Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 9, 2018
-
Hearing on Low-Cost Federal Infrastructure Loans
Jul 11, 2018 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing on Natural Gas Pipelines and Power Grid
Jul 12, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shift at EPA Shows Technocrats Are Replacing Big-Personality Cabinet Members
Jul 6, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey and Brady Dennis
Washington: Scott Pruitt was known inside the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters for sipping $10 organic juice infused with kale, sporting Ferragamo shoes with his Hickey Freeman suits, and making Biblical references in texts and conversations with aides. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt’s Rocky Relationship With His Aides Set the Stage for His Fall
Jul 6, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman, Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport
Scott Pruitt came to Washington and assembled an extraordinary team of like-minded conservatives — lawyers, energy lobbyists, free-market Republicans and close allies from his days in Oklahoma. -
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Under Scott Pruitt’s Mini-Me
Jul 8, 2018 | Newsday
By Michael Dobie
The party music started playing in my head when news broke of Scott Pruitt’s overdue resignation. But it wasn’t long before the soundtrack was overtaken by the crashing chords of The Who. -
(ACC Mentioned) Acting EPA Chief Can’t Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Watchdogs Say
Jul 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle, Bill Allison and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The man tapped to run the Environmental Protection Agency, who worked as an energy lobbyist after nearly two decades in government, has promised to stay away from decisions that affect his old clients. But it might not be that simple. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Energy, Farming, Plastics Firms Braced for Second Wave of Tariffs
Jul 7, 2018 | The Straits Times
US energy, agricultural and chemicals companies are girding themselves for a summer stand-off over trade as three months of rhetoric became reality yesterday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Resins Get Short-Lived Reprieve from China Tariffs
Jul 6, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The resin sector seems to have escaped — for now — the escalating trade conflict between the United States and China, as China is temporarily delaying tariffs on exports of U.S.-made plastics materials. -
The Memo: At EPA, Pruitt Is Gone but Policies Stay
Jul 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Niall Stanage
Even members of President Trump’s circle acknowledge that Scott Pruitt’s departure from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was overdue. -
Pruitt Leaves Behind a Long To-Do List
Jul 6, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Emily Holden
Scott Pruitt has left a lot of unfinished business for his successor. -
Pruitt Resignation Leaves Unfinished Legacy On Cost, Science Overhauls
Jul 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Outgoing Administrator Scott Pruitt has launched several efforts that could fundamentally alter how EPA uses science and economics to justify its rules, though his resignation amid a swirl of ethics scandals leaves an incomplete legacy with no guarantees that his successor will finish such major overhauls. -
(ACC Mentioned) Animal Allies Fear Money Woes May Slow EPA’s Toxics Testing Plan
Jul 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ayanna Alexander
EPA budget uncertainties are curbing the optimism of those urging the agency to move away from chemical tests on animals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Formaldehyde Causes Cancer. The EPA Doesn’t Want to Acknowledge It.
Jul 6, 2018 | Vox
By Julia Belluz
Trump administration officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are reportedly suppressing a highly anticipated report that would warn Americans about the cancer risks that come with one of the most common chemicals in our environment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Americans Are Breathing in Enough of a Common Household Chemical to Cause Cancer, Claims Bombshell Report That Has Been 'Suppressed' by the EPA
Jul 9, 2018 | Daily Mail
By Jessica Finn
The Environmental Protection Agency is sitting on a report that most Americans are inhaling enough formaldehyde vapor to risk developing leukemia or other diseases, according to a report. -
(ACC Mentioned) Insiders Admit Trump's EPA Burying Cancer-Causing Chemical Study Unfriendly to Industry
Jul 9, 2018 | Common Dreams
By Andrea Germanos
New reporting in Politico puts the spotlight on continued themes of the Trump administration: suppression of science, threats to public health, and carrying out the bidding of industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Has Allegedly Withheld Report On Cancer-Causing Chemical
Jul 6, 2018 | Carbonated.TV
By Cierra Bailey
In addition to frivolously spending taxpayers’ money on multiple occasions and using his position to find his wife a job, outgoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt has allegedly been delaying the release of a cancer warning report. -
US Industry Groups Slam Hawaii Sunscreen Ingredient Ban
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US industry and consumer trade associations have criticised Hawaii's banning of two sunscreen ingredients. The action will, they say, endanger human health by potentially increasing skin cancer risk. -
In the news
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Canada’s Liberal government has promised to update the country’s Chemicals Management Plan and overhaul the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa) "as soon as possible in a future parliament". -
Still in the Dark
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
I almost feel like apologising for leading on Brexit yet again, but it is a critical issue for the chemicals industry and those it serves. And, less than nine months away from the scheduled exit day, almost nothing has been decided. -
Brexit: An Uncertain Future for Europe and Beyond
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Alice Rolandini Jensen
Despite there being less than nine months until Britain exits the EU, there is still little certainty about what the final deal will involve or even what the UK government wants to achieve. -
Wheeler's Not the Big Oil Guy Some Imagine
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
As much as new EPA chief Andrew Wheeler is associated with the fossil fuel industry, there's one aspect of it where he has little private-sector experience: oil and gas. -
Appeals Court Overturns Bayou Bridge Construction Freeze
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal appeals court Friday overturned a lower court's landmark construction freeze on the Bayou Bridge pipeline. -
Hearing to Examine Transmission, Pipeline Systems
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
Senators will examine interstate energy delivery infrastructure this week at a time when both natural gas and electricity systems are the subjects of heated debate. -
TGP Could More Than Double Mexico Natural Gas Exports with FERC OK
Jul 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
Federal regulators on Thursday gave the green light to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. LLC (TGP) to substantially increase its natural gas export capacity from Texas to Mexico. -
Former Metra Chairman Martin Oberman named to U.S. Railroad Board
Jul 6, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Mary Wisniewski
Former Metra Chairman and Chicago Ald. Martin Oberman has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, a bipartisan agency that oversees railroads. -
Oil Train and Refinery Safety: Don't Roll the Dice That We'll Avoid Disasters
Jul 6, 2018 | Minneapolis Star Tribune
By Fred Millar
On July 6, North Americans commemorated the fifth anniversary of the tragic 2013 nighttime crude oil train disaster that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic Quebec. -
Lawmakers Probe Role of Federal Cash
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselo
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week will explore the role of federal dollars in boosting large infrastructure projects. -
Revisions of Air Pollution Permits Will Stay on Course At EPA
Jul 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The pace of changes to the Clean Air Act permitting program for new or expanded facilities will likely continue under the leadership of Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, former state and federal officials told Bloomberg Environment. -
EPA Sends 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule for OMB Review
Jul 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review its final rule detailing the steps that states must takes in their state implementation plans (SIPs) for complying with the Obama-era ozone air standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb) -- a standard the agency is expected to retain following a just-launched review. -
Don’t Make Us Pay for Climate Change, Say Big Oil CEOs
Jul 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Kelly Gilblom
Leaders of the world’s largest oil companies want everyone to know it won’t do anyone any good to make them pay for the damages of climate change. -
Cement's CO2 Is Everywhere. Will It Sink Climate Goals?
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
One of the world's biggest industries — and a leading producer of greenhouse gas emissions — may finally be making moves to combat climate change.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing on Low-Cost Federal Infrastructure Loans
Jul 11, 2018 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
-
Hearing on Natural Gas Pipelines and Power Grid
Jul 12, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shift at EPA Shows Technocrats Are Replacing Big-Personality Cabinet Members
Jul 6, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey and Brady Dennis
Washington: Scott Pruitt was known inside the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters for sipping $10 organic juice infused with kale, sporting Ferragamo shoes with his Hickey Freeman suits, and making Biblical references in texts and conversations with aides.
Andrew Wheeler, on the other hand, is a policy wonk who keeps his religious views private and collects Coca-Cola memorabilia.
That contrast has come to the fore as Wheeler prepares to take the helm of the agency on Monday in the wake of Pruitt’s resignation amid allegations of overspending and ethical misconduct. It speaks to the shift that has been under way — in fits and starts — as President Donald Trump’s Cabinet transitions from a team stocked with high-profile personalities who joined in the early days of the administration to one with a growing number of technocrats.
While the Cabinet still includes unconventional picks, such as housing and urban development secretary Ben Carson, a former surgeon, it is increasingly filling with more experienced Washington hands. The Department of Health and Human Services is now helmed by Alex Azar, a former pharmaceutical executive who served as the department’s deputy secretary under George W. Bush. Trump has also nominated Robert Wilkie, who developed his military policy experience over three decades on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch, to serve as Veterans Affairs Secretary.
Josh Holmes, a longtime adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican from Kentucky, said in an interview on Friday that almost every administration has high-profile secretaries who “usually give way to lower-profile folks that actually run the department. I think they probably run them better”.
“You’re dealing with people who know how to actually do bureaucracies,” Holmes added.
In some cases, the handovers have been spurred by Cabinet members’ own behaviour: In addition to Pruitt, HHS secretary Tom Price and VA secretary David Shulkin lost their jobs after their costly travel practices came under scrutiny.
Max Stier, president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, noted that Trump moved quickly to fill his Cabinet after the 2016 election and largely ignored the materials prepared by his transition head, then governor Chris Christie, the Republican from New Jersey.
“You have to ask the question, did he choose right? It’s hard to argue yes,” Stier said.
Trump, according to two of his advisers, remains unhappy about having to get rid of Pruitt. But White House officials — particularly Chief of Staff John Kelly — made the case that Wheeler could accomplish the same regulatory rollbacks without the drama.
In Trump’s phone call with Wheeler on Thursday, according to two senior administration officials, the president expressed concern that the swirling controversy over Pruitt’s moves to enlist employees in personal tasks and spend taxpayers’ funds on high-end travel had demoralised “Trump people” at EPA — including some who had left.
In an interview Friday, Wheeler said that his quarter-century in Washington had prepared him for this moment.
“I’ve realised that I’m going to be walking into a job that’s a lot more high-profile than what I would have wanted,” he said. “But I really do think that [with] my background, at this point in time, that this is the right job for me.”
Wheeler is likely to stay acting administrator for the considerable future, White House officials said, because they do not expect any other nominee to be confirmed before the midterms.
Firing Pruitt was seen among many of Trump’s hard-line advisers as giving in to the left without merit.
“This is going to have much larger implications than people think,” said Stephen Bannon, the president’s former strategist, in an interview. “Pruitt was strategic in the deconstruction of the administrative state at EPA, which is the beating heart of this regulatory Leviathan.”
“Pruitt was relatively unique in combining a deep understanding of the issues with the legal chops to take action,” he said. “The opposition-party media got a scalp, and it was a big one.”
But both Republicans and Democrats said Wheeler boasts far more energy and environmental policy experience than Pruitt and had shown a willingness to forge compromises with the other party.
On Friday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s top Democrat, Thomas Carper, the senator from Delaware — who worked with Wheeler when he was a staffer on retrofitting buses with cleaner diesel engines — urged him to seize the opportunity he now faces.
“While you and I have not always agreed, and will not always agree, on every environmental policy matter, it is my hope and expectation that you will carefully consider the lessons of the past as you prepare to chart the Agency’s future,” Carper wrote.
Wheeler said he does not envision significant changes in policy direction. “I don’t think the overall agenda is going to change that much, because we are implementing what the president has laid out for the agency,” he said.
But even as he declined to comment on his predecessor’s approach to the job, Wheeler said he would put a premium on transparency. “The more transparent we are, the better understood our decisions will be.”
Joseph Stanko, a partner at the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, said in an interview that Wheeler is empowered to peel back many Obama-era rules and will focus on getting the details right to avert legal challenges.
“If you’re a regulatory geek on environmental policy, this is going to be the golden age of wonks,” Stanko said. “The direction to do it has already been given, and it doesn’t matter if there’s a trade war going on or if Kim Jong Un does or does not have nuclear weapons. You don’t have to barge your way into the Oval Office.”
Many of the men and women Wheeler hired when he was EPW committee staff director under senator James Inhofe, the Republican from Oklahoma, are serving in senior posts throughout the Trump administration. Nicknamed the “has-beens” by Inhofe, they include Ryan Jackson, EPA chief of staff; Alex Herrgott, Council on Environmental Quality associate director; Francis Fannon, assistant secretary of state for energy resources; and Annie Caputo, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission member.
But Wheeler — who recused himself from strategy sessions on Pruitt’s ethics woes — has devoted most of his time to internal agency policy briefings and meetings with career staff since joining the EPA in April. In contrast to the schedule Pruitt kept — crisscrossing the country to speak at industry gatherings, granting media interviews and meeting privately with governors, energy executives and agricultural groups — Wheeler’s time at EPA has been decidedly more workmanlike.
His public calendar shows internal briefings with EPA staffers and rounds of meetings with his counterparts at other agencies and the White House, along with a smattering of industry meetings with groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council.
He has taken time to visit at least three EPA regional offices — in Atlanta, Philadelphia and New York — as well as the agency’s campus in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park. While Pruitt flew to dozens of states, the majority of Wheeler’s meetings took place in the same spot: EPA headquarters in Washington.
Pruitt expressed frustration at the financial constraints he faced as administrator, maintaining an $850,000 mortgage in Oklahoma and an upscale Washington apartment on his $189,600 salary. Wheeler arrives in a much better financial position.
His financial disclosure shows that he earned a $741,074 salary and bonus from his law firm, Faegre Baker Daniels, before arriving at the EPA, along with at least 11 other different sources of income.
In emails released under public records requests, Wheeler showed that his time in the private sector has earned him a reputation as an industry ally — as well as a sense of humour about it.
In October, days after President Trump nominated him to become the agency’s second-in-command, Wheeler forwarded a link from the satirical new site The Onion to a group that included energy-industry representatives, colleagues at his law firm and Jackson, Pruitt’s chief of staff.
The headline: “EPA Promotes Pulsating Black Sludge to Deputy Director.”
“Welcome, pulsating black sludge,” Jackson replied. “I guess I’m going to have to have the cleaning crews come in more often.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/technocrats-are-replacing-big-personality-cabinet-members/2018/07/06/ace3d3a2-8138-11e8-b658-4f4d2a1aeef1_story.html?utm_term=.9bcac6e3eae6
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt’s Rocky Relationship With His Aides Set the Stage for His Fall
Jul 6, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman, Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport
Scott Pruitt came to Washington and assembled an extraordinary team of like-minded conservatives — lawyers, energy lobbyists, free-market Republicans and close allies from his days in Oklahoma. All were committed not only to Mr. Pruitt, but also to his stated mission to be a regulation-buster at the Environmental Protection Agency.
In little more than a year, most of them were gone, chased away by scandal or disillusionment over what they viewed as a loss of focus by a boss distracted by the trappings of power — building an elaborate security team, traveling first class, seeking special benefits for his family — who then blamed his own staff for the missteps.
Mr. Pruitt’s fall from the E.P.A. is a story of his diminishing relationship with many of his closest loyalists. Instead of focusing on making history by reshaping American environmental policy, they found themselves not only defending their actions before investigators, but also calling out Mr. Pruitt in ways that exposed him to public scrutiny and ultimately led to his downfall.
Among them is Samantha Dravis, Mr. Pruitt’s former top policy chief, who resigned in April. During her tenure, Mr. Pruitt asked her to help with personal matters, like reviewing his apartment lease. Last week she sat on Capitol Hill being questioned by a congressional panel investigating whether Mr. Pruitt had asked her to help his wife land a lucrative job. She was being asked to blame her boss.
“I was explicitly asked by Administrator Pruitt” to help his wife find work, Ms. Dravis told the investigators, according to a transcript of her interview released Thursday afternoon, shortly after Mr. Pruitt resigned. She added, “There’s no reason I can think of why I would want to insert myself into such a situation.”
Mr. Pruitt became similarly isolated from many of his closest confidants, said David Schnare, a 34-year veteran of the agency who served on President Trump’s transition team and who left the E.P.A. himself after a falling-out with Mr. Pruitt over the rules governing ethanol use in gasoline.
“Who did he have left?” Mr. Schnare said. “He didn’t have much of anybody left.”
Mr. Pruitt has proud supporters, among them Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who describes him as the outsider that the E.P.A. needed, someone who had built a career far from Washington and therefore could forcefully shake up the status quo. “Like all of us, he’s his own worst enemy,” Mr. McKenna said, but he was changing the culture of the agency and eliminating government regulations.
“A big part of the reason why the left went after Scott is because they disagreed with what he was doing at the agency,” Mr. McKenna added.
Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and longtime supporter of Mr. Pruitt, praised his “great work to reduce the nation’s regulatory burdens.” In recent months, Mr. Inhofe had criticized some of Mr. Pruitt’s actions, but on Thursday, shortly after the resignation, he said Mr. Pruitt was crucial to Mr. Trump’s mission. “He was single-minded at restoring the E.P.A. to its proper statutory authority and ending the burdensome regulations that have stifled economic growth across the country,” Mr. Inhofe said.
Nevertheless, even as Mr. Pruitt proposed historic rollbacks of government rules, jokes about a used mattress, a Chick-fil-A fast food franchise and a $50-a-night condo became shorthand in American culture for an E.P.A. under fire as ethics crises consumed his top aides one by one.
Millan and Sydney Hupp, sisters and Pruitt family friends from Oklahoma, became Mr. Pruitt’s Washington gatekeepers, helping book trips nationwide to meet with oil executives, coal miners, farmers and other groups. But Mr. Pruitt also asked Sydney Hupp to set up a meeting with Chick-fil-A to seek a franchise for his wife. She resigned last summer.
Millan Hupp stepped down in June after Mr. Pruitt blamed her for telling investigators that, among other things, she helped him try to buy a used mattress from the Trump International Hotel. The same day she quit, so did Sarah Greenwalt, Mr. Pruitt’s senior counsel overseeing water policy. Ms. Greenwalt and Ms. Hupp were given substantial pay raises that Mr. Pruitt denied having approved and later rescinded.
And Mr. Pruitt’s top press official, Liz Bowman, formerly of the American Chemistry Council, left in May after he blamed her for the media attention he was getting for renting a condo for $50 a night from the wife of an energy lobbyist.
The E.P.A. did not respond to requests for comment on Mr. Pruitt’s relationship with his senior aides. Mr. Pruitt’s spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, has denied any wrongdoing on the part of the administrator.
Perhaps the highest-profile departure was that of Kevin Chmielewski. He had arrived at the E.P.A. in April 2017 and was soon named deputy chief of staff for operations.
He came with unimpeachable Republican credentials, having served as an aide to several major Republican presidential candidates in the past two decades, including Mitt Romney and John McCain. He had worked on the Trump campaign from its start.
But in his first months at the agency, Mr. Chmielewski said on Friday, he began to question whether some of Mr. Pruitt’s actions were hurting the deregulatory mission he had signed on for. He cited Mr. Pruitt’s spending on security measures and first-class flights as well as his requests that aides handle personal tasks for him, like picking up dry cleaning, while also keeping some of his meetings off his publicly released schedule.
“You can’t do that stuff,” said Mr. Chmielewski, who left in February after his own falling-out with Mr. Pruitt. “I was always waiting for the vice president’s office or somebody at the White House to step in and say, ‘Wait a minute, guys, this has to stop.’ But it never happened.”
Mr. Chmielewski took a temporary job as a waiter in West Ocean City, Md., at the Sunset Grille and Teasers dockside bar. Next week, he said, he will be returning to Washington to testify to congressional investigators.
Ryan Jackson, the E.P.A. chief of staff, has disputed Mr. Chmielewski’s depictions of the agency and Mr. Pruitt, characterizing him in an interview this week as a disgruntled former employee.
Over the course of his 16 months as E.P.A. administrator, Mr. Pruitt unveiled numerous major policy initiatives, such as the rollback of Obama-era rules on vehicle tailpipe emissions and the scaling back of a regulation on water pollution. However, some of the policies faced criticism for being hastily assembled in ways that made them vulnerable to challenge.
That is at least in part because he resisted advice from career E.P.A. staff members as well as his senior political aides, Mr. Schnare said. For example, Mr. Pruitt preferred not to have Kevin Minoli, the agency’s principal deputy general counsel and top ethics official, attend senior staff meetings, Mr. Schnare said, because Mr. Minoli’s expertise put him in a position to push back against policies.
Mr. Minoli declined to comment.
And as Mr. Pruitt’s senior staff members began to question some of his actions, he retaliated. Instead of targeting the “deep state” — the idea, favored among some conservatives, that the government bureaucracy and liberal interests team up to block their aims — Mr. Pruitt blamed his own staff.
In three cases, Mr. Pruitt’s team tried to ease out staff members who had questioned his actions or had clashed over his management by telling them to resign but offering two to three months of extra pay, according to three former E.P.A. officials, including Mr. Chmielewski, who said he had been offered this arrangement and had declined.
Another instance occurred last summer when Mr. Jackson and Mr. Chmielewski fired Mr. Pruitt’s scheduler, Madeline G. Morris, after she raised concerns that she was being asked to break the law by deleting details about meetings on Mr. Pruitt’s calendar. At the time she was fired, the two E.P.A. officials arranged for her to receive an additional six weeks of pay, according to an email between Ms. Morris and Mr. Jackson released as part of a lawsuit over public records by the Sierra Club.
Federal rules prohibit paying an employee for work not performed.
Mr. Chmielewski, in an interview, acknowledged that the arrangement was made. Mr. Jackson declined to comment on Thursday.
Several of Mr. Pruitt’s former staff members have said in interviews that the last straw came on April 26 when their boss testified before two congressional committees. Asked by lawmakers about allegations of impropriety against him, Mr. Pruitt deflected blame on his staff, particularly his chief of staff, Mr. Jackson, whom he blamed for making decisions such as the illegal purchase of a $43,000 secure telephone booth.
Many senior aides had been personally recruited by Mr. Jackson.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-aides.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
-
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Under Scott Pruitt’s Mini-Me
Jul 8, 2018 | Newsday
By Michael Dobie
The party music started playing in my head when news broke of Scott Pruitt’s overdue resignation. But it wasn’t long before the soundtrack was overtaken by the crashing chords of The Who.
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
Pruitt’s deputy, Andrew Wheeler, takes over as head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday. For now, Wheeler will serve in an acting position. But he might be there a while no matter who is nominated by President Donald Trump to be the permanent chief, given election-year politics and what’s already on the Senate’s confirmation plate.
So what kind of successor will Wheeler be to the ethically challenged, scandal-tarred, deregulation-loving Pruitt? An apt comparison would be Trump being replaced by Vice President Mike Pence. Less baggage, less controversy, lower profile, same mission, better skill set to pull it off.
That’s scary.
Wheeler is a former coal lobbyist, such a good fit these days for an agency charged with protecting the environment. The head of the EPA unit that regulates toxic chemicals, Nancy Beck, was an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s main trade association. One member of the committee that advises the EPA head on protecting vulnerable communities is the vice president of a company that twice exposed dozens of workers to carcinogenic plutonium.
There are others like them, but Wheeler stands out.
With more than two decades of Washington experience in and out of government, he is a consummate insider — precisely the type of person Trump railed against on the campaign trail. But Trump no doubt likes Wheeler’s quiet but relentless work on behalf of industry clients to weaken, delay or destroy federal regulations. Last fall, Wheeler described Pruitt’s agenda of reducing environmental protections as “getting back to the core mission of the agency.”
Like Pruitt, he is a climate change skeptic. Wheeler once was chief of staff for Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, Washington’s loudest denier of the science of human-caused climate change and a big Wheeler backer. Bad karma for Wheeler that he takes over as all-time heat records are being broken all over the world, wildfires are raging out west, and Miami is confronting projections that within 30 years, rising sea levels will submerge one-fifth of the city at high tide.
Just before returning to the EPA, where he worked during the first Bush administration, Wheeler lobbied on behalf of Murray Energy, the nation’s largest privately owned coal company, in its fight against Obama administration steps to reduce carbon emissions. Wheeler later arranged a meeting between company president Bob Murray, a big Trump donor, and current Energy Secretary Rick Perry, in which Murray presented a four-page plan for protecting struggling coal plants.
Wheeler also led the uranium mining company lobbying team that helped persuade Trump to drastically reduce the size of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, worked to get industrial plants exempted from tougher pollution controls after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and sought to help polluters be shielded from liability for the harmful release of toxic chemicals.
It’s the kind of environmental resume that makes you want to take a detox shower after reading it.
Will Wheeler’s familiarity with Washington and its players mean he’ll be more likely to reach across the aisle, as some environmentalists hope, or more able to shepherd Trump’s desired environmental regulation rollback more smoothly?
The answer seems clear.
No one will be fooled again if the new boss is even more effective than the old boss.
https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/michael-dobie/andrew-wheeler-epa-scott-pruitt-1.19648995
-
(ACC Mentioned) Acting EPA Chief Can’t Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Watchdogs Say
Jul 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle, Bill Allison and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The man tapped to run the Environmental Protection Agency, who worked as an energy lobbyist after nearly two decades in government, has promised to stay away from decisions that affect his old clients. But it might not be that simple.
Ethics watchdogs warn that Andrew Wheeler’s commitment to recuse himself is unlikely to be enforced if broken, and can be waived by the very staff that Wheeler now oversees. The result, they say, is that Wheeler’s pledge may not count for much.
“The public should be very concerned,” Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at the Washington advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a phone interview. “The industries that are being overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency are now in control of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
An EPA spokeswoman, Kelsi Daniell, told Bloomberg in June that Wheeler has recused himself from “specific party matters involving former clients” until April 2020. The EPA referred July 6 to its earlier comment and didn’t respond to a request for more detail on the recusal process.
Before Wheeler became EPA’s deputy administrator in April, he lobbied for companies affected by the agency’s policies, including the coal producer Murray Energy Corp., the utility Xcel Energy Inc. and Energy Fuels Inc., a uranium miner. To address any potential conflicts of interest, Wheeler promised EPA ethics officials, as well as the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, that he would “not participate personally and substantially” in matters involving those companies.
That pledge comes with exceptions, though.
Federal ethics laws bar officials from taking part in some decisions that have a financial impact on former employers and clients for one year. Wheeler can take part in general policy matters that affect a broad range of companies including his clients. But he’d have to recuse himself from “particular matters,” which could include regulatory decisions affecting a single industry in which he had clients.
Wheeler could also get a waiver from the EPA’s ethics office, which issued at least six such waivers in 2017. In some cases, EPA officials would need to inform the Office of Government Ethics. But the OGE lacks the authority to overrule EPA staff about the appropriateness of such waivers.
When Donald Trump became president, he signed an executive order extending the recusal period to two years. Trump’s order also banned former lobbyists from participating in specific issue areas in which the particular matters they lobbied on.
For Wheeler, who listed “general energy and environmental issues” on some lobbying disclosures, that could pose a problem, says Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group.
“This is going to be a real chore for the EPA ethics office, to get the specifics of what he was actually lobbying on,” Amey said, adding that Wheeler would either need waivers or lists of issues he’ll have to recuse himself from.
But unlike federal ethics laws, it’s not clear how the Trump administration would enforce that executive order were Wheeler to violate it. “I imagine they would push for him to correct the violation and that’s about it,” Amey said.
Wheeler isn’t the first former lobbyist in Trump’s EPA to get a job that gives him power over issues that affect his former clients. Nancy Beck was appointed as the deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s chemical safety office, despite having previously pressed for less stringent requirements on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and its member companies, including Dow Chemical Co., DuPont Co., and Exxon Mobil Corp.
Since taking the EPA post, Beck has made things easier for industry by revising an Obama-era proposal for prioritizing and evaluating thousands of existing chemicals for their risks.
Beck had permission to tackle chemical safety issues—and general matters involving the council—because she’s technically an “administratively determined” employee who’s exempt from the Trump ethics pledge.
“I’ve never seen myself as an industry person, and I’ve never been a lobbyist,” Beck said in an interview. “I’m a scientist first—and the fact that I have experience working with a trade association and have an understanding of how industry works doesn’t make me any less of a scientist.”
Companies on whose behalf Wheeler lobbied said they didn’t think his previous work creates a conflict.
Follow the LawCurtis Moore, a spokesman for Energy Fuels, based in Lakewood, Colo., said the company “would expect Mr. Wheeler to follow all applicable laws, rules and regulations concerning any potential conflicts of interest arising from his limited work ” for the company.
Moore added that Wheeler didn’t lobby the EPA on behalf of Energy Fuels, but rather lobbied other agencies, such as the Department of the Interior.
A spokesman for Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., Micah Hirschfield, said by phone that Wheeler’s firm lobbied for the company in 2015 and 2016, but the company has no “dockets or issues currently in front of the EPA.”
“We do not see potential for any conflict of interest solely based on those facts,” Hirschfield said.
Robert Murray, chief executive officer of Murray Energy, said by email that he’d had no contact with Wheeler since he joined the EPA.
“As such, we are unable to provide any further comment,” Murray said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/acting-epa-chief-cant-avoid-conflicts-of-interest-watchdogs-say
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Energy, Farming, Plastics Firms Braced for Second Wave of Tariffs
Jul 7, 2018 | The Straits Times
US energy, agricultural and chemicals companies are girding themselves for a summer stand-off over trade as three months of rhetoric became reality yesterday.
The US imposed the first duties on US$34 billion (S$46 billion) in Chinese goods at 12.01am yesterday in Washington, just after mid-day in China. Beijing retaliated at once.
US Customs officials will begin collecting an additional 25 per cent tariff on imports from China of goods ranging from farming ploughs to semiconductors and airplane parts.
China has said it would respond by imposing higher levies on an equivalent amount of goods ranging from American soya beans to cars, which may in turn prompt US President Donald Trump to raise trade barriers even higher.
Industry lobbying efforts have failed to convince the Trump administration to put off the 25 per cent tariffs. Earlier this year, the United States levied tariffs on steel and aluminium from China and elsewhere.
Lobbying efforts are now focused on convincing Mr Trump not to put tariffs on a second list of mainly energy, plastics and chemicals goods worth about US$16 billion, said industry officials. Some businesses have tried to persuade the Trump administration to back down by saying they would be left with no choice but to consider reducing production, firing workers and shifting operations out of the US to account for the added costs from import tariffs.
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas producers, backed a Bill that would have Congress vet future tariffs proposed on national security grounds. The Bill has stalled in the Senate.
"We have had meetings with members of Congress to press the issue," said vice-president Lee Fuller of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. The oil and gas trade group is requesting that the administration "look at better alternatives than they have so far".
The association favours granting more tariff exclusions to products not typically made in the US, including certain speciality steel used in oil drilling.
China's list of goods facing retaliatory tariffs include US crude oil, plastics and chemicals, all industries that have expanded rapidly using abundant US shale oil and natural gas to drive exports to China.
"I put millions of dollars into equipment and infrastructure on the basis of exporting a heck of a lot more to China. I am at risk," said Mr Marc Levine, chief executive of Plantgistix, a Texas-based plastics resin blender, packager and shipper.
If China goes ahead with tariffs on US plastics, he said it "could have a very clear negative effect on resin producers and others here to support the huge increase in production - railroads, truckers, pallet manufacturers and ocean carriers".
The American Chemistry Council estimates that the second wave of promised tariffs would affect US$2.2 billion in imports of chemicals and plastics from China and US$5.4 billion in US exports to China from retaliatory duties, said Mr Ed Brzytwa, director of international trade at the council. Chinese retaliatory tariffs, if imposed, "are direct hits" on recent production expansions, he said.
"If those come into effect, we will have to close down plants, and jobs will be at issue," he added.
Agriculture lobbyists are resigned to tariffs from China, the largest buyer of US agriculture commodities, after the imposition of tariffs earlier this week by the European Union, Canada and Mexico.
"We are primarily battening down the proverbial hatches... and hoping the administration will throw that Hail Mary for us," said Ms Wendy Brannen, spokesman for the American Soybean Association.
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/us-energy-farming-plastics-firms-braced-for-second-wave-of-tariffs
-
(ACC Mentioned) Resins Get Short-Lived Reprieve from China Tariffs
Jul 6, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The resin sector seems to have escaped — for now — the escalating trade conflict between the United States and China, as China is temporarily delaying tariffs on exports of U.S.-made plastics materials.
But it could be a very temporary reprieve. Resins definitely remain on both countries' radars for possible next phases of their trade conflict.
The first round of tariffs between the two countries kick off July 6 and include 25 percent duties on Chinese-made plastics machinery and molds, but Beijing and Washington have shifted plastic materials into a second round of tariffs, with an as yet unspecified start date.
That shift, however, is not bringing any substantial relief to the American Chemistry Council, which is growing more concerned over trade and said some of its members are actively studying whether escalating tariff conflicts, with China and other countries, could force production offshore.
"Clearly we're concerned about the overall trend line of U.S. trade policy, particularly the amount of retaliation our industry is experiencing now or will experience," said Edward Brzytwa, director of international trade for the Washington-based association. "The nugget of good news is that we're not subject to the first round."
But the new, second round of tariffs could wind up hitting harder, he said, since they increased the amount of duties that could be assessed on plastics. The U.S. in mid-June added imports of Chinese resins to its list of 25 percent punitive tariffs for the first time, he said.
"The bad news is the amount of trade ... with respect to chemicals and plastics went up significantly," Brzytwa said.
The July 6 tariffs on the U.S. side include many categories of Chinese plastics machinery and molds, putting an additional 25 percent tariff on more than 800 items covering $34 billion in Chinese goods. The Trump administration says the tariffs are needed to get China to change unfair trade practices.
The tariffs, first announced in April, drew a retaliation from China that had threatened 25 percent tariffs on an estimated $3 billion in U.S. plastic exports to China, the world's largest importer of resin, starting July 6.
But after the United States in mid-June trimmed back its original April list from $50 billion in Chinese imports to $34 billion, China put resins on its second round of tariffs. The Chinese tariffs that kick off July 6 cover about $30 billion in U.S. exports, mostly agriculture and automobiles.
The two countries are now holding about $15 billion to $16 billion in goods in reserve for a second round of tariffs. The Trump administration plans a hearing July 24 on its second round, with a decision later.
"I don't know how long of a delay it really is; it's hard to say," Brzytwa said. "It seems like they're going to move really quickly."
Beyond the China tariffs, the bigger picture has ACC equally or more concerned, he said.
The group lobbied, unsuccessfully, against steel and aluminum tariffs, arguing they would raise prices for building factories in the current shale gas-led petrochemical investment boom.
ACC also argued against Trump's proposed 20 percent tariffs on imported cars, arguing that it would decrease U.S. demand and invite retaliation on U.S. chemical exports.
And the group is concerned about Trump administration statements that it could put 10 percent tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese imports.
"We're getting to the point where the trend line is bad and it could get much, much worse, and so we have to talk about the bigger picture in a way that really resonates with people," he said.
He said chemical manufacturers are actively considering whether they would need to shift production out of the United States to maintain their competitiveness.
That echoes public comments that Saudi Basic Industries Inc. made at a mid-May U.S. government hearing, when it said it may shift some polycarbonate manufacturing to Europe or Asia to keep its exports competitive to China, the world's largest plastics resin importer.
Other companies have said little publicly along those lines, but Brzytwa said there are active discussions.
"I think a number of our members are actively considering whether they have to move production overseas and whether they have to close facilities or delay investments," he said. "They are committed to the United States, but if the trade policy is becoming much more uncertain and their costs are going up, what are they supposed to do? They have to address that."
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180706/NEWS/180709942/resins-get-short-lived-reprieve-from-china-tariffs
-
The Memo: At EPA, Pruitt Is Gone but Policies Stay
Jul 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Niall Stanage
Even members of President Trump’s circle acknowledge that Scott Pruitt’s departure from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was overdue.
But they also contend that his ouster will not produce any noticeable change in policy. And environmentalists worry they might be right.
After months of ethics-related controversies — his conduct was being examined as part of no fewer than 15 probes — Pruitt finally resigned on Thursday.
His replacement — at least on an interim basis — is Andrew Wheeler, a Pruitt deputy whose resume includes stints as a coal lobbyist and as an aide to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), perhaps the most prominent denier of climate change on Capitol Hill.
That’s enough to leave environmental groups deeply concerned, even as they welcome Pruitt’s departure.
Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Hill that “the work will continue” aimed at “dismantling” the EPA.
“Pruitt ran into so many problems due to his shoddy ethics,” Krupp said. “But now [President] Trump turns to Andy Wheeler to do the same thing, out of the limelight.”
Supporters of the administration view the situation as the mirror image of that scenario.
They argue that Pruitt’s controversies overshadowed his policy work, which they consider valuable.
“Look, the allegations and controversy reached a critical mass,” said one former Trump administration official. “Some of it is fair and some is not, but there is no question taxpayer resources were not being properly used and there were clear lapses in judgment.”
However, the former official added: “Pruitt’s EPA has had a tremendous impact policy-wise that will get overlooked in all of this. The EPA was one of the most out of control branches of the federal government and he brought it to heel.”
Trump paid tribute to Pruitt in the hours after his resignation, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that he did “an outstanding job.” The president also talked up Wheeler, noting that he was “very much an early Trump supporter.”
Pruitt’s record at the EPA is deeply contentious. It includes a decision to withdraw from former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a suspension of a key clean water rule and a proposal to change the way coal ash is treated.
He also advocated for the United States to withdraw from the Paris climate accords, a position that was endorsed by the president.
In all of those instances, critics accuse him of rolling back important safeguards and endangering public and environmental health.
His defenders contend that he has helped ease the regulatory burden on businesses in general and the fossil fuel industry in particular.
In the end, however, he could not survive a long and ever-growing list of ethical issues.
Pruitt controversies include allegations surrounding his renting a room from the wife of an energy lobbyist for $50 per night, going around the White House to get hefty pay raises for key aides, asking aides to run personal errands and seeking employment for his wife.
Another tale that received plenty of attention was one where Pruitt reportedly sought to purchase a used mattress from the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
Someone in Trump’s orbit who spoke to the president about Pruitt in the days leading up to the EPA director’s ouster called the mattress story “the final straw.” The request seemed tawdry to the president, according to this source.
The same source stated he was “not surprised” by Pruitt’s departure, and that the exit was “long overdue.”
A separate source, a GOP strategist with ties to the White House, also acknowledged that Pruitt’s resignation was “a long time coming.”
“He has been generating so much negative publicity it has been overwhelming any possible positive publicity regarding the polices of the Trump administration,” this person added. “He was getting the job done but he could not sustain it because he did not behave well, personally — ethically — while in office.”
Prominent progressives expressed glee at Pruitt's departure. Sen. Bernie SandersBERNARD (BERNIE) SANDERSThe Memo: At EPA, Pruitt is gone but policies stayWith ghosts of ’68 haunting the midterms, Trump may soften rhetoricKrystal Ball: MSNBC never wanted Ed Schultz's working class audienceMORE (I-Vt.) called him the “the worst EPA administrator in the history of the agency.”
But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), while also welcoming Pruitt’s exit, sounded the alarm about Wheeler:
“It is deeply concerning that the president has chosen to elevate a coal lobby kingpin even more focused than his predecessor on advancing the toxic Trump agenda and destroying critical protections for the health and safety of families,” she said in a statement.
The former Trump administration official argued just the opposite:
“The good work will continue,” the official asserted. “Hopefully with fewer distractions.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/395899-the-memo-at-epa-pruitt-is-gone-but-policies-stay
-
Pruitt Leaves Behind a Long To-Do List
Jul 6, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Emily Holden
Scott Pruitt has left a lot of unfinished business for his successor.
For all his reputation as a deregulatory crusader — the trait that helped him stay atop the EPA through months of ethics scandals — Pruitt’s efforts to wipe out the Obama administration’s environmental rules suffered at least five early setbacks in court.
Now EPA is adopting a more deliberate approach to undoing regulations. And that task may be better suited for new acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the former coal lobbyist who will run EPA at least until a permanent nominee is confirmed.
“Andy has been around these issues this whole professional career," said Jeff Holmstead, an energy lawyer and who led EPA’s air office under President George W. Bush. Wheeler “went to EPA right out of grad school, he’s been working on EPA issues a long time, he comes with a more sophisticated understanding of these issues."
Matt Dempsey, a managing director at FTI Consulting who worked with Wheeler on the Hill, said Wheeler will pursue largely the same policy platform as Pruitt. “I don’t think you’re going to see a lot of separation there,” he said.
Jody Freeman, the director of Harvard Law School’s environment and energy program who was climate change counselor for the Obama administration White House, said in a tweet that “the Wheeler for Pruitt swap at EPA could be on net negative” for environmentalists.
“Wheeler is a sophisticated insider who will not make Pruitt’s amateur and corrupt mistakes. Expect an iron deregulatory fist in a velvet glove,” she said.
Here are the top ongoing legal and political battles Wheeler will have to tackle:
Climate change
Three federal judges have warned that EPA is running out of time to issue a draft replacement for the Clean Power Plan, the Obama rule aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by spurring states to shift away from burning coal for electricity. The agency is expected to send its proposal to the White House any day now. In the meantime, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has been withholding a decision on legal challenges to the Obama-era rule filed by red states and industry groups.
Wheeler has opposed Obama’s efforts to cut carbon pollution — but, unlike Pruitt, is not expected to pursue a public debate on the soundness of the underlying climate science. He could face pressure from the conservative activists and coal executives who had lobbied Pruitt to attack a 2009 EPA legal conclusion that obligated the agency to regulate climate change — but other Republicans fear such an effort could prove politically embarrassing.
Waters and wetlands
Pruitt arrived at EPA looking to achieve one victory in a matter of months: Repealing and replacing the Waters of the U.S. rule, a 2015 regulation on waterways and wetlands that has drawn criticism from the farming, mining, development and energy industries. But just the repeal has been stalled for nearly a year.
The Obama administration produced more than 400 pages of scientific research to support its yearslong effort to write the rule. Pruitt initially tried to repeal it with an 11-page proposal insisting that he had the discretion to reverse course — even if the facts and circumstances haven’t changed. Last week, EPA appeared to acknowledge the shortcomings of that approach and issued a hefty set of additional paperwork that must go through its own 30-day comment period. EPA also sent its draft replacement rule to the White House for interagency review last month.
The replacement would vastly restrict the types of streams and wetlands that enjoy protection under the Clean Water Act. The repeal fight is expected to head eventually to the Supreme Court, where it recently received a major leg up thanks to the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy who cast the deciding vote in a turning-point 2006 decision on the issue.
Car rules
Wheeler faces an all-out war with blue states over EPA's expected proposal to freeze tough vehicle standards. California can set its own mileage rules, which other states can adopt, but the Trump administration reportedly may try to claw back that authority. Californians hope Pruitt’s departure will enable some kind of negotiated truce — but they may be looking in the wrong place. Sources say Heidi King, the deputy administrator for the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is in the driver's seat on fuel economy rules, and King sees lowering the requirements as a key part of Trump's deregulatory agenda. EPA and NHTSA have not yet released formal proposals.
Ethanol
Wheeler inherits the bad blood that erupted during the Pruitt era between EPA and the corn interests that are key to Trump's Midwestern electoral dominance.
Pruitt achieved one rare accomplishment: For two years in a row, he managed to put the annual rule setting biofuel mandates on schedule. But his expansion of "economic hardship waivers" for small refiners infuriated ethanol interests. Wheeler will have to use all his Hill experience to persuade Republican Iowa Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst that EPA can fix the problems Pruitt created — while simultaneously keeping oil refiners, who have gotten their way so far, happy enough that they or their allies like Sens. Ted Cruz or Pat Toomey don't march into the Oval Office and demand changes.
“The RFS is the law of the land. I fully support the program,” Wheeler said at his confirmation hearing last year.
Ozone pollution
Another major rollback in limbo is EPA’s 2015 rule creating more stringent smog, or ozone, standards, which the Obama administration had hailed as a major advance for public health.
States challenging the move had agreed to delay their lawsuit while EPA contemplated whether it could withdraw or alter the rule, but a court on Monday decided EPA had taken too long and restarted the case. Wheeler may decide to take up the gauntlet, or he could let the legal battles run their course.
Behind the scenes, EPA has granted air pollution exemptions to oil and gas producers, such as those operating in an area of Utah that aren’t meeting ozone standards meant to prevent asthma and other respiratory illnesses, POLITICO reported.
The lesser-known climate treaty
EPA will play a key role in one unlikely sounding debate: Whether the Trump administration will embrace an Obama-era treaty meant to reduce the use of a Earth-warming coolants called hydrofluorocarbons, found in refrigerators and air conditioning. Wheeler criticized the 2015 Paris climate deal, which Pruitt last year helped convince Trump to exit, but he does not appear to have weighed in on the HFC treaty Obama endorsed in 2016. The Trump administration has not said whether it will submit the HFC treaty for Senate ratification, a decision Wheeler may help shape.
The D.C. Circuit struck down EPA's previous attempt to write a rule to implement the treaty so it will be up to Wheeler and the agency's lawyers to decide if EPA can develop another implementing regulation under a different law — or should wait for Congress to pass new statute.
The treaty has significant support from U.S. coolant manufacturers who will produce the world's supply of next generation coolants, but conservative organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute oppose it as new red tape.
Reshaping EPA
Aside from the sweeping rollbacks Pruitt has pursued, he has also fundamentally restructured the way the agency works, barring EPA from considering science that doesn’t have publicly available data, installing conservative state and industry representatives on advisory boards and limiting the health benefits that the agency can count in considering regulations. Those changes, along with a sharp decrease in the agency’s workforce, leave an agency far less likely to issue standards to curb industry pollution, environmental advocates say. EPA enforcers are aiming to issue fewer penalties and instead work with companies to comply with rules, top officials have said. Wheeler will have broad authority over those changes.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/07/pruitt-leaves-behind-a-long-to-do-list-674038
-
Pruitt Resignation Leaves Unfinished Legacy On Cost, Science Overhauls
Jul 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Outgoing Administrator Scott Pruitt has launched several efforts that could fundamentally alter how EPA uses science and economics to justify its rules, though his resignation amid a swirl of ethics scandals leaves an incomplete legacy with no guarantees that his successor will finish such major overhauls.
Many Trump administration supporters say they expect Andrew Wheeler, the former aide to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and industry lobbyist who takes over as acting administrator July 9, to continue Pruitt's broad deregulatory agenda -- though there are some signals that he might not move as quickly or aggressively as Pruitt had been expected to.
“Yes, I think [Pruitt's departure] does endanger the president's agenda,” former Trump EPA transition chief Myron Ebell told NPR on July 5, before adding that President Donald Trump is “very determined to achieve his agenda” and that Wheeler is “fully on board.”
Also, one informed source expects that with Pruitt gone, “things will slow to a crawl, now that yet another Inhofe staffer has ascended to power. They talk a lot, but when you look at what they have actually accomplished . . . it is not very much.”
Beyond Pruitt's planned rollbacks of individual Obama-era rules -- which largely will continue, though some could be moderated -- the potentially most consequential of Pruitt's initiatives were steps to codify broad, agency-wide shifts that would make it tougher to justify new rules.
For instance, EPA is accepting comment through mid-August on a preliminary proposal to overhaul how it considers the costs and benefits of regulations. The agency has floated a wide range of issues, though some industry officials are urging the agency to finalize a rule requiring it to assess costs unless prohibited by statute.
Pruitt also launched a controversial proposed rule to require use of public research to justify EPA's regulations -- a plan that critics say could make it much more difficult to craft a range of air quality, toxics and climate policies.
Industry groups are welcoming the plan, arguing it would make it easier for them to access raw data underlying studies they have questioned and which the agency has, in at least one case, used to set conservative risk values that drove strict policies.
Nevertheless, even some supporters of the plan's broad goals, such as the Texas environment agency, are urging the agency to rewrite the measure and offer a more “thoughtful” proposal.
Further, the outgoing EPA chief instituted a new policy for the agency's influential Science Advisory Board (SAB) and other advisory panels, barring members from receiving an EPA grant.
Supporters of that move say it provides more balance to advisory panels, but critics claim it makes it easier to appoint pro-industry figures.
It is unclear whether Wheeler will continue that policy, or whether it would last beyond the Trump administration.
And even with the SAB membership changes, the board recently voted to review the science underlying a host of Trump EPA rule rollbacks, a step that some viewed as a “rebuke” of Pruitt's agenda.
SAB's advice is crucial given the fact that courts are much less willing to grant deference to agency technical determinations that diverge from its in-house scientific experts.
Significant Hurdles
The long-term outlook for EPA's leadership is muddy. Many observers expect Wheeler to remain as acting administrator until at least the midterms, given the crowded Senate calendar that includes a high-profile Supreme Court confirmation battle.
Experts also expect a permanent replacement for Pruitt to face a grueling confirmation process due to Republicans' slim 51-49 edge in the Senate and Democrats' harsh criticism of Pruitt's tenure.
A Democratic takeover of the upper chamber in November would further complicate the issue, though the administration could face an eased path if the GOP expands its majority.
As Pruitt's Senate-confirmed deputy, Wheeler could remain as acting administrator for nearly the remainder of Trump's four-year term, though he might face questions about his influence in that scenario because he has not been confirmed for the agency's top job.
Regardless of the leadership puzzle, Pruitt's cost-benefit and the science transparency plans both face significant hurdles before being finalized.
For example, the science transparency proposal seeks to bar the agency from using any science where underlying data and models are not publicly available in “significant” regulatory decisions.
The plan sparked fierce criticism from environmentalists and Democrats, who charge it would limit the agency's ability to use key studies that rely on confidential health data to justify air quality and other health-based standards.
A host of Democratic state officials who oppose the plan also urged the agency to withdraw it and convene a special National Academy of Sciences panel to review the proposal.
But even some of Pruitt's allies criticized it. For example, it drew an implicit rebuke from the SAB -- led by Michael Honeycutt, director of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) toxicology division whom Pruitt appointed to chair the panel -- which voted unanimously to review the rule after one of its workgroups blasted the apparent science underlying the rule as “dubious” and charged it would undercut rules' integrity.
Similarly, recent comments from TCEQ point to major problems with Pruitt's proposed science rule. The commission urged EPA to create a panel of experts to rewrite the proposal, and to also rely on SAB or a similar third party to issue any waivers from the rule's requirements -- rather than granting that authority to the administrator as the proposal would.
And EPA itself noted a host of complications in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on the cost-benefit overhaul, including a maze of overlapping statutory mandates. Critics also fault the ANPR's suggestion that EPA could limit consideration of so-called “co-benefits,” citing long-standing White House policy requiring agencies to factor in such benefits.
Before the ANPR was released, one former EPA official argued the cost-benefit changes would be a “huge undertaking” and a prime target for judicial scrutiny. “I would suggest they apply some cost-benefit analysis to their own endeavor. If you end up obtaining nothing, was it worth the cost that went into it?”
Court Scrutiny
Now that Wheeler is slated to take the reins of the agency, there are questions about whether he would place the same priority on either the science or cost rules, given expectations that he will take a slower, more methodological approach toward crafting agency policy.
And Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has long advocated for limiting the agency's authority, says that even if Wheeler advances Pruitt's agenda, it remains unclear whether some of the more controversial items will survive court scrutiny.
“I don’t think there is a big Pruitt legacy,” he told The Atlantic. “[Pruitt] started the process of trying to roll back what the Obama administration did. But they tried to do a lot of it in a quick-and-dirty way, and it’s not clear that works. Courts want to see that you’ve done the work.”
Adler said that much will depend on how Wheeler proceeds and whether he complies with extensive procedural requirements. “The question is whether or not Wheeler takes a more slow and deliberate pace,” he said. “That is the way you achieve lasting policy change, short of legislation.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-resignation-leaves-unfinished-legacy-cost-science-overhauls
-
(ACC Mentioned) Animal Allies Fear Money Woes May Slow EPA’s Toxics Testing Plan
Jul 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ayanna Alexander
EPA budget uncertainties are curbing the optimism of those urging the agency to move away from chemical tests on animals.
The agency’s June 22 multiyear strategy outlines three phases of reducing or replacing animal testing: identifying, developing, and integrating new methods for Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) decisions; building confidence that the new methods are scientifically reliable and relevant; and finalizing the new methods.
This strategy will require alternatives to animal tests, and it includes computational toxicology research—the use of computer-based models to analyze how organisms interact with different types of pollutants or chemicals.
Congress funded the EPA’s computational toxicology program at about $21.5 million for both 2017 and 2018 fiscal years, and it plans to keep that amount the same, according to House and Senate subcommittee panels.
Animal allies who back the agency’s strategy say they’re worried that if Congress’ budget proposals don’t give more money to the EPA than the president’s budget would, the testing plan would be hindered.
Organizations, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, say the potential lack of funding or proposed budget cuts will make this process significantly more difficult to implement, even if the EPA’s budget stays roughly flat.
Anticipating the challenge, some animal rights advocates—like the Humane Society—pushed for research funding from the government before the plan’s release.
“For several years, we have also lobbied to increase appropriations over and above the president’s budget for activity to advance the replacement of animals in risk assessments,” Humane Society Legislative Fund President Sara Amundson said. “We have actively supported actual budget increases, in addition to directional report language.”
On the other hand, chemical manufacturers, a federal alternative testing program director, and other animal rights supporters not only believe that the funds are available but also say they will support the strategy.
The Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to collect up to $25 billion in user fees—which can be used for new chemical reviews and testing methods on existing chemicals—once it finalizes its proposed fees rule under the 2016 TSCA amendments. Other federal agencies provide in-kind support for test validation.
Adequate Resources, StaffingSenate and House subcommittees recommended close to $8 billion for all EPA programs for fiscal year 2019, which is roughly $1.8 billion more than what the White House proposed. Final figures haven’t been enacted into law.
Resources for developing alternative tests come from various coffers, including the agency’s Office of Research and Development. The House subcommittee recommended nearly $114 million for chemical research in that office.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is concerned over the White House’s proposed budget cuts.
“The EPA’s budget will have an effect on whether the strategy—or any part of EPA’s mission—is successful, because EPA needs staff and funds to conduct its mission,” Kristie Sullivan, the organization’s vice president of research policy, told Bloomberg Environment. “In particular, EPA’s Office of Research and Development is responsible for many recent advances in technology, evaluation, and application of in vitro methods and computational modeling. Those won’t continue without adequate funding.
“EPA staff in offices responsible for regulating chemicals also need time to learn more about new methods for chemical assessment, and if they are chronically understaffed, they don’t have that time,” she said.
Christopher Berry, senior staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, shared that view.
“Under the statutory mandate, lack of agency resources could become a significant obstacle to EPA efficiently implementing its strategic plan to reduce animals in chemical testing,” Berry said. “That would translate to more animals suffering and dying in unnecessary chemical toxicity tests.”
Support AvailableDeparting Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the agency has the funding necessary for the strategy to work under the TSCA amendments, according to chemical trade group the American Chemistry Council.
“Administrator Pruitt has made clear that EPA will have the resources necessary to fully and effectively implement the amendments to TSCA as Congress intended including Section 4, which mandates EPA’s work on its New Approach Methodologies strategic plan,” ACC communications director Jon Corley told Bloomberg Environment. “The amended TSCA expanded EPA’s authority to collect fees to help defray the costs of administration of the law’s Sections 4, 5, and 6.”
The director of the federal National Toxicology Program’s nonanimal testing committee, Warren Casey, told Bloomberg Environment that the organization will continue to provide “staff to do validation project management, data curation and analysis, and computational model development.”
Chemical companies like BASF SE and Dow Chemical Co. provided feedback to the EPA on alternative nonanimal testing methods, prior to the plan’s release. BASF and Dow Chemical declined to comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/animal-allies-fear-money-woes-may-slow-epas-toxics-testing-plan
-
(ACC Mentioned) Formaldehyde Causes Cancer. The EPA Doesn’t Want to Acknowledge It.
Jul 6, 2018 | Vox
By Julia Belluz
Trump administration officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are reportedly suppressing a highly anticipated report that would warn Americans about the cancer risks that come with one of the most common chemicals in our environment.
The draft risk assessment, from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, is expected to show that ingesting formaldehyde — breathing it in through car and furniture emissions, or slathering it on our skin via cosmetics — can cause leukemia and nose and throat cancers. The report was completed last fall, and slated to move on to the National Academies of Science for external peer review.
But more than five months after Scott Pruitt, the former EPA chief who resignedThursday, told a Senate panel that he believed the report was ready, it still hasn’t seen the light of day.
Politico broke the story today that helps explain why: Top advisers to Pruitt have been dragging their feet in order to protect the chemical industry from damning revelations that would prompt stricter regulations and possibly class-action lawsuits by cancer patients.
In a statement, an EPA spokesperson told Vox, “EPA continues to discuss this assessment with our Agency program partners and have no further updates to provide at this time. Assessments of this type are often the result of needs for particular rulemakings and undergo an extensive intra-agency and interagency process.”
But according to Politico, and a May letter from US senators to Pruitt, internal documents about the report tell a different story.
Here’s the May letter from Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Tom Carper (D-DE):
“We have learned ... that multiple political appointees within EPA have expressed reluctance to move the assessment through the agency review process, have repeatedly set up briefings on the assessment only to later cancel them, and/or have insisted that IRIS first set up briefings for industry stakeholders before completing agency review. ...
We have also learned that, at the same time as EPA political appointees’ requests were delaying the formaldehyde assessment’s movement through the agency review process, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) as well as interested corporation such as ExxonMobil have been pressuring EPA not to release the assessment for public comment as drafted.
Politico’s Annie Snider, meanwhile, reports that a trade group representing chemical businesses frequently contacted top EPA officials and asked them to avoid releasing the report:
“As stated in our meeting, a premature release of a draft assessment … will cause irreparable harm to the companies represented by the Panel and to the many companies and jobs that depend on the broad use of the chemical,” Kimberly Wise White, who leads the American Chemistry Council’s Formaldehyde Panel, wrote in a Jan. 26 letter to top officials at the EPA. The panel represents companies including Exxon Mobil and the Koch Industries subsidiary Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC that could face higher costs from stricter regulations or lawsuits.
The story paints a pretty disturbing picture: Trump’s EPA seems to be keeping information from Americans about their exposure to a ubiquitous cancer-causing chemical — and staving off regulations that would protect them. And given that Trump’s appointee to oversee the EPA’s toxic chemical unit, Nancy Beck, used to be an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the industry trade association for American chemical companies, this might not come as no surprise.The dangers of formaldehyde have long been known
Formaldehyde is a colorless gas that’s used to make building materials like particleboard, plywood, and fiberboard — so it’s found in our houses and furniture. It’s present in car emissions, industrial fungicide and disinfectant, and many household products (including cleaners, medicines, soaps, and cosmetics), according to the National Cancer Institute. It’s also an ingredient in cigarettes, and some e-cigarette products.
Products that contain formaldehyde release the chemical as a gas or vapor, so people can breathe it in or absorb it through the skin when it’s in liquid form.
In the short term, when formaldehyde is in the air at levels more than 0.1 ppm, exposure can cause “watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation,” NCI says.
Long-term exposure is known to cause leukemia and nose and throat cancer. (Though it’s not known how much of the chemical is needed to become harmful and for how long a person would need to be exposed.) The National Toxicology Program says formaldehyde is “known to be a human carcinogen”; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it causes cancer; and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer calls the chemical “carcinogenic to humans.”
The EPA has lagged behind these other agencies on naming formaldehyde’s cancer risks outright, calling it instead a “probable” human carcinogen. Since the EPA regulates environmental exposures, this distinction about the chemical’s cancer risk matters for public health and the chemical industry: elevating formaldehyde to a known carcinogen would likely prompt class-action lawsuits from cancer patients, as well as tougher regulations.
What’s next for the risk assessment isn’t clear. Andrew Wheeler, EPA deputy administrator and a former coal lobbyist, will take the helm of the EPA as acting director on Monday. Wheeler is expected to continue carrying out the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda, including weakening chemical regulators. So the question of whether the report will see the light of day may be more a matter of “if” than “when.”
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/7/6/17540658/formaldehyde-cancer-epa-scott-pruitt
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Daily Mail
By Jessica Finn
The Environmental Protection Agency is sitting on a report that most Americans are inhaling enough formaldehyde vapor to risk developing leukemia or other diseases, according to a report.
A draft of the health assessment of the chemical used in everything from wood furniture to cleaning supplies and make-up was finished before Donald Trumpbecame president, and the EPA has of yet to release their findings.
'They're stonewalling every step of the way,' a current EPA official told Politico regarding the EPA's findings in the agency's scientifically independent Risk Information System.
'It's my understanding that the EPA has finalized its conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukemia and other cancers,' Senator Ed Markey told a now former EPA chief Scott Pruitt, who resigned amid a myriad of scandals Thursday.
The then EPA chief said, responding to Markey during the Senate hearing that occurred in January: 'You know, my understanding is similar to yours.'
Markey, along with other senators sent a letter to Pruitt in May stating they were disconcerted that 'political appointees' were not releasing the vital information to Americans because they believed the EPA was being pressured by corporations with links to people working for the federal agency.
Formaldehyde can be inhaled as a gas or vapor or it can be absorbed through the skin in liquid form, according to the National Cancer Institute.
The federal Center for Disease Control says that formaldehyde is 'known to cause cancer.'
Pruitt is currently facing multiple ethics investigations. Politico reports that keeping the assessment of the risks of formaldehyde vapor out of the public appears to shield the industries over the health of Americans.
Additionally, a release of the information could trigger a waterfall of lawsuits by people experiencing such health issues as is in the report.
American Chemistry Council's Formaldehyde Panel, an industry trade group that includes Exxon Mobil, has been lobbying the EPA to take their time releasing the critical information to the public.
'A premature release of a draft assessment… will cause irreparable harm to the companies represented by the Panel and to the many companies and jobs that depend on the broad use of the chemical,' said a letter obtained by Politico and written in January to EPA officials by panel representative Kimberly Wise White.
Pruitt appointed White to the EPA's Science Advisory Board despite the fact that she remains a senior director at the American Chemistry Council.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5932113/EPA-sitting-report-Americans-breathing-formaldehyde-cause-cancer.html
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Common Dreams
By Andrea Germanos
New reporting in Politico puts the spotlight on continued themes of the Trump administration: suppression of science, threats to public health, and carrying out the bidding of industry. The issue laid out involves alleged political interference at the Environmental Protection Agency, and while the agency's current administrator, scandal-riddled Scott Pruitt, is now on his way out the door, the reins now head to number two Andrew Wheeler, who offers little reason to believe the burying of a key report will soon end.
As Politico's Annie Snider reported, Trump appointees at the agency are blocking the release of an assessment on formaldehyde produced by the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). A draft assessment already completed confirms research linking the common chemical to leukemia, nose and throat cancer, and other adverse health effects.
"They're stonewalling every step of the way," an anonymous current official at EPA told Politico.
Because the political aides are suppressing the assessment, they're preventing it from moving on to required review by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS), an independent panel of top researchers—even though the EPA has already shelled out $500,000 to pay for that review. Why wouldn't it send off the assessment to NAS? "You don't want the answer," an anonymous former EPA official told Politico.
According to internal documents seen by the publication, a chemical industry group urged the EPA to bury the findings. In a Jan. 26 letter to top EPA officials, Kimberly Wise White, who leads the American Chemistry Council's Formaldehyde Panel, wrote, "As stated in our meeting, a premature release of a draft assessment … will cause irreparable harm to the companies represented by the panel and to the many companies and jobs that depend on the broad use of the chemical."
"The new assessment," as Snider reported, "would give greater weight to warnings about the chemical's risks and could lead to stricter regulations from the EPA or class-action lawsuits targeting its manufacturers, as frequently occurs after these types of studies are released."
EPA spokeswoman Kelsi Daniell brushed off the assertion that the assessment was being suppressed, telling Politico that the agency "continues to discuss this assessment with our agency program partners and have no further updates to provide at this time." But that runs counter to Pruitt's testimony in January before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, when he told Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that his understanding was that the report was ready for public review and did, in fact, link formaldehyde to leukemia and other cancers.
However, several months after that hearing Markey and other members of that committee—Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ranking Member Tom Carper (D-Del.)—sent a letter to Pruitt in May asking him to explain why the assessment had still not been released. They also pointed a finger at two of the same alleged culprits behind the suppression as named in the Politico reporting: EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson and Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Beck, as Politico reported, "criticized the IRIS program in her previous job as a top chemical industry expert."
In addition to those appointeses, the senators also say they believe the American Chemistry Council "as well as interested corporations such a Exxon Mobil have been pressuring EPA not to release the assessment for public comment as drafted."
As for Wheeler, Politico noted that he "was staff director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2004, when his boss, then-Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), sought to delay an earlier iteration of the formaldehyde assessment." As ProPublica previously reported, that stalling occurred "even though preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already linked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a more 'robust set of findings' from the institute." Those "robust findings," released 5 years later, however, merely backed up the earlier findings.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for her part, warned in a tweet Friday that Wheeler is "just as dirty" as Pruitt, and "is a former coal lobbyist who will work to poison the agency—and the environment he's supposed to protect— from the inside."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/06/insiders-admit-trumps-epa-burying-cancer-causing-chemical-study-unfriendly-industry
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Has Allegedly Withheld Report On Cancer-Causing Chemical
Jul 6, 2018 | Carbonated.TV
By Cierra Bailey
In addition to frivolously spending taxpayers’ money on multiple occasions and using his position to find his wife a job, outgoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt has allegedly been delaying the release of a cancer warning report.
According to The Hill, the report reveals that most Americans are exposed to enough formaldehyde in everyday life to increase their risks of getting various forms of cancer, including leukemia and nose and throat cancer.
Two people close to the issue — current and former EPA officials, respectively — told Politico that Pruitt put political appointees in place who are blocking the report’s release “every step of the way” because of fears that its release would have a negative consequence for businesses that use the chemical.
“EPA continues to discuss this assessment with our agency program partners and have no further updates to provide at this time," EPA spokeswoman Kelsi Daniell told Politico. “Assessments of this type are often the result of needs for particular rulemakings and undergo an extensive intra-agency and interagency process.”
Apparently, the appointees are withholding the report from the National Academy of Science, which is an independent panel of leading scientists who have already been paid $500,000 to review the report.
“If the administration was really keen on protecting public health, why wouldn’t they send this to the National Academy and give it a really good review?” a former EPA official asked Politico, adding that there was only one viable reason to avoid submitting the report to the panel: “You don’t want the answer.”
Back in January, Pruitt told a Senate panel that the report was finished, yet since then no public action has been taken on the review within the last five months, Politico notes.
The publication also obtained internal documents that indicate the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has been lobbying for the EPA to not release the report “prematurely.”
“As stated in our meeting, a premature release of a draft assessment … will cause irreparable harm to the companies represented by the Panel and to the many companies and jobs that depend on the broad use of the chemical,” wrote Kimberly Wise White of the ACC.
Democrats are pushing back against the EPA’s lack of transparency and challenging the agency to “move past politics.”
“Because formaldehyde can be found in everything from wood products to women’s hair straighteners, the public health risks are substantial,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) said in a statement. “Delaying the EPA’s latest assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde only further endangers the health of Americans.”
With Pruitt stepping down now, he is likely to leave this issue for his successor to resolve. And, hopefully, his replacement cares enough about Americans’ health and safety to move this report forward along with any other pressing findings the public deserves to know. But that may be wishful thinking.
https://www.carbonated.tv/news/epa-has-allegedly-withheld-report-on-cancercausing-chemical
-
US Industry Groups Slam Hawaii Sunscreen Ingredient Ban
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US industry and consumer trade associations have criticised Hawaii's banning of two sunscreen ingredients. The action will, they say, endanger human health by potentially increasing skin cancer risk.
Hawaii became the first US state to ban the sale of sunscreen containing oxybenzone and octinoxate last week.
The bill (SB2751) was motivated by the "significant harmful impacts" the substances have on Hawaii's marine environments, including coral reefs.'Mistaken beliefs'
But US trade group the Personal Care Products Council issued a statement condemning the ban as being based on mistaken beliefs.
"The policy decision … is based on inadequate scientific studies that do not meet the required quality controls used by regulatory bodies worldwide in making legislative and public health decisions," PCPC's chief scientist Alex Kowcz said.
"Credible environmental experts acknowledge that climate change, overfishing and sewage run-off cause harm to coral – not sunscreens."
She said the changes "may yield little to no environmental benefit to Hawaii, while at the same time restricting consumer choice, reducing access to cancer-protecting sunscreens, and likely increasing exposure to the devastation of skin cancer."
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), which represents manufacturers and marketers of over-the-counter medicines, said "the health, safety and welfare of millions of Hawaii residents and tourists has been severely compromised" by the signing of the bill.
In a statement issued to press it says the bill is "based on weak and limited evidence" and would "drastically and unnecessarily reduce the selection of safe and effective sunscreen products available to residents and visitors".'Huge favour for health'
But the NGO Breast Cancer Prevention Partners said the ban will have a positive impact on public health, as well as the environment.
BCPP's director of programme and policy, Janet Nudelman told Chemical Watch, the ban has done "both marine life and human health a huge favour".
"Critics of the ban are falsely claiming that Hawaii is endangering human health by prohibiting the sale of sunscreens in Hawaii that contain these two extremely toxic chemicals while ignoring the existing and growing market of safer sunscreen alternatives that don't threaten fragile marine ecosystems or human health," she said.
Oxybenzone has been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption and organ system toxicity. Octinoxate is also linked to endocrine disruption as well as reproductive and developmental harm.
The NGO Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently launched a campaign for oxybenzone to be phased out of sunscreen in the US by 2020. The organisation argues it is linked to allergic reactions, endocrine disruption and damage to coral reefs.
Nneka Leiba, director of EWG’s Healthy Living Science programme called the ban "a perfect example of the power of the consumer."
"This move by Hawaii will hopefully be the push needed for the Food and Drug Administration to review and approve new active ingredients for sunscreens that are safe and effective," she said.
The FDA is consulting on draft guidance for studies evaluating the skin absorption of active ingredients in sunscreen and other over the counter products.
It has not approved a new active sunscreen ingredient since the 1990s, and has a backlog of eight substance applications dating from 2002.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68347/us-industry-groups-slam-hawaii-sunscreen-ingredient-ban
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Canada’s Liberal government has promised to update the country’s Chemicals Management Plan and overhaul the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa) "as soon as possible in a future parliament". The move came in response to 87 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last summer, including prohibiting ‘substances that are of very high concern’ unless they can be used safely and there are no substitutes. All this will require a Liberal Party victory in the next election, due by 21 October 2019. (3 July 2018)
Echa and Eurometaux, the European non-ferrous metals association, have agreed on a framework to identify shortcomings in REACH and CLP information for metal compounds and inorganic substances by the end of 2020. The Metals and Inorganics Sectoral Approach (MISA) will also address outstanding technical and scientific issues. Its action plan seeks to improve the quality of sectoral registration dossiers, some of which have data gasps or have not been updated. (29 June 2018)
Two OECD committees – the chemicals committee joint meeting and the environmental policy committee’s working party on integrating economic and environmental policy – are to collaborate to coordinate international efforts to monetise the costs and benefits of chemicals regulation. This will build on two previous meetings under the ‘Sacame’ project and has two parts, focusing on economic valuations and sharing risk management information between countries. Project leaders hope to secure funding by 2019. (28 June 2018)
The US EPA has published its policy for assigning ‘unique identifiers’ (UIDs) to substances whose identities are protected as confidential business information (CBI) under the revised TSCA. The chosen option, supported by five industry groups, involves a single UID being assigned to each protected substance and applied to both confidential and non-confidential information; it can be left out if using it would allow the public to work out a substance’s identity. Consulting on guidance about how to generate suitable generic names will run until 27 August. (27 June 2018)
An Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) working group report on regulatory convergence has found an increasing number of barriers tangibly impacting chemical trade in the region. They include: inconsistent coordination between customs and chemical regulatory agencies; inconsistent assessment requirements; and unique specific requirements for chemical imports. The group’s draft action plan suggested ways forward, including best practice principles for imports, capacity building and surveying officials on chemical import training. (27 June 2018)
As part of its conclusions for delivering on the EU action plan for the circular economy, the Council of Ministers has called on the European Commission and Echa to implement measures ensuring that by 2030 substances of concern in materials, including imported articles, can be traced through the entire supply chain. It also stressed the need for harmonised tools to track substances and to ensure a more consistent approach between chemicals and waste classification rules, and a level playing field between EU and non-EU produced articles. (26 June 2018)
US retail giant Walmart is assessing whether blockchain, a digital record keeping system for the creation and maintenance of a growing number of records, can be used to trace chemicals across some of its products and packaging. A company spokesperson said that "the beauty of blockchain is that it lets us shine a light on a range of data attributes". Using it, companies can precisely pinpoint ingredients and suppliers, with dates, times, locations, temperatures, certificates and more. (21 June 2018)
A Greenpeace study, based on an expedition to the Antarctic earlier this year, has revealed the presence of microplastics and per- and polyfluorinated alkylated substances (PFASs) in most of the seawater and snow samples it examined. The most likely sources of microplastic fibres are fishing nets and polyester from textiles, according to Microplastics and persistent fluorinated chemicals in the Antarctic. Perfluorinated octanoic acid (PFOA) was found in "significant concentrations" in five out of nine snow samples, the report added. (21 June 2018)
US paint producer Sherwin-Williams has followed the lead of home improvement retailer Lowe’s in pledging to stop selling paint removal products containing methylene chloride by the end of the year. This came after two NGOs called on the company to halt the sale of the products; Sherwin-Williams does not sell products containing N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), which has also come under pressure from consumer advocacy groups. The EPA has prepared a rule banning both, but this has stalled for several months. (19 June 2018)
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) has urged Brexit negotiators to secure a bilateral agreement that allows continued UK participation in the implementation of regulations administered by Echa. This, it said, is "the most effective way" to ensure companies can continue to efficiently trade across borders without disruption, given that UK is already "fully in" the REACH system, while establishing a separate UK agency would be a long, costly process. (15 June 2018)
The Proactive Alliance, a group of industry representatives that emerged at Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit in March, has held its first technical meeting. The alliance aims to develop means of collecting and sharing material data for articles, including their chemical compositions, possibly by using existing standards as the basis of a global cross-sectoral standard for exchanging data on individual articles. They agreed, among other things, that the initial focus will be on substances in articles, as defined under REACH. (14 June 2018)
https://chemicalwatch.com/68421/in-the-news
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
I almost feel like apologising for leading on Brexit yet again, but it is a critical issue for the chemicals industry and those it serves. And, less than nine months away from the scheduled exit day, almost nothing has been decided.
Brexit features twice in this issue: Alice Rolandini Jensen looks at why it matters outside the UK too (pages 1-3), while Elaine Burridge follows up from our recent conference by interviewing some UK chemical-using SMEs about the impact it has already had, particularly on their supply chains (pages 20-21).
What clearly emerges is that even a ‘soft’ Brexit will impact everyone. Industries and their supply chains are so deeply intertwined across increasingly invisible borders that upheaval is inevitable, whatever form Brexit finally takes. The Leave campaign was founded on the slogan ‘Take back control’ and the concept of a nation’s freedom to make its own laws. There was very little thought about the economic benefits of regulatory alignment.
The word that kept cropping up in the interviews Alice and Elaine conducted was ‘uncertainty’. Business people, bar a few mavericks, generally dislike uncertainty, because it makes it difficult for them to plan ahead. Even the mooted transition period to the end of 2020 gives them very little time to adjust.
Very few companies carry the kind of people capacity to deal with burdens like a massive, unplanned adjustment in regulation of unknown scope and viability. And while everyone and everything remains uncertain, the knock-on effects can be totally unpredictable.
REACH originally brought a good deal of uncertainty because of the unknown costs involved. Many disliked it for that reason but now, ten years down the line, many of the same people appreciate the regulatory unity it has brought. There is a grim irony in the possibility of this clarity being whipped away, now that its benefits are being realised.
The impacts of Brexit on the supply chain for UK chemical-consuming companies have apparently been quite limited so far. The main effects companies mentioned to our reporters have been price rises, caused in large part by currency fluctuations. To what degree these were caused by the Brexit vote is unclear. However,
all are concerned about what may be around the corner as the clock continues to tick. And the question remains: when will industry get the information it needs to make the decisions it has to make?
https://chemicalwatch.com/68420/still-in-the-dark
-
Brexit: An Uncertain Future for Europe and Beyond
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Alice Rolandini Jensen
Despite there being less than nine months until Britain exits the EU, there is still little certainty about what the final deal will involve or even what the UK government wants to achieve. Stakeholders in the chemicals industry in the UK, the EU27 and beyond are greatly affected by this.
The UK chemicals industry is deeply intertwined with that of the EU. Its disentanglement will cause great upheaval, with knock-on effects being felt globally. In addition, there are likely to be immediate effects on REACH and widespread disruption to business. In the longer term, there are also concerns over the UK’s future legislation and regulatory pathways. Changes to these will affect the global chemicals industry and could have safety and environmental impacts.
Uncertainty across the EU
The consequences of a ‘hard’ (or no-deal) Brexit are very different to those of a ‘soft’ Brexit, where the UK remains in regulatory alignment with the EU and in the single market and customs union. The uncertainty makes it difficult for anyone to plan ahead. When the decision is finally made, the timeline to adhere to is also very tight. Even if the proposed transition period to the end of 2020 goes ahead, there will not be much time to adjust to changes, making disruption inevitable.
"At the moment, all scenarios are still possible, so it is difficult to predict what will happen," says Michael Warhurst, executive director of ChemTrust, an NGO focusing on protecting health and wildlife from chemicals. "Considering the extremes, on one side we could see a no-deal and a situation where all EU chemical legislation registrations from UK suppliers ceases to exist; on the other, Brexit could collapse and nothing will change."
Steve Elliot, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association (CIA), is quick to note: "Since Brexit was first announced, there has been a collective position from the UK and EU27 chemicals industries. Both sides want Brexit negotiations to result in minimal disruption across the continent."‘‘ Since Brexit was first announced, there has been a collective position from the UK and EU27 chemicals industries. Both sides want Brexit negotiations to result in minimal disruption across the continent ‘‘ Steve Elliott, CIA
Despite this, in the event of hard Brexit, some disruption is inevitable. The UK is a key participant in REACH and a key voice in Echa. In leaving the EU, the single market and the customs union, the UK will probably have to forego future involvement in these arenas. This will create uncertainties about REACH registrations in the UK and leave big gaps in Echa’s infrastructure.
"Ideally, we want to maintain UK involvement in both REACH and Echa after Brexit," says Erwin Annys, director of REACH and chemicals policy at the European Chemicals Industry Council (Cefic). "However, we are also preparing a Plan B that considers how registrations can be transferred out of the UK and a reshuffling of Echa to replace current UK responsibilities."
Uncertainty in industry
Industry across the EU is also in the dark about what might happen post-Brexit. This is reflected in recent announcements by Airbus and BMW, who are both considering pulling out of the UK entirely in the event of a no-deal Brexit. These giants are downstream users and will remain affected by Brexit if the UK’s chemicals supply lines are disrupted, even if they do move major operations elsewhere.
"Uncertainty is limiting the ability of firms to analyse risks and plan ahead. Nevertheless, we believe it is critical that both large companies and SMEs have their contingency plans ready, especially in the chemicals sector," says Neil Hollis, BASF UK’s REACH coordinator. "BASF is preparing its own contingency plans and talking to organisations up and down the supply chain, to help them with their own preparations."
He adds: "Highly regulated industries with pan-European supply chains, like automotive and aerospace, have been the most engaged in Brexit planning. We were particularly impressed by the communications from BMW with both ourselves and other supply chain companies."
Best-case scenario
The extremely interconnected nature of the European chemicals industry means that Brexit will cause disruption, unless a suitable agreement is made surrounding the customs union and single market.
"The interdependence between the UK and EU27 nations is demonstrated by the fact that 60% of UK chemical exports are destined for EU, and 75% of chemical imports to the UK are from the EU," Mr Elliot notes. "To minimise disruption, we need to see a pragmatic approach being adopted by both sides."
In the light of this, the CIA has outlined three key priorities that need to be secured to ensure the success of a future trading relationship between the UK and the EU 27: the creation of frictionless tariff-free trade;regulatory consistency; and access to skilled people on both sides.
Cefic supports these aspects of the future relationship, as stated in its recent position paperregarding chemicals regulatory cooperation after Brexit. A ‘soft’ Brexit, where the UK remains in the single market, may mean that the UK can stay in both Echa and REACH. This scenario is the best case in terms of minimising disruption on both sides of the Channel.
However, notes Mr Warhurst: "To be a part of REACH and Echa, the UK would have to abide by the rules of both. It could be in a position similar to that of Norway, where it has a voice but no vote."
In her Mansion House speech in March, UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that she hopes the UK can remain part of EU agencies, including Echa, as an associate member. Mr Warhurst says: "Associate membership does not currently exist so there is uncertainty as to what this could mean. The EU27 may take the view that this is only a possibility To be a part of REACH, there would have to have a free flow of goods between the UK and EU, which could only realistically be achieved if the UK remains in the single market. Our view is that there are clear benefits to the EU27 of being more flexible on this, as long as the UK follows relevant rules."
Should associate membership not be an option, Mr Elliot says, "there is no value for the UK or the EU if UK regulations become misaligned with REACH. From a chemical standards and market access point of view, the EU will benefit from the UK adopting a similar, or perhaps better, approach to that of REACH."
Supply-line hardship
If the UK decides to opt for hard Brexit, the status of UK REACH registrations will be a concern that could cause supply chain disruptions across the EU. "We don’t know what status these chemicals will have after Brexit," Mr Annys says. "They may need to be re-registered or arrangements made to transfer UK registrations to the EU."
In addition, Mr Elliott notes, substances sourced from the UK will become imports to the EU, with the associated costs and delays. "EU importers and downstream users may need to ensure that their UK based suppliers appoint an only representative or the EU importer may be obliged to register. Businesses will also need to consider implications of future UK legislation when placing substances on the market," he says.
Mr Hollis explains why industry is especially concerned about this. "BASF estimates the impact of a no deal Brexit as being around £40-50m/year, principally in tariff and customs charges. Such a scenario would also jeopardise our investments to comply with REACH," he says. "If we were obliged to re-register substances, in the EU or UK, it is anticipated that BASF will face up to €20m additional costs. Our industry being globally competitive, an unknowable level of indirect costs may also be passed through supply chains across EU manufacturing."
"Chemicals are at the root of nearly all other manufacturing supply chains," adds Mr Hollis. "In cases where UK producers and importers are unprepared, Brexit would disrupt established chemical supply chains and affect downstream user industries, such as aerospace, automotive and pharmaceuticals. The costs of this disruption would be substantial and unpredictable."
There may be some EU-based companies that pick up where the UK loses out. "The Dutch government is offering consultancy to companies who want to substitute for UK suppliers, while it makes sense for EU27 companies to de-risk their supply chains and remove UK based links where possible," says Mr Warhurst. "Some UK companies are also moving to Ireland to keep business within the EU." This ‘de-risking’ in certain sectors may boost the market share of EU27-based companies at the expense of UK-based ones.
Those from the chemicals industry are less optimistic, however. "There are no positive outcomes here," Mr Annys says. "In a global industry, additional barriers only create problems."
Mr Elliot adds: "With supply chain disruptions, EU-based businesses could lose out to US and Chinese companies."
Hard Brexit could damage the EU
It is not only supply chains and businesses that will be disrupted. Hard Brexit is likely to disrupt chemicals regulation and could put the environment and public health at risk. "Losing the UK contribution to Echa is a concern. The UK adds value and contributes a lot to ensure the agency delivers. Their responsibilities will now have to be taken up by EU27 nations and similar standards upheld," Mr Annys says.
"Continued involvement of the UK in Echa is not only in the interest of the chemical industry and downstream user industries on both sides of the Channel, but also in the interest of the public at large," Mr Hollis agrees. "Losing UK expertise would only weaken the significant progress made in the evaluation and regulation of chemicals."
In the future, if the UK were to pursue a regulatory strategy divergent to that of the EU, problems may be encountered.
A deregulated model that would enable easy trade deals with the US and India could lead to a drop in standards. "With an unhealthy post-Brexit economy, the UK could opt to pursue poorer quality processes with fewer precautions. This could cause transboundary pollution and environmental damage that puts the EU at risk," says Mr Warhurst.
Post-Brexit outlook
The CIA counters that such a scenario will not occur and that future UK regulations will meet or exceed current EU standards. However, in this time of uncertainty, all stress that nothing can be taken for granted until the final Brexit withdrawal agreement is signed.
Until then, the entire chemicals industry remains on tenterhooks, waiting for further Brexit announcements. It is expected that a more concrete outlook will be outlined in the October EU summit and more will be clarified about a formal commitment to the transition period.
For now, things will continue, almost, as normal. Associations across the EU are issuing guidance on how industry can respond to different Brexit outcomes, and UK, EU and multinational businesses are working on contingency plans to fit all scenarios.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68418/brexit-an-uncertain-future-for-europe-and-beyond
-
Wheeler's Not the Big Oil Guy Some Imagine
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
As much as new EPA chief Andrew Wheeler is associated with the fossil fuel industry, there's one aspect of it where he has little private-sector experience: oil and gas.
He lobbied for one of the country's most controversial and politically active coal companies, Murray Energy Corp., and represented the Nuclear Energy Institute. But lobbying records don't indicate any work on behalf of oil majors, independents or midstream companies. His former firm, Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, doesn't have extensive lobbying clients in that realm, either.
He certainly has familiarity with energy issues broadly and likely experience with oil and gas. Before becoming a lobbyist, he worked for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the most vocal advocates of the oil and gas industry in Congress, if not the most. And he has lobbied on ethanol matters.
That provides some contrast to predecessor Scott Pruitt, who came to the job with a well-established relationship with major independent oil companies in his home state of Oklahoma.
As Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt famously signed off on a letter to EPA written primarily by Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp. In suing the Fish and Wildlife Service, he joined with an oil and gas group co-founded by Continental Resources Inc. CEO Harold Hamm, who led his re-election campaign.
Pruitt spent time at EPA maintaining and building that relationship. He attended the American Petroleum Institute's board of directors dinner at the Trump International Hotel and addressed the oil company board of directors meetings.
But the scarcity of Wheeler's oil and gas connections is no concern for the industry, said Jason Hutt, head of Bracewell LLP's environmental and natural resources practice. For starters, he said, EPA doesn't deal with oil and gas nearly as much as it does other sectors of the energy world.
"His home state doesn't put oil and gas in his DNA like Pruitt's does," Hutt said of Wheeler, who grew up in Ohio. "But I don't know that it changes all that much. Andy knows the issues."
North Dakota Petroleum Council President Ron Ness expects things to keep going in the same direction — the right one, from his perspective.
Trump administration officials at EPA do have several oil and gas priorities they're working on, starting with undoing Obama-era standards for methane emissions from new oil and gas sites. Those standards are still in place after a federal court rejected efforts to stall them.
The agency is studying whether federal regulations should be changed to allow more uses of oil and gas production wastewater. Enforcement chief Susan Bodine is shepherding a program to let oil and gas producers self-report air pollution violations.
Administration officials at the agency have also proposed withdrawing "control techniques guidelines" for production sites the Obama administration adopted in 2016 to control volatile organic compound emissions.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/09/stories/1060088251
-
Appeals Court Overturns Bayou Bridge Construction Freeze
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal appeals court Friday overturned a lower court's landmark construction freeze on the Bayou Bridge pipeline.
In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district judge got it wrong when she halted work on part of the 162-mile Energy Transfer Partners LP project.
Once complete, Bayou Bridge will connect Louisiana ports and refineries to a broader network of oil infrastructure that includes the Dakota Access pipeline.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in February took the rare step of issuing a preliminary injunction on part of the pipeline that runs through the Atchafalaya Basin, a sensitive wetlands area.
It found that the Army Corps of Engineers had not planned adequate mitigation measures to offset the wetlands damage and hadn't weighed cumulative impacts to the area (Energywire, Feb. 26).
The 5th Circuit temporarily lifted the injunction in March. Friday's decision wipes it away for good. The panel ruled that the district court had made several errors in its analysis.
First, the opinion says, the lower court improperly analyzed the Army Corps' 2017 "finding of no significant impact" for Bayou Bridge as though the finding relied on the eventual mitigation efforts.
"The court's misplaced view that the Corps issued a 'mitigated FONSI' is an error of law that steered it in the wrong direction," Chief Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee, wrote for the majority. "Perhaps the Corps' discussion might have been improved with the addition of certain details, but the Corps' path could 'reasonably be discerned' from the [environmental assessments] and other publicly available documents and should have been upheld."
The appeals court also upheld the Army Corps' decision to use offsite mitigation credits — restoration of a different type of wetland 55 miles away — to offset impacts to the Atchafalaya Basin.
The Atchafalaya Basinkeeper and other environmental groups and crawfishermen who sued over the agency's approval of the pipeline had argued that offsite mitigation was inappropriate for the project because the basin's cypress swamps provide unique ecosystem benefits (Energywire, April 30).
The 5th Circuit found that the district court had overlooked the Army Corps' established methodology for analyzing and authorizing such mitigation.
Judge James Graves Jr., an Obama appointee, joined the opinion. Senior Judge Thomas Reavley, a Carter appointee, issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the Army Corps never justified its decision to approve offsite mitigation.
"The administrative record must demonstrate how that decision was made, such that we uphold the decision not for its correctness but for its rational support," he wrote. "The district judge carefully studied the justification here and saw that gaps exist without more than conclusions. Now, the circuit court skips over those gaps."Reaction from ETP, environmentalists
Backers of the Bayou Bridge pipeline celebrated Friday's news.
"We are pleased with the decision and remain focused on safely completing construction," spokeswoman Alexis Daniel said. "We remain committed to restoring the areas across our right of way to preconstruction conditions or better."
Pipeline opponents, meanwhile, were distraught by the 5th Circuit's move but pledged to keep fighting.
"We are disappointed in the decision but the fight to protect the Atchafalaya from risky and harmful crude oil pipelines will continue," Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who is representing the groups, said in a statement. "It is time for the oil industry to stop treating this special place — and the many people who rely on it for their livelihoods — as a national sacrifice area."
The broader underlying case will now continue in the lower court. If the environmental groups win, they'll ask the court to shut down the pipeline, which could be complete as soon as October.
"There is a major legal cloud over this project, and additional construction before the lawsuit is completed is a risky gamble for this company," Gulf Restoration Network Executive Director Cyn Sarthou said in a statement. "This injunction fight is just the first round of this fight, and we're just getting started."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/09/stories/1060088511
-
Hearing to Examine Transmission, Pipeline Systems
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
Senators will examine interstate energy delivery infrastructure this week at a time when both natural gas and electricity systems are the subjects of heated debate.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will look at policy issues around pipelines and transmission lines, and whether current investment levels can keep pace with energy demand, said a hearing notice.
The panel will also examine the actions of regulators at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees both interstate pipelines and transmission and has been under a spotlight in recent months.
On pipelines, FERC has made several decisions split along party lines where the Republican majority has voted to limit the agency's consideration of greenhouse gas emissions during its reviews of natural gas projects.
Pipeline infrastructure also plays into the Trump administration's plans to subsidize coal and nuclear plants. Part of the justification for a proposal under consideration at the Department of Energy is an argument that natural gas — which is responsible for an increasing share of power generation — is especially vulnerable to cyber and physical attacks.
Grid experts have generally disputed that claim, with some saying that the other topic of this week's hearing, transmission infrastructure, could make a huge contribution to grid reliability and resilience if it is expanded and upgraded.
"I fear [FERC and DOE] are too distracted by misguided proposals to provide life extensions to old power plants. We're all wasting our time comparing different dictionary definitions of reliability and resilience when we should be updating policies for transmission," said Rob Gramlich of Grid Strategies LLC at a May hearing in the House.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/09/stories/1060088493
-
TGP Could More Than Double Mexico Natural Gas Exports with FERC OK
Jul 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
Federal regulators on Thursday gave the green light to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. LLC (TGP) to substantially increase its natural gas export capacity from Texas to Mexico.
In one of two orders amending TGP’s presidential permit, FERC approved an increase in export capacity allowing the company to boost capacity of its cross-border pipeline by up to 468 MMcf/d from 185 MMcf/d. The 24-inch diameter pipeline extends from an existing system in Hidalgo County, TX, to the international boundary near Reynosa, MX, where it connects with facilities owned by Mexico’s state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos, aka Pemex.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Deputy Secretary Nathaniel Davis said the facilities would continue to promote international energy trade and further the goals of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
“Increasing Tennessee’s import and export capacity promotes national economic policy and stimulates the flow of goods and services between the United States and Mexico,” Davis said.
In a separate order, FERC also approved TGP’s request to increase export capacity to 420 MMcf/d from 320 MMcf/d at the Rio Bravo border crossing facilities that interconnect with Gasoducto Del Rio facilities. The Rio Bravo border crossing facility consists of 1,000 feet of 30-inch diameter pipeline that extends from TGP’s existing Rio Bravo Lateral in Hidalgo County to the international boundary at the midpoint of the Rio Grande River, where it connects with facilities owned by Gasoducto.
Because of “increased customer interest in moving natural gas across the border to Mexico,” TGP requested to amend its existing Natural Gas Act section 3 authorizations and presidential permits to reflect the system’s maximum capacity at these two points. “It is important to note that TGP is not proposing any new construction or modifications to its previously-approved facilities,” KMI spokeswoman Sara Hughes told NGI.
TGP was given 30 days from the day the orders were issued to accept the amended permits.
Parent company Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI) has made no secret of its desire to send more gas to Mexico. Speaking in June at the 4th Mexico Gas Summit in San Antonio, TX, KMI Vice President Gregory Ruben, who oversees business development, said some of the company’s future growth is based on projections for the Permian Basin, where oil is surging and thus producing more associated gas. The basin’s proximity to Mexico provides “connectivity opportunities. We’re continuing to look for opportunities to expand our footprint into the marketplace.”
Mexico’s energy reform has opened the door to opportunities, and the company now is looking for the “best connection at this point in time,” Ruben said.
Pipeline shipments to Mexico from the United States grew 12.5% to 4.35 Bcf/d in April, versus 3.87 Bcf/d in the year-ago month, according to the latest Energy Ministry (Sener) data. KMI owns the second largest import point in Mexico, the Mier-Monterrey pipeline in Nuevo Leon, near the state capital Monterrey. The pipeline delivered 470 MMcf/d in April, down 9.4% year/year.
KMI’s Border Pipeline, meanwhile, has been planning a 150 MMcf/d expansion that was due in-service at the beginning of this month, and which would boost its total capacity to 450 MMcf/d. The Texas-based company also is pondering more gas takeaway from the Permian to supply Mexico.
KMI in June said it signed a letter of intent with Blackstone Energy Partners’ EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and Apache Corp. for the proposed Permian Highway Pipeline Project (PHP), a 42-inch diameter system that would run about 430 miles from the Permian to markets along the Texas coast and potentially into Mexico.
The estimated $2 billion system would move gas from the Waha hub in West Texas. The potential partners also are pondering an even larger system. PHP could be in service in late 2020, subject to executing definitive agreements and receiving construction permits.
PHP would complement KMI’s 2 Bcf/d Gulf Coast Express (GCX) Pipeline Project now underway. GCX is the first greenfield pipeline project to carry gas supplies from the basin since the advent of unconventional development. Apache has 500 MMcf/d of transport capacity via GCX to transport its Permian gas, which has been increasing in the Alpine High of the Delaware sub-basin.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114976-tgp-could-more-than-double-mexico-natural-gas-exports-with-ferc-ok
-
Former Metra Chairman Martin Oberman named to U.S. Railroad Board
Jul 6, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Mary Wisniewski
Former Metra Chairman and Chicago Ald. Martin Oberman has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, a bipartisan agency that oversees railroads.
The White House said on Thursday that Oberman, a Democrat, is named for the remainder of a five-year term expiring Dec. 31, 2023. Oberman is a lawyer in Chicago and also serves on the board of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.
Oberman, 73, has been credited with helping to repair Metra’s reputation after years of scandal at the commuter railroad.
Known as a progressive who supported Mayor Harold Washington during the 1980s Council Wars, Oberman was elected Metra board chairman in 2014 to fill out the term of Brad O’Halloran, who had resigned under heavy criticism. Oberman was replaced as chairman this past fall by Lake County railroad consultant Norman Carlson.
The Rail Customer Coalition, an association of trade groups representing freight rail users, supports Oberman’s nomination. The Surface Transportation Board, which oversees railroad rates, mergers and construction, has been operating with only two members instead of its full five, which has hampered operations, said Scott Jensen, spokesman for the coalition.
“It hasn’t been able to do much and there have been a lot of rail issues out there, including service disruptions,” Jensen said. “We’re looking for board members with experience and knowledge of rail issues, but not people from the rail industry itself. Mr. Oberman fits that bill.”
The Senate transportation committee approved the nomination of two additional board members, Patrick Fuchs and Michelle Schultz, both Republicans, this past spring. The committee also must approve Oberman’s nomination, and all three must be approved by the full Senate.
If all three are confirmed, they will join Republican Ann Begeman and Democrat Deb Miller on the board.
Rep. Dan Lipinski, a Western Springs Democrat and Illinois’ most senior member on the House transportation committee, said he looks forward to working with Oberman to alleviate rail congestion and improve commuter rail and Amtrak service.
“I urge the Senate to confirm him as soon as possible,” Lipinski said in a statement.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-biz-oberman-railroad-board-getting-around-20180706-story.html
-
Oil Train and Refinery Safety: Don't Roll the Dice That We'll Avoid Disasters
Jul 6, 2018 | Minneapolis Star Tribune
By Fred Millar
On July 6, North Americans commemorated the fifth anniversary of the tragic 2013 nighttime crude oil train disaster that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic Quebec. Minnesotans, like Quebecois, have the geographic bad luck to live in “corridor communities” at high risk — on the route between the vast oil and gas production regions in the northwestern U.S. and the Canadian tar sands region and the destination refineries and export facilities in the American Midwest and on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.
Oil train traffic is resurging, increasingly to the East Coast. Industry leader BNSF railroad reported nearly 40,000 crude oil carloads in early 2018.
Rail disaster risks, accordingly, are rising. Concerned Minnesota legislators in 2015 enacted what provisions they could, under heavy-handed pre-emptive federal laws on rail safety, to beef up local emergency response capabilities. But the fire service knows full well that no community can be “prepared” for a serious crude oil train disaster.
Even Lac-Mégantic and dozens of subsequent U.S. and Canadian crude oil train fireball events brought only marginally safer national railcar design regulations. Predictably, 14 of the newest DOT-117R design cars leaked 230,000 gallons in the recent Doon, Iowa, derailment.
Persistent oil and rail industry lobbyists in 2016 weakened federal regulations so they did not even attempt to impact the most significant disaster risk factors: the volatility of the cargo, the routing of the trains through major cities and the astonishing, still-growing lengths of what the federal regulators call the High Hazard Flammable Trains (crude oil and ethanol).
Other kinds of petrochemical disaster risks loom, as well. As the Star Tribune has reported thoroughly, in both the Twin Cities and the Twin Ports of Duluth/Superior, the two oil refineries have stubbornly continued to operate old, highly dangerous and unnecessary hydrogen fluoride (HF) toxic gas alkylation technology units that pose potential disaster risks on the scale of the 1984 Bhopal, India, toxic gas release that killed some 8,000 people and injured some 100,000.
Given the dense populations in the Twin Cities that live within the 25-mile “vulnerable zone” radius of the Andeavor Refinery — just purchased by Marathon Oil — that refinery may arguably be the single-most dangerous in the nation. Marathon’s liability lawyers will not be unmindful of the most frightening HF near-disaster in U.S. history, the hourslong release of HF in 1987 from the Marathon Refinery in Texas City, Texas, and the bungled evacuations of thousands of citizens long kept ignorant of the refinery’s disaster risks. Only by the lucky release direction were megadeaths avoided.
The Husky Refinery in the Twin Ports saw April 26 explosions and fires demolish a good portion of the facility, but by luck they missed puncturing the nearby HF storage tank. The mayors of both Duluth and Superior have asked Husky urgently for a conversion from HF to an available nondisaster technology unit, such as the one that the Chevron Refinery in Salt Lake City has now implemented. But Husky argues that this would be too expensive for the ultrarich oil industry to construct on their unexpectedly leveled site. Citizens are beginning to demand a say in what level of disaster risk a Husky Refinery rebuild will impose on them.
It will take vocal and persistent at-risk communities and media to demand that officials use their local authorities, zoning laws (to ban what are called LULUs, Locally Unwanted Land Uses) and/or their traditional police powers for public health and safety, to push the corporate owners of Andeavor and Husky to give up their disaster-prone HF. State and local legislators could for starters mandate that each refinery promptly produce and release publicly a Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis, as they would have had to do under the federal EPA’s January 2017 Final Regulation on Risk Management Plans that has been delayed and gutted by the Trump administration’s just-departed EPA head, Scott Pruitt.
As one commenter on that new proposed rule (loved by oil industry groups) pointed out: “A study of terrorism insurance found that a chemical agent attack in a big U.S. city — analogous to a major industrial toxic gas release — could involve property and workers’ compensation losses ranging to $25 billion.”
HF urban disaster by accident or by terrorism — will citizens in the Upper Midwest roll the dice?
http://www.startribune.com/oil-train-and-refinery-safety-don-t-roll-the-dice-that-we-ll-avoid-disasters/487538441/
-
Lawmakers Probe Role of Federal Cash
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselo
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week will explore the role of federal dollars in boosting large infrastructure projects.
The hearing, titled "The Long-Term Value to U.S. Taxpayers of Low-Cost Federal Infrastructure Loans," will likely focus on the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which empowers the Department of Transportation to provide assistance to projects "of regional and national significance."
During debate regarding the 2018 spending bill for transportation and infrastructure, some lawmakers worried it was unclear whether TIFIA loans could be seen as contributions to a massive New York rail and transit project (Greenwire, March 21).
The hearing comes as momentum for President Trump's broad infrastructure bill wanes on the Hill. Trump's plan aimed to leverage $1.5 trillion from state and local governments and the private sector with a $200 billion federal investment (E&E Daily, Feb. 15).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/09/stories/1060088505
-
Revisions of Air Pollution Permits Will Stay on Course At EPA
Jul 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The pace of changes to the Clean Air Act permitting program for new or expanded facilities will likely continue under the leadership of Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, former state and federal officials told Bloomberg Environment.
Outgoing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who resigned July 5, was at odds with the agency’s air chief, Bill Wehrum, over the pace at which changes to the air pollution permitting program should proceed.
While Pruitt favored a comprehensive overhaul of the permitting program known as new source review, Wehrum is pushing incremental program changes through a combination of guidance and rulemakings. Wheeler isn’t expected to change the direction Wehrum is taking.
Under the new source review program, refineries, manufacturing plants, paper mills, and power plants are required to install new pollution controls for emissions increases that result from making any changes to their plants or operations.
Jeffrey Holmstead, an attorney with Bracewell LLP who served as the EPA air chief under President George W. Bush, said Wehrum’s approach will be backed by Wheeler, and other environmental attorneys agreed.
“I don’t think we will see any change in the way EPA approaches new source review reforms,” Holmstead said, adding that Pruitt, too, had come around to Wehrum’s approach.
New Source Review ChangesAt a recent Air & Waste Management Association meeting in Hartford, Conn., Wehrum outlined the agency’s plans to revisit the definition of ambient air in the context of reforming the new source review program.
Under the law, industrial facilities are required to monitor ambient air, or the air we breathe, at the fenceline of their properties to ensure that the area’s air quality standards are maintained. The industry wants the provision on ambient air revised so that controls aren’t required at locations where public exposure is unlikely.
Under Wehrum’s instructions, the EPA would issue guidance this fall to build on its 2016 rule that defined how oil and gas operations that share equipment and are a quarter mile apart are treated as adjacent for permitting purposes.
The agency also has decided to reconsider the 2009 rule that allows a facility to aggregate or clump emissions increases from two separate yet related projects for permitting purposes. This proposed rule will be heading to the White House Office of Management and Budget in the next couple of weeks.
“There is no reason for EPA to change course,” Richard Alonso, a Sidley Austin LLP attorney who focuses on Clean Air Act issues, told Bloomberg Environment. Alonso is a former EPA air enforcement official.
The big difference between Pruitt and Wheeler is that the outgoing EPA chief was focused on press appearances and speeches, while “Andy is more interested in managing the agency pushing forward with agency reforms,” Holmstead said.
Frank O’Donnell, president of the nonprofit Clean Air Watch, recalls when Wheeler, as Republican staff director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was instrumental in pushing changes to the new source review program under Bush’s Clear Skies initiative, which set caps on emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury from power plants.
“All of that was about wiping out the new source review programs,” O’Donnell said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/revisions-of-air-pollution-permits-will-stay-on-course-at-epa
-
EPA Sends 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule for OMB Review
Jul 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review its final rule detailing the steps that states must takes in their state implementation plans (SIPs) for complying with the Obama-era ozone air standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb) -- a standard the agency is expected to retain following a just-launched review.
OMB received the final rule on July 3 for mandatory pre-publication review, a process that typically takes 90 days, but can take more or less time. The White House's website cites a target date from EPA's spring regulatory agenda for finalizing the rule in May 2018, meaning EPA is already behind on its own non-binding schedule.
Environmentalists for months have been urging the agency to finalize the long-pending implementation rule for the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), which the Obama EPA tightened down to 70 ppb in 2015 from the prior less-stringent 2008 standard of 75 ppb.
The final rule will detail requirements for SIPs, which are air quality blueprints states craft detailing the ozone reduction measures they will impose on industrial sources of the pollutant in order to attain the standard.
“It will also discuss and outline relevant guidance on meeting the Clean Air Act's requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures, nonattainment new source review, and emission inventories,” according to OMB's website.
“Other issues addressed in this rule are the potential revocation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and anti-backsliding requirements that would apply in certain areas if the 2008 NAAQS were revoked,” OMB says.
Recent EPA modeling shows that many states are on track to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, raising questions about the extent to which they will have to adopt additional steps to meet the 2015 limit.
The Trump administration launched a formal reconsideration of the 2015 standard which is still ongoing, but the agency is expected to say it will not pursue a reconsideration, which would be a complicated process subject to litigation. Instead, EPA is said to be considering completing its next Clean Air Act-mandated review of the ozone NAAQS on an accelerated schedule that would conclude by October 2020 it should retain the 70 ppb limit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sends-2015-ozone-naaqs-implementation-rule-omb-review
-
Don’t Make Us Pay for Climate Change, Say Big Oil CEOs
Jul 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Kelly Gilblom
Leaders of the world’s largest oil companies want everyone to know it won’t do anyone any good to make them pay for the damages of climate change.
Executives have been making the argument after a series of U.S. states and municipalities filed class action lawsuits against Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and others in recent months, arguing it should be them that pays for the sea walls, levees and other infrastructure climate change is sure to require.
“It’s sort of bizarre that the users of our products say: ‘Well, actually, we didn’t want your product. So why did you force it on us?”’ Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told reporters in London. “I don’t think also that in the end it will solve anything other than maybe redistributing wealth to a certain class of the economy.”
The quickening pace of climate change — and the potential environmental catastrophes that could follow — are blamed on fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal, that release carbon dioxide when burned. Carbon dioxide is a leading greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and raises global temperatures.
The lawsuits brought against oil companies aim to recast the debate around climate change. Many of the world’s governments have accepted responsibility for cutting carbon dioxide emissions from the energy system by dedicating money to public funds to infrastructure works and increasing regulation. The class actions argue it was oil companies that forced society to damage the environment, so they solely carry the financial burden of fixing it.
“Like the tobacco companies that were successfully sued decades ago, we’re also suing five of the biggest including Exxon Mobil, for example, who systematically poisoned the Earth, knew about it, covered it up, explained it away, tried to hook people more and more on their product,” said Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York City, about the suits when they were filed. “Let’s help bring the death knell to this industry that’s done so much harm.”
Big oil fights back
The position has incurred a strong response from the companies facing the complaint, including calling into question whether it’s just a money grab from lawyers.
Bob Dudley, chief executive of the British oil major BP, said class actions are “a business model in the United States” at the company’s annual general meeting this year, and said they’re no help. In a statement last month, Chevron Corp. said the same attorneys have been filing suits across the country.
A judge in California dismissed suits from Oakland and San Francisco arguing climate change was too broad a topic for a single court to decide, and that it should be left to legislators. He also argued the world has prospered because of fossil fuels and it didn’t make sense to now turn against the companies that provide products in high demand.
The companies named in the suit said they welcomed the dismissal and expressed hope the logic would prevail across other areas of the country. But days later, the attorney general in Rhode Island filed another suit with the same set of allegations, saying it was part of his fiduciary responsibility to the state.
Shell’s Van Beurden said the threat of additional legal action has also put the company off the idea of setting specific climate targets, and instead caused it to stick to broader “ambitions.”
“The moment we adopt a target and you cannot quite deliver on elements of it, you immediately have a class action suit from shareholders or you get the SEC investigating you,” he said. Targets that are “legally binding; we don’t think it’s going to help us.”
https://www.chron.com/business/article/Don-t-make-us-pay-for-climate-change-say-Big-13059133.php
-
Cement's CO2 Is Everywhere. Will It Sink Climate Goals?
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
One of the world's biggest industries — and a leading producer of greenhouse gas emissions — may finally be making moves to combat climate change.
The World Cement Association recently held its first-ever global climate change forum, where industry leaders and scientists discussed strategies to reduce the industry's carbon footprint. It will help inform the development of a climate action plan, which the WCA intends to release in September, aimed at outlining pathways for low-carbon cement production.
"The Global Climate Change Forum made clear the importance of stimulating innovation if we are to have any hope of achieving the Paris climate goals," Bernard Mathieu, director of the WCA's climate change program, said in a statement.
While industries of all kinds are exploring ways to reduce their carbon footprints, the cement industry — unglamorous as it may sound — is among the most significant to join the discussion.
Cement is the most widely used man-made material in existence — it forms concrete when mixed with water, and is used in the construction of everything from buildings and bridges to roads and sidewalks and all kinds of other infrastructure.
But while cement has largely shaped the modern built environment, it's also a massive source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It single-handedly accounts for about 7 percent of all global carbon emissions, according to estimates from the International Energy Agency. That makes it the second-largest single industrial emitter in the world, second only to the iron and steel industry.
It's a problem that often receives little attention among the public. But concern among scientists is rising. As global population grows, some estimates suggest cement production could increase by as much as 23 percent by 2050. And some experts suggest that unless the industry substantially reduces its emissions, it could put the Paris Agreement's global climate targets in jeopardy.
An April report from IEA and the industry-led Cement Sustainability Initiative notes that the industry, in its current form, is inconsistent with trajectories that would allow the world to meet a 2-degree Celsius temperature target. Reaching this goal, the report suggests, "implies significantly greater efforts to reduce emissions from cement makers."The race for solutions
Portland cement — the most widely used type of cement around the world, and the product specified in many modern construction codes — was patented nearly 200 years ago and has become an essential component of the built environment. In the years since, little has changed about the production process, according to Gaurav Sant, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UCLA.
"There have been improvements in process efficiencies, but broadly speaking it's not that different," he told E&E News.
That's a big problem for the climate, because the process releases large amounts of carbon dioxide. The industry's huge carbon footprint partly stems from its high fuel requirements, which are mostly satisfied by fossil fuels. But more than half of its emissions — and perhaps as much as two-thirds, by some estimates — actually come from the chemical production process itself, which releases large amounts of carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
Portland cement is produced in large part with limestone, a type of rock that's composed mainly of a chemical compound called calcium carbonate. To produce the sticky, binding cement, the limestone must be heated at high temperatures — around 1,500 C, according to civil and environmental engineering expert Claire White of Princeton University.
The intense heating process in and of itself, she noted, requires a massive amount of fuel. But it also causes the limestone to chemically decompose, leaving behind a compound called calcium oxide, which is used in the final cement product, releasing carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere.
The specific formula used for cement, and the fact that it's remained unchanged for so long, makes the industry an unusually challenging one when it comes to climate action. A commentary published last month in Science evaluated a variety of "difficult-to-decarbonize" services and processes. Tackling cement, it noted, doesn't have a single solution — it will require a variety of approaches, including major changes in both the materials used and the manufacturing process itself.
The problem has drawn the attention of major international organizations in recent years, some of which are now advising the industry on ways to cut carbon. IEA's April report contained a low-carbon technology road map, aimed at reducing cement industry emissions 24 percent by 2050. The report outlines a variety of strategies that could help achieve that goal — everything from alternative fuels to carbon capture technology to new chemical recipes for the cement product itself.
Research groups around the world are already tackling many of these issues. Some groups are working on chemical formulas that would reduce the amount of "clinker" — the substance that requires the heating of limestone — that goes into the cement.
White, the Princeton engineer, leads the university's Sustainable Cements Group, which is working on ways to eliminate the need for clinker altogether. It's possible to make cement-like products using other substances instead, she noted, including recycled byproducts from other industries, such as steel slag, fly ash from coal-fired facilities or certain types of clays. Treating these substances with special chemical compounds known as alkalis "can make the powders reactive," White said, "and we can form similar building blocks at the molecular level compared to what's in portland cement concrete."
That said, there's some debate about exactly how much carbon output is associated with alkali-activated cements, she added, which can sometimes make it difficult to compare with portland cement. It partly depends on exactly what type of alkali sources, and how much, are used in the process, and how far the materials must be shipped. Some estimates suggest the practice has the potential to lower emissions by as much as 40 to 80 percent compared with portland cement, White said.
Other researchers are focusing on different tactics. Sant, the UCLA engineer, is involved with a research team developing a product they've dubbed "CO2NCRETE." The process relies on "carbon upcycling" — using CO2 emissions captured from industrial activities to produce a cement-like, and potentially carbon-neutral, building material. The CO2NCRETE process is unique, Sant says, because it can utilize the captured carbon emissions as is, without the need for extra processing.
Other experts have pointed out that concrete naturally absorbs carbon dioxide. It's a slow process, but over the course of decades, it may be able to soak up a substantial amount of the emissions it put into the atmosphere in the first place via the limestone heating process.
A 2016 paper in Nature Geoscience suggested that the world's concrete has been absorbing about 43 percent of those original emissions. There may be some ways to speed up or strengthen this absorption process, Sant noted — it's an area his own research group is focusing on.
Steven Davis, an earth system scientist at the University of California, Irvine — one of the authors of the Nature Geoscience paper, as well as last week's Science commentary — noted that concrete's absorption potential implies that there may be ways to make cement production carbon negative.
If cement production facilities were all outfitted with carbon capture and storage technology, for instance, then a substantial amount of the emissions produced on-site could be stopped from entering the atmosphere. Later, the concrete produced would soak up even more carbon dioxide, which could eventually amount to a "net drawdown from the atmosphere," he told E&E News.
While different research groups are focusing on different approaches, IEA's technology road map suggests that reducing emissions quickly enough to help meet global climate goals will require a variety of strategies all working together. This is likely to be the most successful approach, according to White.
"There might be front-runners in terms of what can help or what we can use in the near future, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at more innovative materials down the line," she said. "It's not just one technology that we need to look at to combat the sustainability issues associated with the concrete industry."A long road ahead
Despite the rising interest in research and development, there are obstacles to implementing the solutions. One of these is a lack of policy incentives to convince cement manufacturers to invest in new technologies.
"As far as the major producers, it's not clear to me that it is a very big priority," said Davis. "I don't get the sense that they feel that it's a market for potential disruption yet."
Emissions caps or carbon-pricing systems are some of the most frequently discussed solutions. Still, even in places where such frameworks exist, problems can arise.
In the past, the European Union's Emissions Trading System has been criticized for providing free carbon allowances to large polluters, including cement producers. A recent report from CDP, a U.K.-based organization that advocates for transparency about corporations' environmental footprints, pointed out that "carbon regulation for the sector remains benign, with the sector in Europe continuing to benefit from surplus free allowances." The report suggested that carbon prices may need to rise three to six times as much to spur the adoption of carbon capture and other innovative technologies.
There are other challenges. The cement industry is a highly conservative sector, Sant noted — and not without reason. The construction of essential infrastructure, like buildings and bridges, carries a great deal of concern about safety and high anxiety toward the introduction of newer, less-proven materials.
"Because we've used this material for as long as we have, there's a lot of user confidence associated with it," Sant said. This may have made the industry more resistant than others to innovation.
Governmental regulatory agencies may be similarly conservative when it comes to construction codes. In the U.S., Europe and many other developed nations, these codes are generally based on portland cement chemistry, White said. Using a different product for a construction project would likely require the approval of the appropriate regulatory body — which may not always be easy to come by.
"There's active work going on in this area, to try and provide the information necessary to the codes organizations as to how they could augment the codes to enable for more innovation in construction materials," she said. This means there's a need for new ideas on how to reduce the industry's emissions, while showing that these new products are safe.
While research interest is growing, progress in the private sector for now is emerging but may be slow-going.
CDP's recent report evaluated 13 of the world's largest publicly listed cement companies on their readiness for a low-carbon transition. It suggests that the companies' emissions have been falling by about 1 percent annually, on average. But it notes that this is hardly enough to keep pace with trajectories consistent with a 2 C climate goal. The report also points out that investment in research and development, as a proportion of sales, is low compared with other industries.
Still, the World Cement Association's recent climate change forum may suggest that the industry is beginning to push for more action. And the variety of different approaches that experts are exploring may help make the road easier.
"You don't want to try and impose change overnight — you want to be able to stage change," Sant said. "You want to be able to evaluate lower-risk and higher-risk pathways so that you really create a portfolio of solutions, rather than just one that fits specific things."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/09/stories/1060088153
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested