahan, but the continuing digs are unnecessary and unprofessional behavior from a civil servant.
For the record, AP hasn’t moved Michael off covering EPA, nor do we intend to, and we dispute that Michael (or our questions) are anti-Trump.
Wilcox didn’t respond to emails seeking comment on his criticisms of Biesecker. A call to his work cellphone went unanswered, and the mailbox was full. The AP ended up not publishing a story based on Biesecker’s inquiries to Wilcox about the South Carolina travel. For more information on Biesecker’s beat, consult his LinkedIn page, which notes that he is a member of “AP’s Washington-based investigative team. Also covering environmental enforcement and policy, along with the human impacts of climate change.” A Nexis review of his bylines over the past six months reveals a steady focus on the work of Pruitt — and the various controversies that he has generated — with occasional detours for breaking-news events and some coverage of the Interior Department.
All of which is to say that Biesecker is doing what reporters have been doing in Washington forever: monitoring the use of taxpayer dollars at pivotal federal agencies. Under a world-champion narcissist incapable of countenancing criticism, this time-tested and necessary work becomes “anti-Trump.” Looking on the bright side, that’s more respectful than calling a reporter a “piece of trash.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/06/07/epa-spokesman-called-ap-journalist-an-anti-trump-reporter/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.10f678eeb6b1

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Blackstone's Byron Wien: Recession Won't Strike US Until 2021

Jun 8, 2018 | Newsmax

By F MCGuire

Investment guru Byron Wien warns market players that there are a few years left before the seemingly endless bull-run stock rally ends and the nation plunges back into another recession.
"My view is the earliest we're going to have a recession is 2021," he told CNBC. He doesn’t expect anything more severe than a 10 percent stock correction before recession hits.
Typical recession omens such as poor corporate earnings and employment data, "just aren't in place," said Wien, a vice chairman at Blackstone.
"Maybe they'll develop very quickly. But usually, they take a while," he continued. "Right now I see this cycle going on for a couple more years. And as long as that is the case, I think volatility will remain low," he said.
The current recovery, which began in mid-2009, is the second longest expansion in U.S. history, and would become the longest if it lasts past June 2019, CNBC explained.
Wien isn't alone in warning about economic troubles on America's horizon.
Earlier this week, a group of top business economists believes the major tax cuts President Donald Trump pushed through Congress will give a significant boost to economic growth this year and next year. But they worry that by 2020, the country could be entering a new recession, the Associated Press explained.
The National Association for Business Economics says in its latest quarterly outlook that its panel of 45 economists expects the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, to expand 2.8 percent this year. That is down slightly from the panel's March forecast, which put GDP growth this year at 2.9 percent.
The NABE economists are "slightly less optimistic about the U.S. economy in 2018 than they were three months ago," says NABE vice president Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
Part of the drop-off in optimism reflects growing worries about what Trump's get-tough approach on trade might do to U.S. growth prospects.
Meanwhile, Trump's chief economic adviser argues that last week's blockbuster unemployment report is a sign of the robust economic growth awaiting America.
“I believe we've entered into the longest largest prosperity in a couple of decades. I know it's early in the game,” Larry Kudlow, director of the White House's National Economic Council, told CNBC.
To be sure, U.S. job growth accelerated in May and the unemployment rate dropped to an 18-year low of 3.8 percent, pointing to rapidly tightening labor market conditions, which could stir concerns about inflation, Reuters explained.
Nonfarm payrolls increased by 223,000 jobs last month as warm weather boosted hiring at construction sites. There were also big gains in retail and leisure and hospitality payrolls. The economy created 15,000 more jobs than previously reported in March and April.
“This is a prosperity era. It's a strong economy. What you've got here is continued job growth, low unemployment, and participation rates pretty good,” said Kudlow, who served as the Trump campaign's senior economic adviser.
The strong employment report added to a string of recent upbeat economic data, including consumer spending and industrial production, that have suggested economic growth was regaining speed early in the second quarter after slowing at the beginning of the year.
The strength comes even as the stimulus from a $1.5 trillion income tax cut package and increased government spending is yet to filter through the economy.
https://www.newsmax.com/finance/economy/byron-wien-recession-stock-market/2018/06/07/id/864873/

Return to headline | Return to top
More Than 100 Bipartisan Lawmakers Urge Pruitt To Scrap 'Secret Science' Rule

Jun 8, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green

Bipartisan members of the House are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw a recently proposed rule aiming to increase transparency that some fear will limit science used in the regulation process.
The group of 103 lawmakers signed a letter sent to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Thursday calling on him to reverse course on the rulemaking, named Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, introduced in late April.
"Contrary to its name, the proposed rule would implement an opaque process allowing EPA to selectively suppress scientific evidence without accountability and in the process undermine bedrock environmental laws," the lawmakers wrote.
The letter notes many of the same concerns voiced by scientists since reports of the rulemaking first surfaced — namely that the rule would specifically limit public health studies, whose findings must remain confidential.
"It appears to be targeted at excluding important public health studies while privileging industry-sponsored research," the lawmakers say of the rule. "It also fails to adequately consider the costs of implementation and the potential privacy implications."
Four Republican members of Congress signed onto the bill: Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Ryan Costello (Pa.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.).
Curbelo and Ros-Lehtinen have both called for Pruitt to resign or be fired from leading the EPA.
Thousands of scientists have opposed the rule, arguing that it will severely limit the type of science used to determine the agency's regulations.
Pruitt signed the proposal on April 24 at EPA headquarters. The rule, which aims to expose the methodology behind scientific findings and cut back on what Pruitt has deemed "secret science," was signed at a closed-door event that limited reporters, environmentalists and scientists from attending.
At the event, Pruitt said the new ruling shows "an agency taking responsibility for how we do our work, in respecting process … so that we can enhance confidence in our decision making." He also dubbed the current process, which had, until now, allowed science to be peer-reviewed rather than open to public scrutiny, "simply wrong-headed."
The rule will replicate, through agency action, two bills previously introduced in the House and Senate meant to restrict the kind of science the EPA can use when writing regulations.
The prosed rule is one of many decisions made by Pruitt under the auspices of increasing transparency and getting rid of conflicts of interest. Last year he announced a new agency-wide policy that would bar scientists receiving money through an EPA grant from sitting on any science advisory board. He has also continued to push the idea of a "red team–blue team" exercise meant to debate the science behind decisionmaking by allowing industry leaders a voice in the scientific process.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/391165-bi-partisan-lawmaker-group-calls-pruitt-to-withdraw-secret-science

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) The Chemical Industry Scores a Big Win at the E.P.A.

Jun 7, 2018 | The New York Times

By Eric Lipton

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration, after heavy lobbying by the chemical industry, is scaling back the way the federal government determines health and safety risks associated with the most dangerous chemicals on the market, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency show.
Under a law passed by Congress during the final year of the Obama administration, the E.P.A. was required for the first time to evaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals and determine if they should face new restrictions, or even be removed from the market. The chemicals include many in everyday use, such as dry-cleaning solvents, paint strippers and substances used in health and beauty products like shampoos and cosmetics.
But as it moves forward reviewing the first batch of 10 chemicals, the E.P.A. has in most cases decided to exclude from its calculations any potential exposure caused by the substances’ presence in the air, the ground or water, according to more than 1,500 pages of documents released last week by the agency.
Instead, the agency will focus on possible harm caused by direct contact with a chemical in the workplace or elsewhere. The approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals — leading to the contamination of drinking water, for instance — will often not be a factor in deciding whether to restrict or ban them.
The approach is a big victory for the chemical industry, which has repeatedly pressed the E.P.A. to narrow the scope of its risk evaluations. Nancy B. Beck, the Trump administration’s appointee to help oversee the E.P.A.’s toxic chemical unit, previously worked as an executive at the American Chemistry Council, one of the industry’s main lobbying groups.
A spokesman for the E.P.A. said that the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other laws already provided the agency with the authority to regulate chemicals found in the air, rivers and drinking water, so there was no need to revisit them under the 2016 law, which updated the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
The agency can “better protect human health and the environment by focusing on those pathways that are likely to represent the greatest areas of concern to E.P.A.,” said the spokesman, Jahan Wilcox.
But three former agency officials, including a former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, said that the E.P.A.’s approach would result in a flawed analysis of the threat presented by chemicals.EDITORS’ PICKSLove City: 24 Hours of Romance, Lust and HeartacheKim Cattrall Can Talk to Me About AnythingSummer Reading Picks for Every Taste and Topic
“It is ridiculous,” said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the toxic chemical unit during her last year. “You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”
Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, and Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, who played leading roles in passing the 2016 law, said the E.P.A. was ignoring its directive for a comprehensive analysis of risks.
“Congress worked hard in bipartisan fashion to reform our nation’s broken chemical safety laws, but Pruitt’s E.P.A. is failing to put the new law to use as intended,” Mr. Udall said in a statement referring to Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator.
A spokesman for Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, who is chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the agency, declined to comment.
Cumulatively, the approach being taken for the 10 chemicals means the E.P.A.’s risk analysis will not take into account an estimated 68 million pounds a year of emissions, according to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund, based on agency data.
Dr. Beck declined requests for comment. She had pushed the E.P.A. during the Obama administration to narrow the scope of the risk evaluations, in a fashion similar to the approach under her watch.
Also helping oversee the risk evaluation effort is Erik Baptist, a former senior lawyer at the American Petroleum Institute, another big player in the chemical industry.
The American Chemistry Council said in a statement last week that the E.P.A.’s approach met “the requirements of the law,” adding that it wanted the risk assessments to be “protective and practical.”
Under the approach, the E.P.A. will examine what harm can be caused, for example, to anyone directly exposed to perchloroethylene — a dry-cleaning solvent and metal degreaser designated by the E.P.A. as a likely carcinogen — during manufacturing or when using it in dry cleaning, carpet cleaning or handling certain ink-removal products.
But the agency will not focus on exposures that occur from traces of the chemical found in drinking water in 44 states as a result of improper disposal over decades, the E.P.A. documents say. The decision conflicts with a risk assessment plan detailed by the agency a year ago, which included drinking water. And the change came after the American Chemistry Council argued in February last year that “the E.P.A. has discretion to select the conditions of use that it will consider.”
The agency will also not consider the hazards of perchloroethylene discharged into streams or lakes, landfills or the air from dry-cleaning stores or manufacturing or processing plants, the documents say.
The documents contain similar conclusions about nine of the 10 chemicals under review. One of these is 1,4-dioxane, which can be found in small amounts in antifreeze, deodorants, shampoos and cosmetics and is considered “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Another is trichloroethylene, which is used to make a refrigerant chemical and remove grease from metal parts and is associated with cancers of the liver, kidneys and blood.
Other changes identified in the E.P.A. documents narrow the definitions of certain chemicals, including asbestos. Some asbestos-like fibers will not be included in the risk assessments, one agency staff member said, nor will the 8.8 million pounds a year of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or the 13.1 million pounds discarded in routine dump sites.
The most likely outcome of the changes will be that the agency finds lower levels of risks associated with many chemicals, and as a result, imposes fewer new restrictions or prohibitions, several current and former agency officials said.
“They don’t want to open Pandora’s box by looking comprehensively at the risk, as they may prove to be significant and then they have to deal with it,” said Robert M. Sussman, a former chemical industry lawyer and E.P.A. official who now works as a consultant to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, an advocacy group.
Despite the changes, the E.P.A. is still expected to ban the use of methylene chloride as a paint stripper soon — an action first proposed at the end of the Obama administration. The chemical, one of the 10 under review, is a popular ingredient used in dozens of products sold at home improvement stores nationwide, and has been blamed in dozens of deaths.
A collection of more than a dozen groups — representing environmental, public-health and labor organizations — are suing the E.P.A. to challenge earlier changes in the toxic chemical evaluation program. The case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/politics/epa-toxic-chemicals.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Scales Back EPA’s Mandate To Evaluate Hundreds Of Toxic Chemicals

Jun 8, 2018 | Fast Company

By Michael Grothaus

The president is scaling back the way the government agency was set to determine whether hundred of chemicals were potentially toxic, reports the New York Times. During Obama’s final year in office, Congress passed a law mandating that the EPA evaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals in everyday use to see if they should face new restrictions or even be removed from the market entirely. These chemicals are ones you come across from every day, including chemicals in dry-cleaning products, shampoos, and cosmetics. But after lobbying from the chemical industry, the Trump administration has decided to scale back the EPA’s investigative powers:
But as it moves forward reviewing the first batch of 10 chemicals, the EPA has in most cases decided to exclude from its calculations any potential exposure caused by the substances’ presence in the air, the ground or water, according to more than 1,500 pages of documents released last week by the agency.
Instead, the agency will focus on possible harm caused by direct contact with a chemical in the workplace or elsewhere. The approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals–leading to the contamination of drinking water, for instance–will often not be a factor in deciding whether to restrict or ban them.
This actually should be little surprise to anyone, however. After all, Trump’s appointee to oversee the toxic chemical unit of the EPA was previously an executive at the American Chemistry Council, which is one of the industry’s primary lobbying groups.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40582914/trump-scales-back-epas-mandate-to-evaluate-hundreds-of-toxic-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) UN Cancer Agency’s Science Update Offers Reform Opportunity: Critics

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

International Agency for Research on Cancer starts consultation on procedures, principles
Industry criticizes agency over a finding that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic”
Update could head off future “questionable scientific evaluations,” industry groups say

An international cancer research agency that caused upheaval over its finding that the world’s most widely-used herbicide is likely carcinogenic could use a planned update to its scientific principles to avoid future strife, chemical industry representatives told Bloomberg Environment.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer said it would review its preamble—last updated in 2006—which sets out its scientific principles and procedures, as well as its approach to use of data from studies.
The Lyon, France-based research agency denies that updating its scientific principles and procedures is in response to widespread criticism it faced over its March 2015 conclusion that glyphosate, an off-patent substance used in products including Monsanto Co.'s Roundup and Syngenta AG’s Touchdown Quattro, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
A spokeswoman for the agency, however, described the review as a general update to its principles and procedures—and that because a to-be-formed expert group still needs to examine the review, the outcome can’t be prejudged.
But an overhaul is precisely what North American chemical industry associations—including the American Chemistry Council, the Chemical Industry Association of Canada, and CropLife America—have pushed for in their Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research.
The agency could “take a significant step forward by reviewing and reforming its preamble,” Bob Masterson, president of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, told Bloomberg Environment on behalf of the campaign.
The association represents companies including Arkema Canada Inc., BASF Canada Inc., and Dow Chemical Canada ULC.
Congressional Criticism
The research agency’s finding on glyphosate drew criticism and calls for further research in the European Union and U.S. EU lawmakers cited the research agency’s findings in pushing the European Chemicals Agency to assess glyphosate, which came up for renewal of its authorization in the bloc in 2016.

The European Chemicals Agency found the chemical shouldn’t be classified as carcinogenic under the EU’s standards, but the bloc only approved a reauthorization of glyphosate through December 2022, instead of the usual 15-year reauthorization.
In the U.S., some congressional members criticized the research agency over its glyphosate conclusions, and raised the possibility of pulling U.S. funding. The IARC hazard assessment program receives $835,000 per year from the National Institutes of Health.
Updating Scientific Principles
A consultation on the update to the preamble started in mid-May and is open through Sept. 7, after which the expert group will make recommendations on how the preamble should be changed.
The update will consider data on how chemical exposures produce biochemical cascades that might increase cancer risks, agency spokeswoman Veronique Terrasse told Bloomberg Environment.

An update to the preamble was needed because volume and complexity of “information on cancer mechanisms has been rapidly increasing in recent years,” she added.
In updating its preamble, the agency should, in particular, address the choice of scientific studies on which it bases its conclusions, Masterson said.
Data Sources
After the research agency released its findings, industry groups accused the agency of referencing a too-limited set of studies in its finding on glyphosate. Monsanto and Syngenta declined to comment to Bloomberg Environment and referred queries to industry representative organizations.

The agency drew conclusions on carcinogenicity hazards only from publicly-available studies, but if it had also taken into account unpublished studies, it would likely not have declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen, Masterson said.
Reform of the criteria used to select studies could prevent the agency “from producing questionable scientific evaluations” in the future, he said.
However, calling for the agency to also take into account unpublished industry data on substance hazards could be a misunderstanding of the agency’s job, Martin Pigeon, an agribusiness researcher with the Corporate Europe Observatory, which campaigns against corporate lobbying influence, told Bloomberg Environment.
The research agency isn’t a regulatory agency and “their job is not to do a risk analysis,” which would involve studying the extent of people’s exposures to possible carcinogens, but rather to look at the hazardous properties of substances, Pigeon said.
The European Chemicals Agency told Bloomberg Environment in a statement that any changes to the research agency’s approach as a result of the preamble’s update wouldn’t likely affect EU assessments of chemicals.
The research agency’s studies are a potential source of information in EU assessments, but because “industry in Europe has the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of their products,” the bloc’s risk assessments must take into account industry substance safety studies that have been submitted in line with EU legislation, the chemicals agency said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/un-cancer-agencys-science-update-offers-reform-opportunity-critics

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Will No Longer Evaluate the Health Risks of Asbestos Because Trump Believes it's 100-Percent Safe

Jun 8, 2018 | Paste Magazine

By Allison Bolt

The Environmental Protection Agency will no longer evaluate asbestos in homes and businesses as a danger or health risk, as Newsweek reports. Scott Pruitt announced the decision last Friday under President Trump, who believes asbestos is “100 percent safe, once applied.”
According to the Abestos Nation Campaign, asbestos kills 12,000 to 15,000 Americans every year. Fifty-five countries have completely banned the use of asbestos in any case, including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Japan and so on, in spite of which the EPA decided it was no longer necessary to evaluate the health risks of this chemical. The EPA will continue to evaluate and require approval for any new introduction or use of asbestos in the environment, but let the already-present chemical remain in schools, houses and public buildings. This decision comes shortly after the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act. These amendments made it mandatory for the EPA to do safety reviews of dangerous chemicals, such as asbestos, and create public notices of the safety information for those chemicals. The amendments also allowed the EPA to ban the use of asbestos in particular cases.
The EPA’s decision didn’t draw any backlash from the current administration because it aligns with Trump’s opinions on asbestos—Trump wrote about the chemical in his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback. He wrote, “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.”
However, the decision is facing extreme backlash from organizations such as the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. The President of the organization Linda Reinstein stated, “The end result will be a seriously inadequate risk evaluation that fails to address major contributors to the heavy and growing toll of asbestos mortality and disease in the United States.” Reinstein sat down with the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s deputy assistant administrator Nancy Beck to discuss the decision. Reinstein was joined by the International Association of Fire Fighters and AFL-CIO representatives. The group was armed with over 100 studies proving the hazards of asbestos, even in low doses, and documentation showing that any exposure could cause disease. Other organizations also reached out attempting to stop the decision, such as the American Chemistry Council, but Beck didn’t back down and the decision remained unchanged.
Reinstein said of the situation:
If you don’t evaluate the dangerous legacy of asbestos you don’t know how much contamination still exists in the United States. We know it’s in our homes, schools, workplace and environment but the average American can’t identify and evaluate the risk. We have taken risk evaluation off the table.
A recent report released by Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts revealed that the government doesn’t have a record of how many schools contain asbestos. Congressman Frank Pallone Jr., a ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, also spoke out against the decision, saying, “EPA’s refusal to address longstanding concerns around the use and disposal of asbestos is further proof that Administrator Pruitt will bend over backwards to help industry, but won’t lift a finger to protect public health.”
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/06/the-epa-will-no-longer-evaluate-the-health-risks-o.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA to Increase Transparency of Detergent Chemicals Releases

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sam McQuillan

13 chemicals added to Toxic Release Inventory
Used in adhesives and detergents, the chemicals can harm fish
EPA is boosting its mandatory list of chemicals that companies must report by adding 13 compounds used in cleaners and detergents.
The Environmental Protection Agency added the chemicals to its Toxics Release Inventory, a program that obligates companies to report what they emit to air, discharge to water, and release to soil for the public record. The TRI program was created as a part of the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, which promotes disclosure of pollution amounts and trends.
The regulation adds 13 specific nonylphenol ethoxylates to those compounds that need to be reported under the program. These chemicals are used in a wide variety of industrial applications and are present in adhesives, paints, laundry detergents, and some dust-control agents. Their release can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, according to the EPA.
“By making information about industrial management of toxic chemicals available to the public, community members, researchers, industrial facilities, investors, and government agencies can make more informed decisions that impact human health and the environment,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a June 7 statement.
The first reporting forms will be due July 1, 2020. Chemical facilities that meet minimum TRI reporting thresholds will begin collecting information on January 1, 2019.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control will host a public workshop on June 11 in Sacramento to receive comments on its proposal to prioritize nonylphenol ehtyoxlates in detergents as priority products under the state’s Safer Consumer Products Regulations. The proposal is open for public comment here and the workshop also will be available via webcast.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-to-increase-transparency-of-detergent-chemicals-releases

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Spotlights Many Industries’ Chemical Uses, Disposal Methods

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Firms urged to understand impacts of EPA’s 10 chemical risk plans
45-day public comment period once EPA publishes in Federal Register
Companies that make, import, distribute, use, and dispose of any of 10 chemicals under the EPA’s spotlight should understand whether agency assumptions about their business practices threaten critical products or services they offer, industry advisers say.
Once the companies understand that, they must tell the agency right away about any incorrect assumptions to protect critical uses and services that the businesses provide, the advisers said.
“If you have a critical use or product line that is essential to your business, especially one for which substitutes are not feasible, the time to weigh in is now,” Lawrence E. Culleen, an attorney specializing in chemicals law in the Washington offices of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, told Bloomberg Environment.
Culleen is counsel to the Chemical Users Coalition, which represents companies including Boeing, the General Electric Co., IBM, the Lockheed Martin Corp., and United Technologies.
The EPA June 1 released 10 risk analysis plans outlining how the agency plans to review asbestos, a group of three flame retardants, a violet dye, and seven solvents with broad applications and uses. Those plans include specific uses the agency wants to assess, including the chemicals’ roles in oil extraction, and the production of toys, sporting goods, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and arts and crafts materials.
The agency could eventually regulate the compounds under the nation’s chemicals law.
Identify Key Uses
People will have 45 days to comment on the 10 chemical risk assessment plans once the EPA publishes them in the Federal Register.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016—which require the agency to examine the human health and environmental risks of chemicals in commerce—the agency is supposed to complete these 10 assessments by December 2019, although a six-month extension is permitted.
If the EPA concludes any of the chemicals—or specific uses of them—pose an unreasonable risk of harming people or the environment, the TSCA amendments require it to restrict the chemical or take regulatory steps to reduce that risk.
Many Uses, Potential Exposures
There has been a lot of debate about the rationales the EPA is using to decide what uses of—and potential exposures to—these 10 chemicals the agency will or won’t examine, Lorenz R. Rhomberg, a risk analyst in the Cambridge offices of the Gradient consultancy, told Bloomberg Environment.
Yet what the agency plans to examine is “quite a lot,” according to Rhomberg.

The solvents and Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers, which business-to-business documents commonly use to identify them, are:
·   1-Bromopropane (CAS No. 106-94-5)
·   1, 4 Dioxane (CAS No. 123-91-1)
·   Carbon Tetrachloride (CAS No. 56-23-5)
·   Methylene Chloride (CAS No. 75-09-2)
·   N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP; CAS No. 872-50-4)
·   Perchloroethylene (CAS No. 127-18-4)
·   Trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79‐01‐6)
Differences Among, Within Plans
The specific uses of, disposal methods for, ways people could be exposed to, and other factors the EPA will examine in the 10 plans, or “problem formulations,” varies significantly within plans and among them.
For example, the EPA’s plan for NMP says it will examine the variety of ways it is used to make industrial and consumer products and to accomplish diverse industrial tasks. It is among the most widely used solvents: In 2015, the most recent year for which the EPA has data, its production was 161 million pounds.
The agency also says it will examine air emissions and exposures people could incur if they live near production facilities, and sites where its used and disposed.
Yet, the agency’s analysis also says “the exposure pathways associated with NMP releases to ambient air will not be further analyzed during risk evaluation,” because it has already decided they are minimal.
It’s unclear exactly what the agency will or won’t examine in cases like NMP in air, Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a blog posted soon after the agency released its 10 documents.
Culleen urged companies to look not only at the risk plans for any chemical they make, use, release, or dispose of, but to look at the information sources the agency says it will rely on in the review plans.
Systematic Review Guide
Companies and their trade associations also should understand the analytic approach, or “systematic review” guidance the EPA released June 1, he said. That guidance describes the approaches the EPA will use to review diverse types of information and the criteria—such as the standards of quality—the information must meet.
“Contemplate whether the studies that EPA has identified as pertinent will actually meet the standards articulated in the guidelines,” Culleen said.

https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-spotlights-many-industries-chemical-uses-disposal-methods

Return to headline | Return to top
Over 60 Public Interest Groups Urge Release Of Health Study

Jun 7, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar

A broad coalition of environmental outfits, health advocacy groups and universities this afternoon asked the Department of Health and Human Services to release a delayed health review of toxic nonstick chemicals.
The draft toxicological profile of four types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, is being led by HHS's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
The chemicals are widely used to make Teflon and other stain- and fire-resistant products but have been linked with cancer and other health problems.
In a January email first reported last month, a White House official warned EPA leaders that the soon-to-be-published study had found PFAS were dangerous at levels much lower than previously thought.
Yet the ATSDR study, which the official described as a "potential public relations nightmare," remains under wraps (E&E Daily, May 15).
The Environmental Working Group and 60 other groups want HHS Secretary Alex Azar to change that.
"We call on you to release the ATSDR report immediately so Americans know what's in the water we drink, and states, public health officials and local water utilities are armed with the best-available science on these dangerous chemicals," the groups wrote to Azar.
HHS didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have previously urged EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to stop blocking the politically sensitive review. But he has claimed that "EPA does not have the authority to release this study" (E&E Daily, May 22).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/07/stories/1060083853

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Requires TRI Reporting For Detergent Chemicals

Jun 7, 2018 | Inside EPA

Despite opposition from chemical manufacturers, EPA is requiring industrial facilities to report releases of 13 nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) -- chemicals used in detergents -- to its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.
The June 7 rule takes effect for the 2019 TRI reporting year, meaning that industry facilities that meet the TRI thresholds will begin collecting information on their NPE releases for reporting to EPA by July 2020.
NPEs are surfactants used in detergents, but the agency says they are toxic to aquatic life, causing reproductive effects in aquatic organisms, while being resistant to natural degradation in water.
“We are taking an important step to provide communities with additional information about toxic chemicals being released to the environment,” Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a June 7 statement.
“By making information about industrial management of toxic chemicals available to the public, community members, researchers, industrial facilities, investors, and government agencies can make more informed decisions that impact human health and the environment.”
The Obama EPA's proposed rule on the action, released in November 2015, explained that it sought to add NPE to the TRI program because the chemicals meet the criteria outlined in section 313(d)(2)(C) TRI's authorizing statute, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
In January 2017 comments, the Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council (APERC), an industry group representing NPE manufacturers, argued that NPE do not meet the EPCRA criteria for listing with TRI. The group argued that “long-chain NPEs do not meet the 1 mg/L hazard concern threshold defined by EPA for addition to the TRI. ... EPA relies on an argument that NPEs are a source of degradation products that are 'highly toxic,' however this argument is not consistent with the language of EPCRA Section 313(d)(2)( C), which applies to the hazards of the chemical to be listed itself not to degradants.”
The group also argues that NPEs do not meet EPCRA's criteria of persistence or bioaccumulative, and national monitoring indicates concentrations are low and unlikely to exceed EPA's water quality criteria.
EPA has long sought to regulate NPE, including using other environmental statutes. For example, EPA in 2015 proposed listing NPE on a list of contaminants that are not currently subject to drinking water standards but should be considered for further regulation. And in 2014, EPA proposed regulating NPE under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-requires-tri-reporting-detergent-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Dustin White: Petrochemical Complex Not Good For WV (Gazette)

Jun 8, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail

By Dustin White

Recently, we’ve been seeing a lot of opinion pieces and articles in the local media telling us how great the proposed Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub will be for our economy.
While the name of the proposed hub sounds benign, it’s anything but.
The project is a massive petrochemical complex that will rival the area known as “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana and will make the current Chemical Valley in Charleston look minuscule.
This new Cancer Alley in our region is being neatly packaged and sold to us by a select group of individuals seeking to make themselves rich at the cost of our health and economic well-being. The primary focus of this hub is to store and refine fracked gas liquids to manufacture more plastics, in a world already drowning in plastics.
First, a big incentive to build this petrochem infrastructure in West Virginia is a $83.7 billion Memorandum of Understanding with China. The Trump administration, with state government backing, signed this MOU last November without any input from the people of West Virginia.
I don’t know about you, but I would like to be consulted before being sold to another country. This MOU has still yet to be released to the public, even after several Freedom of Information Act requests on the state and federal levels.
At the signing in China was our very own commerce secretary, Woody Thrasher. In what is obviously a conflict of interest, Thrasher still owns 70 percent of the Thrasher Group, which is a contractor for oil and gas fracking infrastructure and other projects that would feed this plastic manufacturing monster.
Then there is WVU professor Brian Anderson. Anderson lends his professional title as director of WVU’s Energy Institute to scholarly studies supporting the hub. Anderson is also one of the chief principals for the Appalachian Development Group LLC — the primary group signed on to the China MOU. The ADG is responsible for the initial concept and marketing phase and is owned jointly by the Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Center (MATRIC) and the WVU Innovation Corporation. ADG has also been invited to apply for a $1.9 billion loan from the Department of Energy, meaning taxpayer dollars will be tapped for this complex.
West Virginia’s congressional delegation on both sides of the aisle have not only publicly promoted the hub and introduced several pieces of legislation in Congress to support and fast track this boondoggle, but they also have received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions this election cycle from oil, gas and petrochemical companies.
Joe Manchin received a $10,000 campaign donation from the American Chemistry Council after he introduced the Appalachian Ethane Storage Study Act of 2017, according to opensecrets.org. In turn, the American Chemistry Council, along with other interested parties, deployed a team of lobbyists in D.C. to work on the bills our delegation has sponsored.
Most recently, we have seen opinion pieces in support of the petrochem hub from the likes of former state legislator Brooks McCabe and former congressional candidate Howard Swint, both of whom could be in a position to make money from the project. McCabe is a commercial realtor who owns land with depleted gas wells near the Kanawha State Forest, in hub “areas of interest.” These areas have potential for storage of volatile fracked gas liquids awaiting transport to refineries. Swint is a commercial property broker.
So, people who appear set to line their own pockets are waging a P.R. campaign to promote a mega-petrochemical complex as a shiny, fabulous game-changer for our state. But it is just the same old, deadly game: We sacrifice our water and land and health to a fossil fuel industry.
To make things even worse, these hucksters are using the state’s economic hard times — from the downturn of the coal industry — to manipulate the public into thinking this project is a good thing.
We deserve better than opportunistic profiteers looking to get rich off another round of suffering for ordinary West Virginians.
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/gazette_opinion/op_ed_commentaries/dustin-white-petrochemical-complex-not-good-for-wv-gazette/article_a37149eb-d2c9-5f60-8476-ea7f3ac29849.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Advantage, U.S. Chemical Industry, Due To Shale Gas: ACC

Jun 8, 2018 | Kallanish Energy

Strong global growth prospects, rising exports, increased manufacturing, balanced inventories, healthy demand, and sufficient, inexpensive shale gas combined suggest positive growth this year for the U.S. chemical industry, the American Chemistry Council’s mid-year outlook states.
“The U.S. chemical industry continues to enjoy a competitive advantage from robust supplies of shale gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs), leading to significant investment in new capacity and capital spending that will continue to grow through 2023,” ACC reported.
“During 2018, output gains are expected to be strongest in agricultural chemicals, consumer products, coatings and bulk petrochemicals and organics,” the Mid-Year 2018 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook states.
“In addition, production of plastic resins is set to grow at the fastest pace since 2012, as new capacity comes online and demand firms for domestic customers and those abroad. The specialty chemicals segment is also set to grow as industrial activity improves.”
Broad gains in U.S. manufacturing, construction and export markets bode well for growth, according to ACC. U.S. chemical production is expected to expand 3.4% in 2018, and 3.6% in 2019, Kallanish Energyreports.
“Over the next 18 months, we expect solid growth across multiple chemical sectors, especially fertilizers, crop protection, coatings, consumer products, and petrochemicals,” the Outlook states.
Longer-term, America’s chemistry industry continues to expand, ACC believes. The economics of shale gas has fostered new investment and growth in capacity, which is beginning to come online.
Chemical production is expected to continue to increase across all regions of the U.S. during 2018, with the most dynamic growth occurring in the Gulf Coast region, followed by the Midwest and Ohio Valley regions. American chemistry revenues will exceed $700 billion by 2023.
“Due to the U.S. chemical industry expansion and strong demand from foreign markets and domestic manufacturers downstream, total two-way U.S. chemicals trade is expected to grow 6.2% this year, to $241.0 billion following a 6.0% gain in 2017,” the report notes.
“Driven by the basic chemicals sector, U.S. chemicals exports will grow 7.2% this year, to $139.2 billion. At the same time, imports are projected to rise 4.9%, to $101.8 billion by the end of this year. The trade surplus in chemicals is projected to reach 71.4 billion by 2023.”
All data excludes pharmaceuticals.
http://www.kallanishenergy.com/2018/06/08/advantage-u-s-chemical-industry-due-to-shale-gas-acc/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

‘Matter of Time’ Before Cyberattack on Grid: Energy Official

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Kern

U.S. electric grid gets hit tens of thousands of times of day, Energy Department says
Newly created cyber office to focus on energy security
The U.S. electric grid will be vulnerable to successful penetration when attacks get more sophisticated, the head of the Energy Department’s Office of Electricity said June 7.
“While some may say it’s a low probability, we deal with tens of thousands of cyber intrusions on a daily basis. It’s just a matter of time before the sophistication level increases and those penetrations become real,” Bruce Walker told a subcommittee hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Members of Congress are concerned about the vulnerability of the grid, which was the topic of the hearing.
“You’re going to watch us continue to work with the national labs, to encourage them to do the kind of research that when this does happen—not if—we’re better set,” Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas), energy subcommittee chairman, told reporters after the hearing. “We’re on it. This is important stuff, so you’ll see more.”
Survival Strategies
Walker stressed the important the work that’s being done at the department and national labs to prepare for a cyberattack on the grid.
“So we can pretend that it doesn’t exist, but we have hard evidence through actual realization of things like Ukraine, that these capabilities exist, and they are being utilized. And we spend our time focused on strategies that enable us to survive those types of events and report them,” Walker said.
The attack in Ukraine in December 2015 was one of the first successful cyberattacks to penetrate an electric grid. It forced 30 substations to go offline, leaving residents in the dark for several hours.
In May, the Energy Department spun off its Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) from the Office of Electricity.
Walker previously told Bloomberg Environment that its goal is to “heighten the awareness of emerging threats, focusing on the energy security component.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/matter-of-time-before-cyberattack-on-grid-energy-official

Return to headline | Return to top
Cyberthreats Justify Federal Intervention, DOE Tells Panel

Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Peter Behr

Energy Department Assistant Secretary Bruce Walker yesterday on Capitol Hill singled out cybersecurity threats to pipelines that supply gas-fired power plants in defending the department's polarizing proposal to channel payments to at-risk coal and nuclear plants to prevent their retirements.
Pressed by several Democrats on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee who branded the plan a political payoff to the coal industry, Walker warned of potentially cascading power outages if gas generators' pipelines were taken down through cyber breaches.
"We have now reached a point where — different than 20 or 30 year ago — if I lose the wrong gas pipelines I can lose tens of thousands of megawatts of generation simultaneously," Walker said.
Walker, a former grid security executive in New York, pulled off his reading glasses to look intently at the House members.
"[T]oday we deal with very significant risks, every day," he said. "While some may say it's a low probability, we deal with tens of thousands of cyber intrusions on a daily basis. It's just a matter of time before the sophistication level increases and those penetrations become real."
The draft DOE policy statement that leaked last Friday stressed the growing importance of natural gas-fired generation to the nation's electricity supply. But it branded gas a less secure, "just-in-time" power plant fuel as opposed to coal plants that pile fuel on site and nuclear reactors that can run for up to two years between refueling.
The plan is being vetted by the White House National Security Council and will have to be approved by President Trump.
In the draft, DOE said 13,000 megawatts of generation in New England depended on a single pipeline connection, while 12,000 megawatts of gas-fired plants in the Mid-Atlantic are supplied by one connection.
An analysis by ICF International on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, concluded that nearly 19,000 megawatts of gas generation serving an area from northern Delaware to New York City would be forced offline if gas deliveries on a single interstate pipeline were blocked.
Still, some committee Democrats contended DOE was manufacturing a crisis for political reasons.
"The Trump administration is inventing emergencies to bail out coal and nuclear plants," said Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas), "an easy way to try to fulfill campaign promises, which is very bad, very unsound."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) quoted Exelon Corp.'s CEO as saying that retirements of coal and nuclear plants don't create a grid emergency justifying federal intervention. Payments to these plants would raise electricity costs, with particular harm to U.S. manufacturers, Beyer said.No price tag
Another committee witness, Rob Gramlich, president of the Grid Strategies consulting firm, cited his estimate of the cost of supporting coal and nuclear plants that have announced plans to retire or are considered at risk of closing.
A DOE proposal last year to subsidize money-losing coal and nuclear plants was estimated to cost customers served by PJM Interconnection — the grid operator in the Mid-Atlantic and eastern Great Lakes region — between $3 billion and $32 billion per year, with a midpoint estimate of $13 billion.
Since PJM supplies about 20 percent of the entire U.S. power demand, a nationwide subsidy for at-risk coal and nuclear units could come to around $65 billion annually, Gramlich said.
Beyer jumped on that issue. "Have you calculated the costs to American manufacturing?" he asked Walker.
Walker looked down for a moment, then answered, "I have not."
Beyer then asked whether DOE had estimated costs to U.S. taxpayers.
"I have not," Walker repeated.
Beyer asked Walker to get those figures for the committee, then lectured DOE for its "false narrative."
The administration is moving ahead, "perhaps, unfortunately, because someone contributed to the campaign," Beyer said. The financial support for coal and nuclear plants "does not actually help out coal country. This is a short-term talking point that does nothing to create good paying jobs, resilient jobs, for the families in Appalachia," he asserted.
Gramlich cited other strategies to reduce threats of cascading grid outages from directed attacks or natural disasters rather than giving subsidies to coal or nuclear plants. They included building high-voltage direct-current power lines to create a more redundant matrix of interstate power flows and strategic investments in microgrids with power storage for critical military and civilian installations.
"Although the leaked [DOE] memo warns that natural gas pipelines are vulnerable to cyberattacks, it ignores the fact that all power plants [including coal and nuclear] and control rooms are similarly vulnerable to cyberthreats," Gramlich said.
While Congress put DOE in charge of directing emergency operations in national grid crises, Congress also gave FERC day-to-day responsibility for grid security, which the commission has delegated to the North American Electric Reliability Corp., an industry-led grid monitor.
"Their role needs to be respected," Gramlich said of FERC's charter. "I think what we're seeing with this presidential directive is, under the guise of national security, a nationalization of the electric system."'Absolutely no justification'
The DOE analysis had stung the U.S. natural gas industry, which could normally expect to find a sympathetic ear in a Republican administration.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said yesterday it was "deeply troubled by the Trump administration's apparent move to scapegoat natural gas to prop up uneconomic coal and nuclear plants."
"There is absolutely no justification for the extreme intervention in energy markets suggested in the draft National Security Council memo," said INGAA President and CEO Don Santa in a statement.
The Natural Gas Council, the gas industry's umbrella lobbying arm, added to the argument yesterday, saying, "The natural gas system is characterized by multiple fail-safes, redundancies and back-ups. Functions are divided across networks so that they are isolated from one another, a feature that further secures systems."
Not clear is why the U.S. gas sector did not do more publicly to buttress its cybersecurity posture, knowing that the Trump administration was taking aim at pipeline vulnerabilities.
High-voltage transmission companies and generators on these networks must comply with FERC's mandatory cyber regulations. Gas pipeline cybersecurity, on the other hand, is subject to voluntary reviews by the Transportation Security Administration. "There is little reason why the approach by TSA and FERC to these cross-industry topics needs to be so diverse," PJM commented to FERC this year.
Several leading U.S. senators last year suggested the value of confidential monitoring or independent benchmarking of individual pipeline companies' preparedness, but that approach was not mentioned in the industry responses yesterday.
"The assertion that this administration is attempting to 'punish' natural gas is absurd," DOE spokesperson Shaylyn Hynes said, citing DOE efforts to expand gas production and open new markets for U.S. gas exports abroad.
"DOE also recognizes that there are serious threats and vulnerabilities to critical infrastructure nationwide, including pipelines," she said. "The resilience of the nation's electric grid is influenced by everything from cyberthreats to the availability of solar power and the retirement of fuel secure units."
"This administration believes we need all available energy resources," she added. It's conducting a comprehensive review of grid security. "We encourage others to do the same."
This story also appears in Energywire.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/08/stories/1060083891

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

House Spending Bill Strikes at Piece of Trump Infrastructure Plan

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz

Bipartisan amendment to Energy Department spending bill blocks federal selloff that White House wanted
Other amendments deal with Yucca Mountain, post-disaster assistance
A bipartisan amendment added to a federal spending bill June 7 would block the Trump administration from fulfilling one of the items on its proposed $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan.
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) and 19 other Republicans and Democrats, is the latest blow to the administration’s hopes of seeing its infrastructure proposal enacted into law.
The amendment would prevent the Energy Department from selling off the assets of its regional hydropower authorities to states, cities, or private companies. It was added to a House bill (H.R. 5895) that provides funding to the department and other agencies for the coming fiscal year.
Selling off hydropower assets “would amount to Congress abandoning an affordable solution for providing energy,” Newhouse said during floor debate for the bill. “This ill-advised proposal is another federal attempt to fix something that isn’t broken.”
The amendment was one of many that lawmakers considered on the House floor as they moved toward a final June 8 vote on the spending bill.
The chamber adopted amendments to give more money to the Army Corps of Engineers for studies of flood risks in natural disaster-prone areas. The House also blocked efforts by Nevada lawmakers to scuttle the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear storage project in Nevada.
The heart of the bill provides more than $44 billion for the Energy Department, Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies. The amount is over 20 percent more than what the Trump administration had asked for in its annual budget request.
Infrastructure Plan
Water resources legislation moving swiftly through the House and Senate (H.R. 8, S. 2800) contains few if any measures from Trump’s infrastructure proposal. And even White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has acknowledged that it’s unlikely a comprehensive infrastructure bill will make it through Congress this year.
But the federal spending bill is far from final. Even if the House passes the bill with the hydropower amendment, it could get taken out when the House reconciles its version with the Senate’s.
The Senate’s version of this bill, which includes slightly less funding than the House version, was approved by its Appropriations Committee last month. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he wants to bring this package of spending bills to the floor sometime later this month.
The House bill is part of a so-called minibus that packages the energy and water spending with measures funding military construction, veterans’ affairs, and the legislative branch.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-spending-bill-strikes-at-piece-of-trump-infrastructure-plan

Return to headline | Return to top
Schumer Calls For Crude-By-Rail Standards

Jun 8, 2018 | Progressive Railroading

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday urged the U.S. Department of Transportation and Department of Energy to finalize volatility standards for crude oil before it's shipped by rail.

His request follows the release of new data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing that the amount of crude oil moving by rail to U.S. Northeast refineries is growing. In March, refineries in the region used about 3.1 million barrels of oil, which is the most used since early 2017, according to a press release issued by Schumer's office.

Schumer asked the federal departments to collaborate on a plan that would require oil companies to stabilize highly flammable Bakken crude oil prior to transport by rail. A 2014 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration report found that Bakken crude oil was more volatile than other types of crude, which correlates to increased flammability.

"When it comes to crude, one of the most powerful things we could do would be to set a good standard for the stability of what's actually inside the tank cars," Schumer said. "Stabilization technology is not a new concept, and has previously been used in oil fields in other regions of the country and the world."

Schumer's request also comes one month ahead of the fifth anniversary of the rail disaster in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which left 47 people dead. In July 2013, an unattended freight train carrying Bakken crude oil rolled into Lac-Megantic's downtown and derailed, which led to an explosion.

Since the disaster, North Dakota passed a law that requires oil to be stabilized to at least 13.7 pounds per square inch. However, oil in the Lac-Megantic disaster likely would have met this new standard, Schumer said, adding that the departments of transportation and energy must create a new standard that goes further.

In April 2017, Schumer made a similar plea to stabilize crude oil before its shipped by rail.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Schumer-calls-for-crude-by-rail-standards--54846

Return to headline | Return to top
For KCS Leaders, A Sharper Technological Acumen Plus PTC Will Equal A More Data-Driven Organization

Jun 7, 2018 | Progressive Railroading

By Jeff Stagl

In May, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) released a white paper that highlights how freight railroads’ ongoing technological pursuits are boosting their safety, efficiency and reliability.
Railroads are adopting various monitoring and assessment tools to better track more than 1.6 million rail cars and 40,000 locomotives, the paper states. For example, wayside detectors with infrared devices and lasers can identify microscopic flaws in train equipment, AAR officials said in a press release.
“America is home to the greatest freight-rail network in the world, and we are putting technology to work to keep it that way,” said AAR President and Chief Executive Officer Ed Hamberger, who last month announced plans to retire. “Next-generation innovations like drones, lasers and automated technologies are revolutionizing how we run a railroad.”
Kansas City Southern’s leaders couldn’t agree more. Over the past few years, they’ve been more aggressive in pursuing the latest technologies to eliminate outdated and inefficient operational processes, tools and support systems for both Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (KCSR) and Kansas City Southern de Mexico (KCSM). The goal: to make KCS a more information-centric, data-driven and process-efficient organization.
Continually adopting the most promising innovations — from business analytics software to blockchain technology to artificial intelligence (AI) — will help the Class I accomplish its ongoing mission to become North America’s fastest-growing, best-performing and most customer-focused transportation provider, senior executives say. Moreover, KCS will be better positioned to reach its long-range goal of operating a more automated rail network, they believe.
Tapping technologies helps bolster safety, improve asset health and utilization, boost operational performance, maximize capacity and foster business growth, says KCS President and Chief Executive Officer Patrick Ottensmeyer. But the Class I needs to protect itself against adopting technologies that could prove “disruptive,” he says.
A technology in and of itself may or may not be disruptive, depending on how it changes the way the user conducts business. For example, autonomous trucks, cars and trains could in some cases disrupt business and social models.
“The world around us is changing, which could change our relevance in the world,” says Ottensmeyer. “We want a better approach to make sure we’re aware of all the technologies there are to find and yet defend ourselves from future threats.”Haymakers
Therefore, it’s better to focus on locating the right “haystacks,” or groupings, of emerging technologies than exerting a lot of effort trying to find one specific “needle,” or innovation, he says. KCS has grouped a number of technology developers — from typical providers like Railinc Corp. and IBM to emerging facilitators such as Plug and Play and Techstars — into common haystacks to better monitor current and emerging innovations (see KCS-provided chart below).
“How we manage our resources to focus on the right [technologies] can be overwhelming. It takes time and money to drive to a conclusion and get a result that’s useful, with time being the most valuable,” says Ottensmeyer. “Our strategy is to match up people in our company with haystacks to leverage our resources to hopefully be more effective and efficient.”
Ownership of the strategy will cascade from the top down to ensure the right resources are matched with the right technologies and/or haystacks and tech partners, he says.
To that end, KCS recently formed a high-level, five-member committee that will oversee innovation pursuits and advise the company’s board. Expected to meet periodically, the committee includes Ottensmeyer, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Jeff Songer, EVP and Chief Marketing Officer Brian Hancock, EVP and Chief Financial Officer Michael Upchurch, and Senior VP of Operations Support and Chief Information Officer Mike Naatz.
“We will analyze opportunities, review the progress we’re making on initiatives, see how productive the haystacks are becoming, and determine whether we’re spending time and money on the correct priorities,” says Ottensmeyer.
KCS also is counting on its board to provide valuable ideas and feedback. Last year, the Class I added four additional directors — increasing the total seats from eight to 12 — to help broaden the skill sets and technological knowledge among members.
Janet Kennedy, who joined the board when she was president of Microsoft Canada, now manages Microsoft’s digital transfer strategy and is “a wonderful resource to tap,” says Ottensmeyer. Another new member, FedEx Ground President and CEO Henry Maier, is deeply involved in the same issues as KCS and has a customer perspective, Ottensmeyer notes. Kennedy and Maier were re-elected as directors last month.
“We want to engage the entire organization,” says Ottensmeyer. “Technologies can be very specific to an application, but a lot are cross-functional.”
When it comes to the innovations KCS has or soon expects to adopt, many target multiple areas within the company, including operations, finance, information technology (IT) and customer service. Count Microsoft’s software-as-a-service Power BI, which the Class I began to employ in March 2017, among them.The power of Power BI
The service now is used across almost all functions, says CIO Naatz. Power BI includes business planning tools that enable a user to better visualize and respond to data so they can make faster, fact-based and actionable decisions, he says. KCS employees use it to build dashboards for process management.
For example, the first dashboard created with the service provides a better visualization of where late trains are located. In the past, a computer-generated report listed all late trains, but it was hard to identify any trends with a spreadsheet, says Naatz.
“With Power BI, you can see there might be a bottleneck in a part of the network,” he says. “By plotting points on a map and using colors to identify the condition of trains, we see where we’re fluid and where we’re constrained. Then we can take very specific actions to address the situation.”
KCS also hopes to gain similar operational efficiency — as well as enhanced data security — from blockchain technology. Through a shared, distributed ledger, supply chain participants use blockchain to more securely access and share vital shipment information, including contracts and freight data. The technology is designed to provide consistent freight visibility and condition reports throughout the supply chain, and identify which party is responsible for each action during a shipment.
In April, KCS joined the Blockchain in Transport Alliance, which aims to leverage blockchain technology within the supply chain by developing a standard framework and encouraging widespread adoption. The Class I is focusing on the digital ledger side of blockchain and not the financial side, says CMO Hancock.
For now, the technology will be focused on containers from China that are transported by KCSM and KCSR from the Port of Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico, across the border to Laredo, Texas, and then northbound to various points. During a crossborder shipment, 10 to 15 companies are involved, including drays. Blockchain will help ensure all data that’s submitted electronically can’t be changed or manipulated, says Hancock.
In late 2017, KCS launched a blockchain pilot on crossborder fluidity with Maersk and IBM. The parties are working with customs and border agencies in both Mexico and the United States to determine ways to speed northbound containers through customs. Other elements of the effort involve implementing international crews and enhancing unified cargo processing.
If all paperwork submitted at the border was digital and transmitted days before arrival, a train could cross the international bridge seamlessly, essentially doubling the bridge’s capacity, says Hancock.
“In Laredo, 16,000 trucks on average sit at the border every day to clear customs. If we put it on rail and it went across the bridge without stopping, we could pick up a day in transit,” he says.
By fall, the pilot partners expect to develop a viable process map featuring blockchain technology that could serve as a fluidity solution.A fruitful partnership
In the meantime, KCS will continue working with CloudMoyo to modernize IT systems. In 2016, the Class I deployed the company’s cloud-based Crew Management-Mexico Crew Call system for KCSM. Using automation and real-time data, the system matches demand based on a various factors such as hours of service constraints, and worker availability and seniority.
The CloudMoyo deployment helped KCS recently earn CIO magazine’s 2018 CIO 100 award, which recognizes operational and strategic excellence in IT.
Now, CloudMoyo — which also provides business intelligence and advanced analytics services to the railroad — is helping to modernize the Class I’s management control system (MCS) operating platform. KCS will deploy the CloudMoyo Rail Transportation Management system, which is designed to leverage the scale of Microsoft’s Azure cloud and harness analytics and artificial intelligence to improve operational efficiency and agility. The railroad plans to implement the system in phases over the next three years.
“MCS is 20 years old and was not built to optimize mobile technologies or communication infrastructures like blockchain or Power BI,” says Naatz. “Current, contemporary technology allows us to leverage future technologies — that’s where our partnership is going.”
In addition, KCS is working with Biarri Rail to implement better operations planning tools for dispatching and new locomotive distribution models, he says.
The Class I’s technological exploits also will gain a big boost after positive train control (PTC) is implemented by year’s end.Eye on autonomous network
PTC’s information-sharing functions, wireless data communications and edge computing capabilities lay a framework for other technological advancements — autonomous train operations, vehicle inspections and track inspections among them, senior execs say. Edge computing refers to the processing and use of information at the data-generation source instead of sending information back and forth between a source and data center.
“We’ve gone from a world where a year or two ago, the talk was about what a bad idea PTC is, to how PTC will be a springboard that could be really transformational,” says Ottensmeyer.
For example, onboard PTC systems will help transform KCS’ locomotives into rolling data centers. Other onboard devices already capture video inside and outside a locomotive, and collect track infrastructure data. In some cases, the data can be processed on a locomotive instead of in a traditional data center via edge computing, says Naatz, adding that KCS expects to do more of the computing in the future.
The Class I also aims to continue following a path toward a more automated rail network — not necessarily with driverless trains, but perhaps with advanced cruise control and train-handling techniques, some remote train operation and other related functions.
KCS has developed a strategy that maps out an “unconstrained path” to a fully automated railroad, says Ottensmeyer. Among the constraints that aren’t yet factored in but would need to be considered: regulatory hurdles at federal, state and local levels; labor issues; and public concerns about automated trains.
“We want to lock on it and deal with the obstacles or roadblocks that could delay it or make it impossible. It’s important to have that vision, to think longer term,” says Ottensmeyer.
Also a ways off but high on KCS’ radar: AI, robotics, machine learning and autonomous drays. AI would provide a step from PTC to an automated rail network, says Ottensmeyer.
Last year, the railroad partnered with technology startup accelerator Plug and Play, which works with startups that are focused on creating applications for such cutting-edge advancements as AI, machine learning, the Industrial Internet of Things and advanced supply-chain analytics.
For now, KCS continues to identify and prioritize haystacks in an attempt to keep tabs on emerging technologies. Although it’s a daunting exercise, it wouldn’t benefit the company to hire hundreds of people to try to duplicate certain innovations or flip to a finding-the-needle strategy if a haystack doesn’t pan out, says Ottensmeyer.
“We want to do this more thoughtfully,” he says.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/kansas_city_southern/article/For-KCS-leaders-a-sharper-technological-acumen-plus-PTC-will-equal-a-more-data-driven-organization--54821

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Cost-Benefit Reform at the EPA

Jun 7, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal

By Editorial Board

Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency jammed through an average of 565 new rules each year during the Obama Presidency, imposing the highest regulatory costs of any agency. It pulled off this regulatory spree in part by gaming cost-benefit analysis to downplay the consequences of its major environmental rules. The Trump Administration has already rolled back some of this overregulation, and now Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to stop the EPA’s numerical shenanigans, too.
On Thursday the EPA will take the first step toward a comprehensive cost-benefit reform by issuing an advance notice of proposed rule-making. After weighing public input, EPA will propose a rule establishing an agency-wide standard for how regulations are assessed. The reform would make it easier for Americans and their elected representatives to see whether more regulation is truly justifiable.
The EPA has a statutory obligation to look at the costs and benefits of many proposed rules. That responsibility has been reinforced by executive orders and court rulings. But while all three branches of government have supported such assessments, they leave the EPA broad discretion. Enter the Obama Administration, which saw the chance to add additional considerations to the cost-benefit equation.
By introducing “social costs” and “social benefits,” the EPA began factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma. EPA optimists even included their guesses about how domestic regulations could have a global impact. Meanwhile, the agency ignored best practices from the Office of Management and Budget, juking the numbers to raise the cost of carbon emissions.
This proved as politically useful as it was scientifically imprecise. Months before introducing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA suddenly raised the social cost of a ton of carbon emissions to an average of $36 from $21. Before it embarked on new oil and gas regulations, the EPA put the social cost of methane at an average of $1,100 per ton.
At White House direction, the Trump EPA recalculated those figures last year to include only demonstrable domestic benefits. The social cost estimates dropped to an average of $5 per ton of carbon and $150 per ton of methane. That made a big difference in the cost-benefit analysis. While the Obama Administration claimed the Clean Power Plan would yield up to $43 billion in net benefits by 2030, the Trump EPA concluded it would carry a $13 billion net cost.
Another statistical sleight of hand involves the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The regulation’s stated purpose was to reduce mercury pollution, but the EPA added the rule’s potential to decrease dust. That was irrelevant to the central question of whether it was worthwhile to regulate mercury as proposed. But without the erroneous co-benefits, EPA would find such regulations tougher to justify.
On his first day in office, Mr. Pruitt said his goal was to protect the environment and the economy, and that “we don’t have to choose between the two.” His many ethics controversies have distracted from that mission, but this cost-benefit reform is a welcome return.
The regulatory specifics will be hashed out in the coming months, but there’s real potential here to curb the distortions that mask bad policy. If Mr. Pruitt succeeds, future cost-benefit analyses will be more consistent and transparent. The reform would help to ensure regulation is based on sound scientific analysis instead of wishful bureaucratic thinking.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-benefit-reform-at-the-epa-1528326402

Return to headline | Return to top
Agency Unveils Controversial Cost-Benefit Proposal

Jun 8, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Maxine Joselow

EPA is seeking public input on a proposal to alter the way it considers costs and benefits in rulemaking, which is setting off a flood of concern from public interest groups and praise from industry.
The agency this afternoon published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for a proposal titled "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process."
The plan has the potential to fundamentally alter the way the agency assesses the need for new or stiffer public health and environmental protections.
In announcing the proposal, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt repeated the common conservative refrain that the Obama administration overestimated the benefits of rules while underestimating the costs for industry to comply.
"Many have complained that the previous administration inflated the benefits and underestimated the costs of its regulations through questionable cost-benefit analysis," Pruitt said in a statement.
"This action is the next step toward providing clarity and real-world accuracy with respect to the impact of the Agency's decisions on the economy and the regulated community," he said.
The nine-page advanced notice of proposed rulemaking states, "EPA is requesting comments regarding perceived inconsistency and lack of transparency in how the Agency considers costs and benefits in rulemaking, potential approaches for addressing these concerns, and the scope for issuing regulations to govern EPA's approach in future rulemakings."
The advanced proposal cleared White House review yesterday, despite the Natural Resources Defense Council complaining of being shut out of the process (E&E News PM, June 6).'Groundbreaking step'
Republicans and industry groups are cheering Pruitt's announcement.
"During the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency exaggerated the benefits of Washington regulations and misjudged how costly they are to the economy," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said in a statement.
"Punishing regulations like the so-called 'Clean Power Plan' would have cost Wyoming's energy workers their jobs and devastated communities throughout the state," Barrasso said. "Now the Trump administration is taking important steps to make sure the agency can no longer abuse the cost-benefit analysis process."
Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association, called the proposal a "groundbreaking step that has the potential to dramatically advance the concept of benefits and costs for enhancing societal well-being."
"This is an opportunity for EPA to kind of step back and rethink how it designs regulations," said Noe, who was once considered a front-runner to lead the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. "And I think it has the potential to make EPA a leader on sustainable regulation."
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board yesterday wrote that the proposal represented a commonsense reform, saying the Obama EPA performed a "statistical sleight of hand" when calculating the co-benefits of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.'Rig' reviews
Before the full text of the new EPA proposal was available, some environmental and public interest groups sounded the alarm that its title alone signaled a de-emphasis on the benefits of regulations.
James Goodwin, senior policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform, said his worst fears were confirmed today.
"We did a lot of speculation as to what would be in this thing, based upon this cryptic title," Goodwin said. "It more or less matched up with what I thought. ... The purpose of this rulemaking is aimed at amending how they do economic analyses in order to support deregulatory policy and outcomes."
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, concurred. "I think this is clearly a naked attempt to try to rig cost-benefit analysis so that these analyses under Pruitt will be industry-friendly by ignoring and devaluing the very real benefits of environmental regulations, such as lives saved, illnesses avoided and climate change disasters averted," he said.
The proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register soon.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/07/stories/1060083855

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA To Alter Cost Calculations As Industry Criticizes ‘Inflated’ Benefits (1)

Jun 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The EPA took its first step to alter how it tallies the costs and benefits of pollution rules, in a bid to address concerns from regulated industries. That includes how it accounts for the benefits from pollutants that aren’t directly regulated.
“Many have complained that the previous administration inflated the benefits and underestimated the costs of its regulations through questionable cost-benefit analysis,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement. The agency released an advance notice June 7 seeking comment on how the EPA should reframe its cost-benefit calculations.
Chief in the EPA’s sights is how the agency treats “co-benefits,” meaning environmental and health improvements attributable to reductions in pollutants that aren’t being directly regulated.
The EPA in its June 7 notice cites Obama-era mercury air toxics standards for power plants as an example, highlighting criticism that the agency justified regulating mercury largely through the monetized benefits of reductions in other pollutants like particulate matter.
Justifying Regulations
Conservative groups and industry have long complained the EPA’s treatment of co-benefits has allowed it to justify overly stringent regulations—particularly those limiting greenhouse gas emissions—by inflating the benefits of proposed rules.
But environmental groups say the EPA’s action signals it will upend decades-long practice of considering co-benefits under administrations of both parties.
“They’re not really hiding the ball” that their goal is to save money for regulated industries, Avi Zevin, an attorney with New York University School of Law’s Institute for Public Integrity, told Bloomberg Environment. “It’s quite clear they want to reduce costs to industries for compliance, notwithstanding the fact that it will lead to public health damages and exacerbate climate change.”
The EPA doesn’t specify how it intends to address its treatment of co-benefits. The agency instead seeks comment on whether it should develop a standard practice for co-benefits, as well as issues such as uncertainty, baseline assumptions, and regulation of multiple pollutants with one rulemaking.
Opportunity for Clarity
Industry groups are welcoming the step from the EPA, suggesting it can provide clarity to regulated companies.
The EPA and other agencies have often interpreted laws to limit their ability to adequately balance the costs and benefits of regulations, a concept that has bipartisan support, Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
Thus, the EPA’s advance notice offers an opportunity for the agency to take a step back and reexamine whether it can outline a more consistent approach for evaluating regulatory costs and benefits, said Noe, who worked in the White House regulatory review office during the George W. Bush administration.
Several industry groups and fossil fuel companies met with officials from the EPA, the White House regulatory review office, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality to discuss the EPA’s pending notice prior to its release.
Noe attended one of those meetings on behalf of the forest and paper industry group.
Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, however, have said they never had a chance to meet with the administration before the notice was completed.
Quantified vs. Real Benefits
The EPA’s cost-benefit analysis included with its October 2017 plans to repeal Obama-era carbon limits on power plants could offer a glimpse into the agency’s thinking on co-benefits, Zevin said.
In that regulatory impact analysis, the EPA presented options that ranged from eliminating consideration of all co-benefits, including reductions of criteria pollutants like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, and minimizing co-benefits in its calculations.
Those types of calculations, however, run counter to George W. Bush-era White House Office of Management and Budget guidance that explicitly outlines agencies must consider co-benefits in regulation, Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA could face legal problems if it tries to scrap co-benefits from its regulatory calculations, he added.
The economics is clear, too, that co-benefits exist, Zevin said.
Forgoing that calculation doesn’t mean the benefits aren’t there, he added.
“It’s just the quantified benefits in the agency’s cost-benefit analysis look smaller and help the agency try and justify that more lax, less stringent regulation to courts and the public.”
Predictable Regulation
American Forest & Paper Association’s Noe, however, said the EPA’s effort is a step toward sustainable regulation and certainty. That is in part because a rigorous treatment of the costs and benefits of rulemakings will hone the EPA’s focus so it spends its resources on the most pressing issues, he said.
The EPA’s action has the potential to make regulation “less contentious, more predictable, and frankly more cooperative,” Noe said. “Industry wants to be a good steward.”
But Narang argued the EPA’s plans will actually accomplish the opposite of its aim of “increasing consistency and transparency.”
This is an attempt to “radically alter the cost-benefit methodology at EPA,” Narang said. “This is going to expose how highly manipulative regulatory cost-benefit analysis is, and over the long term, it will be those conservatives that are pushing for more cost-benefit analysis that will pay the price.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-to-alter-cost-calculations-as-industry-criticizes-inflated-benefits-1?context=landing-heroes

Return to headline | Return to top
Scrubbing Carbon Dioxide from the Air Could Be Cheaper Than Thought

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Bobby Magill

Canadian firm estimates it can remove carbon dioxide from air for $92 per ton
Science underlying Paris climate pact assumes some carbon will be scrubbed from air
Scrubbing carbon dioxide from the ambient air might be a cheaper gamble than previously thought, possibly boosting a potential solution to climate change that has been criticized as unrealistic, according to new research by a Canadian company developing direct-air-capture technology.
Carbon Engineering Ltd. says it can suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to be converted into a transportation fuel or sequestered underground for between $94 and $232 per ton of carbon dioxide, a fraction of the cost—up to $1,000 per ton—of previous estimates.
“Hopefully, this will help turn this technology from something that’s pie-in-the-sky magic to something middle ground, just another industrial technology,” Carbon Engineering co-founder David Keith, a Harvard University applied physics professor, told Bloomberg Environment. “It’s doable. We and other companies and other research groups can work to reduce these costs.”
The company’s research, funded by both the Canadian government and the U.S. Department of Energy during the Obama administration, was published June 7 in the scientific journal Joule. It is one of the first papers to detail the engineering costs involved in industrial direct-air-capture technology.
“We hope it helps to anchor the wild extremes on both sides” of the debate among scientists who argue that industrial-scale carbon removal will be either prohibitively expensive or very cheap, Keith, the paper’s lead author, said.
The Climate Paradox
The company’s business model and the possible need for removing carbon dioxide directly from the air stem from a paradox underlying the science behind the goals of the Paris climate agreement: It may be nearly impossible to keep global warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) only by quitting fossil fuels and slashing climate pollution to zero.
Scientists developing the climate models behind the Paris pact assumed that by later this century, humanity also will be actively cleansing the atmosphere of some of the carbon pollution put there since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
That is known as creating “negative” carbon emissions—something that has never been proved to work or done at a large enough scale to mitigate climate change.
The European Academies Science Advisory Council concluded in February that the Paris pact’s reliance on “hypothetical” technologies makes its negative emissions scenarios “overly optimistic.” Relying on carbon removal technology is a moral hazard because it suggests that cutting carbon emissions is less urgent than it really is, the council said.
But without negative emissions, the carbon and climate math doesn’t add up.
‘Air-to-Fuel’
Carbon Engineering says it is beginning to solve this problem by proving that directly removing carbon dioxide from the air can be profitable and scaled up, first by turning the captured carbon into a transportation fuel and later by storing the captured carbon underground for a profit.
The company is planning an “air-to-fuel” process involving electrolyzing water using renewable energy to generate hydrogen. The hydrogen is processed with the captured carbon dioxide through a series of chemical reactions to generate hydrocarbons, which the company plans to refine into diesel and jet fuel.
The paper says that previous higher cost estimates, most notably a 2011 American Physical Society study led by Princeton University physics professor Robert Socolow, for direct-air-capture technology didn’t fully account for the details of the process and possible cost savings that could be found.
Socolow didn’t respond to requests for comment.
“The new estimates do not look unreasonable,” Sabine Fuss, head of the Sustainable Resource Management and Global Change working group at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin, told Bloomberg Environment. She was not involved in the study.
Fuss, whose research has focused on negative carbon emissions, said her team’s recent research reached similar cost estimates for carbon removal technology, ranging from $100 to $300 per ton of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.
An Expensive Solution
Scientists estimate that up to 70 percent of the 515 billion metric tons of the carbon dioxide humans emitted between the start of the Industrial Revolution and 2011 would have to be physically removed from the atmosphere to keep global warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius—in addition to cutting new fossil fuel emissions to zero, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That means that more than 360 billion tons of carbon dioxide have to be removed from the air. The price tag: more than $360.5 trillion, assuming that a variety of carbon removal methods would be used, including direct-air-capture, at a cost of $100 per ton of removed carbon dioxide.
Direct-air-capture technology at those costs is expensive, and cheaper carbon-cutting solutions can be found elsewhere, Glen Peters, research director for the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, told Bloomberg Environment.
Investors would likely look to cutting energy use, adopting renewable power and energy storage technology, expanding forests and applying carbon capture and storage techniques to fossil fuel-fired power plants as less-expensive strategies for addressing climate change, Peters said.
“While direct air capture removes carbon from the atmosphere, it is still far cheaper to stop putting the carbon into the atmosphere in the first place,” he said.
Julio Friedmann, a former Obama administration Energy Department official who owns a carbon removal consulting firm called Carbon Wrangler LLC, told Bloomberg Environment that Carbon Engineering’s cost estimates are “robust.” Friedmann wasn’t involved in the research.
“Carbon Engineering and all the major players claim that they can reach price points close to $200/ton soon,” he said. “If so, it dramatically changes the commercial and policy viability for DAC [direct air capture] as a pathway to undoing current and legacy emissions.”
“This paper throws down the gauntlet to all comers and shows how quickly costs can drop through investment and innovation,” he said.
Friedmann said it is unusual for the Energy Department to fund Canadian research such as Carbon Engineering’s paper, but there is a precedent for it.
“I think joint efforts like this accelerate innovation and deployment as well as draw our nations closer together,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/scrubbing-carbon-dioxide-from-the-air-could-be-cheaper-than-thought

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Shies Away From Forcing States to Curb Smog-Forming Pollution (1)

Jun 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

EPA favors state-driven plans to reduce ozone pollution
Agency has denied requests from downwind states to require pollution controls on upwind power plants
The EPA doesn’t want to force upwind states to curb smog-forming pollution from power plants, despite several Northeast states’ pleas for help.
Instead, the agency wants states to come up with their own plans to address the problem with ground-level ozone, an Environmental Protection Agency air official told Bloomberg Environment June 7.
The Clean Air Act already has a requirement in place, known as the “good neighbor” provision, that states can use to address problems with downwind pollution, Mike Koerber, associate director for policy within the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, told Bloomberg Environment on the sidelines of the Ozone Transport Commission meeting in Baltimore.
Power plants are the largest sources of nitrogen oxides, a precursor to ozone, which causes a variety of health problems, especially for children, the elderly, and people with asthma.
However, the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states that form the Ozone Transport Commission are worried because because modeling has shown that not all upwind power plants are operating controls to reduce nitrogen oxides.
Petitions Denial Proposed
Koerber’s remarks came less than a week after the EPA proposed to deny five petitions Delaware and Maryland had filed to ask the agency to impose new pollution controls on power plants in upwind states that they said were fouling the air. The EPA in April denied Connecticut’s petition as well.
New York also is awaiting the EPA’s decision on its petition, but the agency has bought time until November to respond.
The petitioning states are mostly looking at Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic states, including Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia that are home to the majority of coal-fired power plants. New York also included Virginia in its petition.
William Wehrum, the EPA assistant administrator for air, told state officials prior to the commission’s public deliberations on June 7 that that the agency doesn’t want to pursue that route.
That didn’t sit well with some downwind states. Maryland Environment Secretary Benjamin Grumbles said cooperative federalism, often touted by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, involves more than just states collaborating.
He said it means the EPA takes on leadership roles not just in advancing research, but also in ensuring that the interstate programs to curb ozone-forming pollutants work.
“If EPA is willing to push for greater progress up front in the good neighbor state implementation plans [SIPs], that would be great. EPA can show environmental leadership and demonstrate cooperative federalism in its review of 24 good-neighbor SIPs for ozone,” Grumbles who is the committee’s chairman, told Bloomberg Environment after the meeting.
George S. Aburn Jr., director of Maryland’s air quality division, questioned Koerber whether the EPA would be willing to ask upwind states to include daily limits on nitrogen oxide emissions as part of their plan to address downwind pollution.
Krish Ramamurthy, director of Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Air Quality, questioned its need, pointing out that the EPA already had denied this very request when Maryland and Delaware had sought these limits as part of their petition to the EPA, which was denied.
“Why should EPA allow it in SIPs when it denied it in the petitions?” Ramamurthy asked.
Cheaper Allowances
Part of the problem for downwind states breathing pollution from their neighbors is that power plants aren’t running their costly nitrogen oxides controls anymore because allowances for a nitrogen oxides emissions trading program intended to curb the pollutant have gotten so cheap, Frank Steitz, air quality division director of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, told the commission.
It’s more economical to buy them than it is to install expensive pollution controls, he added.
Steitz’s observation is backed by a March market analysis by Evolution Markets Inc., a brokerage specializing in trading commodities and emission prices. The brokerage predicted that allowance prices below $200 would give power plants the option not to run pollution controls at their maximum output. “This in turn could lead to higher emissions,” the brokerage said in its market update.
As of June 7, prices were hovering in the $185-$210/st range, with at least one transaction recorded at $195/st, Paul Tesoriero, emissions markets director for Evolution Markets, told Bloomberg Environment.
“That price is still cheaper than it costs to buy the reagents,” Steitz told Bloomberg Environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-shies-away-from-forcing-states-to-curb-smog-forming-pollution-1

Return to headline | Return to top
New York Eyes 'Contingency' Policies To Counter Rollbacks Of EPA Rules

Jun 7, 2018 | Inside EPA

By David LaRoss

NEW YORK -- New York's environment commissioner is crafting “contingency plans” to promote environmental protection to help balance out potential pollution increases associated with EPA rule rollbacks, including a state push for zero-emission and electric vehicles (ZEVs) to counter any weakening of federal mobile source standards.
But officials in neighboring New Jersey say they are not yet ready to make contingency plans because they are “not done fighting” any rollbacks.
At a June 6 conference here featuring EPA Region 2 officials and state and territorial regulators for the region hosted by the Columbia University Law School, New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) Commissioner Basil Seggos told Inside EPA that the state has long been working on a suite of environmental regulations, effectively giving it a “seven-year head start” on the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
Asked whether the state is prepared for a situation where federal appeals courts uphold EPA's efforts to weaken air, climate, water and other rules, Seggos said, “Absolutely.”
But he and other speakers at the conference also acknowledged that the ZEV rules and other state-specific policies will be less effective without federal backing, meaning their first priority remains defending the Obama administration policies that EPA is now working to repeal.
New York is among the states suing over EPA's determination that Obama-era standards are too stringent and must be relaxed. Addressing vehicle rules, Seggos said, “We're going to have to use all of our legal tools to make sure that program stays in effect, [but] the fallback is that we continue to invest in New York state's zero-emission vehicle program.”
However, even within the Region 2 conference -- which included representatives from New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands -- there was disagreement among Trump opponents on whether “contingency plan” regulations are worth focusing on as a backstop to challenging deregulation in court.
“We're not exactly going to make a contingency plan, because we're not done fighting yet,” said Catherine McCabe, the former Obama-era Region 2 Administrator.
McCabe has been nominated to head the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D), who took office in January after term-limited former Gov. Chris Christie (R) departed.
McCabe and other New Jersey officials also noted that much of the state's policy agenda involves unwinding its predecessors' actions, such as returning to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) -- in comparison to New York, California and other states that were under Democratic control during the Obama administration.
“We're catching up on a lot of work that wasn't done in the previous years,” NJDEP Assistant Commissioner Paul Baldauf said of the state's climate plans.
Seggos conceded that policies in Democratic states will not have the impact of nationwide regulations. “We need the clean car standards to remain in effect” to address vehicle emissions comprehensively, he said.
Regulators from both Region 2 states touted their involvement in RGGI and the newer U.S. Climate Alliance as key to their efforts to maintain aggressive climate policies during the Trump administration.
In particular, New York's Jared Snyder said the new alliance, which includes mostly Democratic-led states that are pledging to maintain U.S. commitments to the Paris climate accord, could soon target hydrofluorocarbons, especially if the Trump administration does not sign the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to limit production and consumption of the potent GHGs.
“The federal government is pulling back, and we see that as a critical area,” Snyder said.
Cleanup Agenda
The other overarching topics in the conference centered on cleanups of waste and contaminated sites, including Superfund reforms; federal and state approaches remedying drinking water contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); and the recovery projects in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands after devastating hurricanes struck both territories in 2017.
Addressing PFAS policies, Region 2 Administrator Pete Lopez during his keynote address seemed to straddle the line between praising states' efforts to develop individual drinking water standards or urging for regulators to follow EPA's lead as it begins the process of developing federal standards -- a question that has also divided states.
Lopez said states' efforts to address the contaminants “may even be a little more nimble than we are,” and added that a federal PFAS rule “is, for all of us, something I think we're kind of holding our breath on."
But he also said there is a significant challenge in “finding a level we can all live with,” and avoiding unnecessary compliance burdens while also protecting public health.
On Superfund, Acting Deputy Region 2 Administrator Walter Mugdan said the region is seeing progress on implementing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's agenda of accelerating cleanups, and downplayed the practical importance of Pruitt's April memo that deepened his office's role in crafting cleanup plans, following on the 2017 policy of requiring the administrator's approval for records of decision on any cleanup costing over $50 million.
Speaking to Inside EPA, Mugdan said it was clear from Pruitt's original policy that the administrator's office should be involved early in the process of crafting a cleanup, rather than only seeking his signature at the final stage, and continued that Region 2 has been working with headquarters throughout those processes even before the new memo. “Any smart bureaucrat” would have taken those steps beginning in 2017, he said.
Finally, officials who spoke on hurricane cleanup said the territorial governments and EPA are still struggling with how to dispose of millions of tons of vegetative debris left over from the storms; initial plans to burn the waste were dropped due to air-pollution concerns, and a common post-storm strategy of feeding downed trees into woodchippers before shipping the residue to disposal sites is not an option on islands that still lack resilient power infrastructure.
“Currently we are highly engaged in developing courses of action,” EPA's Hector Valez said.
Both Valez and Lopez also said the agency is working with the island governments on rebuilding power and other infrastructure with new resiliency measures, but that those concerns are more medium-term goals, rather than the short-term priority of reestablishing power as the 2018 hurricane season approaches.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-york-eyes-contingency-policies-counter-rollbacks-epa-rules

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested