Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 19, 2018
-
White House ‘Concerned’ That House Bill Doesn’t Cut EPA Funding Enough
Jul 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Niv Elis
The White House is expressing concerns that a funding bill set for a vote Thursday in the House does not make deep enough cuts for agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
AUDIO: Wheeler’s Open EPA Door Contrasts with Pruitt’s Secrecy
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Andrew Wheeler’s first week at the helm of the EPA was packed with industry meetings, staff briefings, and calls with members of Congress. -
Environmentalists Seek Pre-Trial Rulings In Suits On EPA Advisers Policy
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are urging judges in three federal courts to rule against EPA’s efforts to dismiss before trial their separate but related lawsuits over former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s October 2017 policy barring agency grant recipients from serving on EPA advisory panels. -
(ACC Mentioned) Groups seek EPA, industry communications on TSCA 'problem formulations'
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Two groups have submitted a Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request seeking information to determine if industry interests swayed the US EPA’s approach to defining the scope of risk evaluations reflected in recent TSCA ‘problem formulations’. -
EPA Undermines Its Own Proposal for More Protective Dust-Lead Hazard Standards
Jul 19, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
On July 2, 2018, in response to a court order, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule[1] tightening its standards for lead in dust on floors and window sills for housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978. -
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Asbestos?
Jul 18, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Michael L. Dourson
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and was signed into law June 22, 2016. -
House Chemical Bill Stalls Because Another Panel Has Dibs
Jul 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scot
A House panel’s plan to consider a chemical bill July 18 was thwarted when it turned out the committee didn’t have jurisdiction over the measure. -
Bill to Eliminate EPA IRIS Programme Introduced in Congress
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A Republican Congressman has introduced a bill to eliminate the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. -
Science Panel Drops Markup Of IRIS Bill After Energy Panel Wins Jurisdiction
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
House science committee Republicans were forced to drop their planned markup of legislation redirecting the work of EPA's influential but controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program after the House Energy and Commerce Committee won jurisdiction over the just-introduced measure, raising doubts about the legislation's future. -
Years After EPA Cited Health Risks From Chemical Plant, Is Enough Being Done to Protect its Louisiana Neighbors?
Jul 19, 2018 | DeSmog
By Julie Dermansky
What should be done about a chemical plant in Louisiana’s St. John the Baptist Parish that releases chloroprene — a chemical so toxic that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined nearby residents face the highest risk in the country of developing cancer from air pollution? -
EPA Updating School Lead Guidance After GAO Report
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is planning to update guidance to help schools determine when action is needed to reduce lead in drinking water following a critical Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that is spurring calls from Democratic lawmakers for the agency to take further steps to reduce lead exposures, including updating its lead and copper rule (LCR). -
Multinational Insulation Manufacturers Phase out Flame Retardant HBCD
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Multinational manufacturers Dow, Owens Corning and Kingspan have phased out halogenated flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) from their building insulation products. -
EU Opens Consultation on Updating CLP Alignment with GHS
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has opened a consultation on a draft regulation to align the EU's CLP Regulation with the sixth and seventh revised editions of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals. -
Arizona Utility Spends Millions Fighting Renewable Energy Measure
Jul 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brenna Goth
The owner of Arizona’s largest electric utility is spending millions of dollars to defeat a measure that would require the company and others in the state to produce more energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources. -
San Francisco Judge Rejects Calls to Move Fracking Lawsuits to Wyoming
Jul 18, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A federal district court judge in San Francisco has denied motions by the Trump administration and the oil and gas industry to move a pair of lawsuits concerning an Obama-era rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands to more friendly territory -- a district court in Wyoming. -
Reports of FERC LNG Delays Are Greatly Exaggerated, Says Chairman McIntyre
Jul 19, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
A published report claiming that FERC has informed liquefied natural gas (LNG) developers that reviews of project applications are 12-18 months behind schedule is incorrect, according to Chairman Kevin McIntyre. -
Drillers Burned Off Less Natural Gas in 2017, Reversing a Trend
Jul 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christine Buurma
Oil producers around the globe burned off less natural gas last year, reversing a trend that started in 2010 and sparked concern the emissions were contributing to climate change. -
Texas Set to Pass Iraq, Iran as World's Third-Largest Oil Producer
Jul 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Texas's oil industry is set to surpass Iraq and Iran to become the third-largest oil producing region in the world, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia. -
Green Groups Sue over Expanded Gulf Drilling
Jul 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Wyatt Schiff
Green groups are suing the Trump administration over its decision to expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. -
Energy Agency Clarifies How Utilities Share Cyber Info in Draft Rule
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Electric utilities would get more clarity on how to share critical cyber and physical security information with the Energy Department in a proposed rule that the White House is reviewing. -
Ministerial Alliance Seeks 'Paris Agreement' for Chemicals and Waste
Jul 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Ministers and vice ministers from eight countries have formed an alliance to push for a global agreement on managing chemicals and waste. -
Republicans Move to Condemn Carbon Tax Before It Gains Steam
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
A new, Republican-led effort to tax carbon dioxide emissions isn’t likely to make it to the House floor for a vote anytime soon—but opponents aren’t taking any chances. -
Carbon Tax Hits House Floor, and Democrats Focus on Russia
Jul 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Mark K. Matthews and Nick Sobczyk
A resolution that blasts carbon taxes as harmful to the U.S. economy presented Democrats with a rare chance yesterday to debate climate change on the House floor. -
Studies See Carbon Tax Driving Major GHG Cuts, Modest Economic Effects
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
As an unlikely carbon tax policy fight emerges in the GOP-controlled Congress during an election year, several academic and think tank researchers are releasing joint studies finding that such a policy could significantly reduce greenhouse gases while having a relatively modest effect on the economy. -
Curbelo Seeks To Finesse EPA GHG Authority In Landmark Carbon Tax Bill
Jul 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Rep. Carlos Curbelo's (R-FL) upcoming carbon tax bill, the first major climate mitigation legislation from a sitting GOP lawmaker in almost a decade, seeks to finesse the contentious issue of how or whether to preempt EPA greenhouse gas rules by retaining the agency's underlying authority while imposing a moratorium on enforcing rules on stationary sources. -
Plastic Straws Strike Out at the Ballpark
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
You can still buy your peanuts and Cracker Jack, but the next time you head out to the ballgame you might not be able to get a straw.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
White House ‘Concerned’ That House Bill Doesn’t Cut EPA Funding Enough
Jul 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Niv Elis
The White House is expressing concerns that a funding bill set for a vote Thursday in the House does not make deep enough cuts for agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The House is debating a package of two spending bills, one for Financial Services and the other for Interior and Environment.
The bills, which advanced through committees along partisan lines, conform to a bipartisan budget cap deal that President Trump signed into law earlier this year.
But Trump’s proposed budget called for slashing government programs by billions of dollars. The White House on Wednesday issued a Statement of Administration Policy expressing dismay that such cuts were not taken into account.
For example, while Trump wanted the EPA’s budget cut by $2.2 billion, the House bill only lopped $100 million off its budget. Likewise, the House bill funded the Interior Department at $2.4 billion more than Trump requested.
The White House on Wednesday also expressed disappointment that the bills did not eliminate initiatives such as the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). “
The Administration does not consider their activities to be core Federal responsibilities,” the White House wrote in its Statement of Administration Policy.
The House bill increased funding for both by $2 million.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/397714-white-house-concerned-that-house-bill-doesnt-cut-epa-funding-enough
-
AUDIO: Wheeler’s Open EPA Door Contrasts with Pruitt’s Secrecy
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Andrew Wheeler’s first week at the helm of the EPA was packed with industry meetings, staff briefings, and calls with members of Congress. Making those activities public knowledge is a sharp break with his predecessor Scott Pruitt and indicative of a shift in agency transparency.
Bloomberg Environment’s Abby Smith outlines some of the changes in a discussion with Bloomberg Radio’s Nancy Lyons.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/audio-wheelers-open-epa-door-contrasts-with-pruitts-secrecy
-
Environmentalists Seek Pre-Trial Rulings In Suits On EPA Advisers Policy
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are urging judges in three federal courts to rule against EPA’s efforts to dismiss before trial their separate but related lawsuits over former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s October 2017 policy barring agency grant recipients from serving on EPA advisory panels.
In each of the cases -- pending before federal district courts in Washington, D.C., Massachusetts and the Southern District of New York -- plaintiffs have asked judges to rule on EPA’s motions to dismiss the cases.
So far, a hearing is scheduled in just one of the cases, Union of Concerned Scientists v. EPA, set for Sept. 14 in Boston.
Meanwhile, EPA in newly filed documents continues to argue that the judges should dismiss the lawsuits. “Plaintiffs’ challenge to the EPA’s Directive founders on the shoals of multiple threshold justiciability doctrines,” says the agency’s July 11 reply brief in Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., v. Andrew Wheeler, which is pending in the federal court in D.C.
“The Directive is a statement of policy regarding the agency’s use of its discretionary power to appoint persons to advisory committees,” the brief continues. “Plaintiffs fail to invoke any relevant law providing a meaningful standard for review of the agency’s appointment decisions and their challenge to the Directive accordingly fails by operation of section 701(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act [APA]; Plaintiffs’ lawsuit concerns matters committed to agency discretion by law.”
The suits challenge Pruitt’s controversial policy barring scientists and other experts who receive agency grants from continuing to advise the agency. Plaintiffs charge that Pruitt’s directive is arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and violates Office of Government Ethics (OGE) rules and implementing statutes that impose uniform federal ethics requirements on government employees, including agency advisers who are considered special government employees.
Some of the suits also charge that Pruitt’s directive violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as well as environmental statutes governing creation of advisory committees, saying they generally require “fair balance” in panel memberships.
EPA released the policy last October, along with the names of the new chairmen and other changes to the membership of three of EPA’s best known advisory committees, including its Science Advisory Board (SAB). The policy has resulted in some members leaving committees or giving up grants.
EPA has filed similar motions to dismiss in each case, claiming “highly discretionary” authority to set policies on advisory panel membership. The agency also argues that plaintiffs lack standing because the alleged harms cannot be redressed and the suit is not ripe for review.
In the D.C. case, EPA’s reply argues further that the suit should be dismissed for standing issues. “Most of the Plaintiffs before the Court lack standing, and even those Plaintiffs with standing to raise some issues lack standing to press claims raised in the Amended Complaint unrelated to their asserted injuries,” EPA says.
The agency adds that most plaintiffs also “fail to clear the ripeness bar to premature judicial review because the policy stated in the Directive has not yet been applied to the Plaintiffs that lack standing.”
Plaintiffs in the suit have asked Judge Trevor N. McFadden to schedule a hearing on EPA’s motion to dismiss, according to their July 2 filing.
Retired SAB Director
And environmentalists in the suit in the Southern District of New York, Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, July 8 asked Judge William H. Pauley III “for summary judgment on the basis that there are no genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
The request is supported by a series of depositions, including one from Christopher Zarba, the retired director of the staff office that manages EPA’s SAB.
Zarba, who retired last February, states in the July 8 deposition that Pruitt’s policy “has seriously damaged the ability of EPA to attract and appoint qualified scientists to serve on EPA federal advisory committees. Even as the Directive has more than doubled the turn-over on the committees, the bar on service by recipients of EPA grants shrinks the recruiting pool by disqualifying many top experts. The result is that many highly qualified experts were excluded from full consideration, limiting the range and depth of expertise and diversity of perspectives available for the committees. In the last round of appointments and approvals, the SAB Staff Office was forced to pick from a significantly reduced candidate pool. This will inevitably compromise the quality of the SAB, [Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee] and other committees.”
Zarba continues, arguing that in his conversations with EPA staff, many view the agency’s federal advisory committees after the directive’s implementation as having strong bias. As a result, agency staff are seeking less advisory committee input on the science that supports the agency’s policies, decisions and regulations, and the quantity and quality of EPA’s scientific and regulatory decisions will suffer as a result, he says.
Environmentalists in the D.C. case are also backed by former EPA officials in their arguments against EPA’s efforts to dismiss the suit. Among the officials are Obama-era Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, Clinton-era toxics chief Lynn Goldman, Reagan-era SAB Staff Office Director Terry Yosie and the former chief of EPA’s influential Integrated Risk Information System program, Kenneth Olden. Their brief follows an earlier amicus brief supporting environmentalists filed by nine states, including California, New York, Iowa, and Maryland.
“The statutes that EPA implements mandate that the agency satisfy specific, science-based standards before reaching various decisions. EPA has therefore long taken the position--and continues to assert--that its decisions must be based on the ‘best available science,’ the former officials write in their July 11 brief.
The former officials’ brief argues that Pruitt’s directive “keeps EPA from accessing highly relevant scientific expertise, undermining its ability to base its decisions on the best available science.” It explains that EPA’s competitive grant process means that “the scientists who receive these grants are likely to be leaders in their fields. Moreover, the agency directs its grant funding to research investigating emerging or newly-recognized environmental questions. As a result, the recipients of that funding become experts on highly specialized scientific issues likely to come before the agency. The Directive, then, keeps some of the most qualified scientists off of EPA science advisory committees.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-seek-pre-trial-rulings-suits-epa-advisers-policy
-
(ACC Mentioned) Groups seek EPA, industry communications on TSCA 'problem formulations'
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Two groups have submitted a Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request seeking information to determine if industry interests swayed the US EPA’s approach to defining the scope of risk evaluations reflected in recent TSCA ‘problem formulations’.
Legal watchdog American Oversight joined with NGO Environmental Working Group in submitting the request.
In it, they argue that the problem formulations outlining the approach the EPA will take on the first ten chemicals subject to risk evaluation under the recently reformed TSCA "exclude major sourcesof exposure".
They are therefore "seeking information to determine the extent to which industry and trade groups, and others with a stake in these rules, may have engaged with [former Administrator Scott] Pruitt and the EPA about these recent decisions".
The Foia request seeks information on five of these first ten substances in particular. Three of them – trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (DCM), and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) – are the subject of proposed rules that would see certain uses banned or restricted.
The remaining two – 1,4-dioxane and asbestos – have been the subject of scrutiny following release of problem formulations that exclude consideration of trace exposures and legacy uses, respectively.
The request seeks "all communication" regarding the "scoping" or "problem formulations" of those five substances between any of 26 current and former EPA officials and 23 trade groups and organisations.
Included in the list of organisations are:
chemicals trade groups like the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) and the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance;
upstream trade groups like the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), the American Coatings Association and the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) [now the HCPA];
chemical manufacturers Dow, DuPont/Chemours and Arkema.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68773/groups-seek-epa-industry-communications-on-tsca-problem-formulations
-
EPA Undermines Its Own Proposal for More Protective Dust-Lead Hazard Standards
Jul 19, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
On July 2, 2018, in response to a court order, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule[1] tightening its standards for lead in dust on floors and window sills for housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978. The agency declined to lower the standard for lead in paint – citing insufficient information – and did not consider tightening the standards for lead in soil. While the proposed rule is a tentative step forward for lead poisoning prevention, as explained below, it will create unnecessary confusion and falls far short of what the science and the law demands. Comments are due by August 16, 2018. Pursuant to an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, EPA must finalize the rule by July 1, 2019.
Significant benefits if dust-lead hazard standards tightened – at least $5 return on every dollar invested
EPA’s proposal tightens the dust-lead hazard standards from 40 to 10 micrograms per square foot (µg/ft2) on floors and from 250 to 100 µg/ft2 on window sills. This change is consistent with advocates’ request made in a 2009 citizen’s petition and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements for lead hazard control grantees adopted in February 2017.
EPA’s decision largely rests on its determination that the tighter standards are achievable based on a 2015 HUD Clearance Survey Report. The report evaluated the lab results from more than 12,000 dust samples taken by the agency’s grantees after remediation and cleaning did not leave dust-lead hazards behind. This confirmation process is commonly known as “clearance.” The remediation and cleaning was prompted by a risk assessment that identified lead hazards.
The dust-lead hazard standards are critical, especially on the floor, since they are closely associated with elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) of young children, in particular toddlers who crawl on the floor and frequently put their hands in their mouths. Lead-based paint risk assessors use these standards to identify hazards that should be remediated. Labs typically use them to define when lead levels pose a hazard in reports to customers. And property owners often use them when communicating dust-lead sampling results to residents or potential homebuyers and renters.
EPA estimated the benefits of its proposed change to be $317 million to $2.24 billion per year at a 3% discount rate. The benefits are based on reduced harm to the developing brains of children as evidenced by IQ. The costs were estimated to be $66 to $119 million; a return of almost $5 to $19 for every dollar invested.
The wide range of benefits reveals significant gaps in our lead poisoning prevention efforts. The agency assumed that dust-lead hazards would only be identified and remediated if a child was found to have an EBLL – a level greater than 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (µg/dL).[2] This is an unfortunate but fair assumption that reflects an approach of using children as canaries rather than making the investment in proactively assessing the risk before a child has an EBLL.
EPA recognized that outside of HUD-assisted housing covered by its Lead-Safe Housing Rule, no federal law required hazards to be remediated even if hazards were found. Therefore, the agency developed a state-by-state estimate of the likelihood of finding and protecting a child with an EBLL.
The agency did not consider the March 2018 study in the journal The Lancet by Lanphear et al. that showed significantly greater risk of premature death due to cardiovascular disease associated with low level exposure to lead by adults. Given the prevalence of cardiovascular disease and the significant treatment costs, if the agency had considered this information in its estimate, the net benefits would be even greater.
EPA’s bizarre decision to undermine its own proposal
The current limits of 40 µg/ft2 on floors and 250 µg/ft2 on window sills are named three times in EPA’s rules regarding lead-based paint rules: once in the lead-based paint hazard standards; a second time in determining whether a hazard is present, typically in a risk assessment; and a third time in clearance to ensure that no hazards remain after an abatement project is complete.[3] In the proposed rule, the agency only tightened the current limits for the first two situations. It left in place the current clearance levels, creating unnecessary confusion. The agency said it intended to review the clearance levels at a later date without explaining why it did not do so in this rulemaking.
It does not make sense to have a clearance level that is less protective than the associated hazard standard, but EPA has expressly created that situation. The consequences of this decision would allow the bizarre situation where a risk assessment could find a dust-lead hazard on the floor such as 30 µg/ft2 (above the proposed standard but below the current level), but allow an abatement contractor to come in, do nothing, and pass clearance because the levels would fall below the current limit of 40 µg/ft2. The agency made this decision even though the 2009 citizens’ petition expressly called for revising the limit in all three places it is used in the rule.
EPA’s decision would also affect work done pursuant to its Lead-Safe Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP). Under that rule, a property owner may choose to have the work cleared to ensure that no dust-lead hazards remain after the work is completed.[4] As with abatement, EPA would allow a renovation contractor to leave dust-lead hazards behind that would fail a risk assessment.
Despite the evidence, EPA never considered more protective floor dust-lead standards
When EPA adopted the current dust-lead standards in 2001, the agency based the analysis on the likelihood of keeping a child’s blood lead level (BLL) below 10 µg/dL. This was the level that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adopted in the 1990s as the trigger for public health action.
When the advocates submitted their 2009 petition, which prompted the court order and the proposed rule, they clearly explained that their requested dust-lead hazard standards were based on the CDC level of 10 µg/dL. However, three years later, CDC lowered the level to 5 µg/dL.[5]
Despite CDC reducing what it considers as an elevated blood lead level from 10 to 5 µg/dL, EPA never assessed whether more protective dust-lead standards than those requested in 2009 were appropriate.
This logic is at odds with the fact that EPA based its economic analysisof the proposed rule on the updated CDC level,[6] and the agency has used the lower level in its analysis of a potential household action levelfor lead in drinking water. The inconsistency makes little sense if the agency is serious in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to establish protective standards. At a minimum, the agency should have evaluated the appropriateness of a dust-lead hazard standard of 5 and 2.5 µg/ft2 on the floors – a simple halving of the petitioners’ request to correspond to the change in the CDC level.
The difference between a floor dust-lead hazard standard of 5 and 10 µg/ft2 is significant. According to a 2016 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the more protective standard would cut in half the likelihood that a child living in a home with the lower dust-lead level would exceed CDC’s current blood lead action level. A 2.5 µg/ft2standard would cut the likelihood of an EBLL an additional half. EPA acknowledges in its economic analysis that “Estimated net benefits are higher under the more stringent regulatory options.”[7]
EPA’s misunderstanding of HUD’s 2015 Clearance Survey Report
As noted earlier, EPA largely based its decision on whether a 10 µg/ft2dust-lead hazard standard for floors was achievable. Its analysis rested on HUD’s 2015 Clearance Survey Report showing the 85% of more than 7,200 floor dust samples could achieve the proposed standard. Yet, EPA never mentioned HUD’s finding that 72% of the samples could achieve a more protective limit of 5 µg/ft2 on the floors.
In addition, EPA failed to consider that the HUD’s grantees were using work practices designed to achieve the current standard of 40 µg/ft2. If grantees knew they had to achieve a tighter level of 5 or 10 µg/ft2, they would have demanded that contractors use more aggressive work practices and higher pass rates might have resulted. While any good contractor will strive to leave as little dust behind as possible, knowing they must meet a stricter standard would alter their choice of work practices and perhaps result in less dust creation and more thorough cleanup.
Risk from lead in paint at less than 5000 ppm
Claiming it had insufficient information, EPA declined to tighten its definition of lead-based paint from 5000 ppm to 600 ppm as requested in the 2009 citizens’ petition. The 5000 ppm limit was established by Congress in the 1970s and has not been seriously evaluated since then.
When the agency accepted the petition nine years ago, it agreed to evaluate the situation but appears to have done little serious work on it until the Ninth Circuit demanded action. EPA did not appear to have considered HUD’s 2007 American Healthy Housing Survey, which should provide a solid basis for identifying the relationship between lead in paint and lead in dust. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA explains both how difficult the evaluation would be and how important such a change could be. But it never addresses why it is rational to set modest work practice limits when disturbing paint with 5100 ppm of lead while allowing paint with 4900 ppm of lead in a child care center to be machine sanded without any restrictions.
Lost opportunity on soil, target housing, and elevated blood lead level
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that EPA has a duty under TSCA to ensure its lead-based paint hazard standards are sufficient to protect children’s health. Specifically the court said:
“This statutory framework clearly indicates that Congress did not want EPA to set initial standards and then walk away, but to engage in an ongoing process, accounting for new information, and to modify initial standards when necessary to further Congress’s intent: to prevent childhood lead poisoning and eliminate lead-based paint hazards.”[8]
Consistent with this obligation, EPA should have used the proposed rule to update other outdated provisions of its rule. Specifically, EPA should have considered:Risk from lead in soil: When EPA adopted its lead-based paint hazard standards in 2001, it set limits on both dust and soil. However, in the July 2, 2018 proposed rule, EPA does not consider tightening the lead-soil hazard standards even though it acknowledges that “[i]ngestion of lead-contaminated soil and dust is a major contributor to BLLs in children”[9] and “[l]ead-contaminated dust and soil are the major pathways through which most young children are exposed to lead from lead-based paint hazards.”[10]While the 2009 citizens’ petition did not address lead in soil, EPA should have considered it.Congress’ decision to expand definition of target housing: In May 2017, Congress modified the definition of target housing[11]used in EPA’s lead-based paint regulations to include zero-bedroom dwellings with a child under six years of age residing or expecting to reside there. These dwellings are essentially suites and serve as housing for many low-income families with an infant in high-rent communities. With the proposed rule, EPA had an opportunity to update its definition to match the new law but failed to consider it.Outdated definition of elevated blood lead level in its current rules. In 1996, EPA promulgated its lead-based paint rules that define an EBLL to mean “an excessive absorption of lead that is a confirmed concentration of lead in whole blood of 20 µg/dl (micrograms of lead per deciliter of whole blood) for a single venous test or of 15-19 µg/dl in two consecutive tests taken 3 to 4 months apart.”[12] This definition is woefully outdated and is inconsistent with CDC recommendations and the scientific evidence from the past two decades. In the proposed rule, EPA should have mirrored HUD’s approach adopted in 2017 in its Lead-Safe Housing Rule[13]and linked the definition to CDC recommendations.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made clear that EPA had an obligation to update its rules when necessary to further Congress’s intent to prevent childhood lead poisoning and eliminate lead-based paint hazards. In the proposed rule, the agency acknowledged that the scientific evidence since 2001 (when it adopted the original standards) showed that lead posed a greater risk to children’s brain development than anticipated. While the tighter dust-lead hazard standards are welcome, they create unnecessary confusion and fall far short of what the law and the science demands.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/07/18/epa-dust-lead-hazard-standards/
-
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Asbestos?
Jul 18, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Michael L. Dourson
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and was signed into law June 22, 2016. It created a mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines, to do so in a transparent fashion, and to do so using risk-based chemical assessments rather than rely on simple epidemiological correlations.
EPA selected the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluation under the amended TSCA and to make those understandable for the public, the American Council on Science and Health is producing risk-based evaluations of each, which will then be compiled into a free downloadable book for consumers.
What is Asbestos?
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 2001), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2018), and the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NBCI, 2018), uses the name asbestos to a group of six different mineral fibers. These fibers are amosite (brown), chrysotile (white), crocidolite (blue), and the fibrous varieties of tremolite (silicic acid), actinolite, and anthophyllite (azbolen). All of these fibers occur naturally in rock and soil and are composed of some of the same starting material as sand. Chrysotile (white), the predominant commercial form of asbestos, belongs to the serpentine family of minerals, while all of the other forms belong to the amphibole family. Asbestos is used in numerous building construction materials and vehicle products for its strength and ability to resist heat, fire, and corrosion, as well as chemical and biological degradation.
Asbestos fibers do not have any detectable odor or taste, nor do they dissolve in water or evaporate into the air. They are resistant to heat, fire, chemical and biological degradation. The fibrous minerals are composed of magnesium and calcium silicates that may contain other elements (US National Library of Medicine’s Toxnet database, 2018). Pieces of fibers can enter the air and water from the weathering of natural deposits and the wearing down of manufactured products. When broken into smaller pieces and inhaled, they may get trapped in the lungs.
Levels of the fibers can build up over time in the lung tissues, with amphibole fibers being retained in the lungs longer than chrysotile fibers.
Nearly all ingested fibers pass through the intestines within a few days and are excreted in the feces. A small number of the fibers may penetrate into cells lining the stomach or intestines, while a few may penetrate all the way through and get into the bloodstream. However, very few of these fibers will pass through the skin into the body.
Exposure to Asbestos
According to both ATSDR (2001) and EPA (1988, 2014), asbestos can be released into the air, water, and soil from the erosion of asbestos-bearing natural deposits, piles of waste asbestos, asbestos mine or factory, or from the wearing down or disturbance of manufactured products that contain asbestos. The primary route of exposure of asbestos fibers to humans is through the air. Asbestos can also move into groundwater by being eroded from natural deposits or piles of waste asbestos, from asbestos-containing cement pipes used to carry drinking water, or from asbestos containing filters. Asbestos does not break down in water, nor does it move through the soil.
ATSDR (2001) has reported asbestos levels in air in rural areas of 10 fibers per cubic meter (fibers/m3). In cities, typical levels are about 10-fold higher. Levels may reach up to 10,000 fibers/m3 or higher close to a mine or factory. Levels could also be above average near a building that contains asbestos products and that is being torn down or renovated, or near a waste site where asbestos is not properly covered up or stored to protect it from wind erosion. Concentrations measured in homes, schools, and other buildings that contain asbestos range from about 30 to 6,000 fibers/m3.
In the United States, most water supplies have some small concentrations of asbestos, but a few supplies have more in areas with deposits or with cement water supply pipes. In a few locations, water samples may contain 10–300 million fibers per liter or even higher. The average person drinks about 2 liters of water per day.
Asbestos Health Effects
Both ATSDR (2001) and EPA (2014) consider inhalation to be the main route of human exposure to asbestos mineral fibers, and also the route with the most severe consequences to adverse health. Ingestion occurs mainly through the swallowing of material removed from the respiratory tract in the normal process of clearing one’s throat. To a lesser degree, ingestion occurs through drinking water contaminated with asbestos, or eating, drinking, or smoking in asbestos-contaminated work environments. Exposure to the skin does not result in the absorption of asbestos.
Asbestos is not metabolized (or broken down) into other chemicals inside most organisms.
Animal and human data indicate that long fibers (more than 5 or 10 μm) are cleared from the lower airways more slowly than shorter fibers. Nearly all fibers that are ingested and those that are swallowed after clearing one’s throat following inhalation are ultimately excreted in the feces, but a small number may end up being excreted in the urine. Fibers that are not cleared from the lungs lead to a gradual accumulation and persistence over time; persistence determines cumulative exposure and toxicity of fibers. Amphibole fibers appear to be retained in the lungs for longer periods of time than chrysotile fibers.
Like exposure to any chemical, toxicity of asbestos depends on the level to which one is exposed and the length of time of exposure. According to ATSDR (2001), limited data are available on the effects of higher short-term inhalation or oral exposure in humans. Furthermore, oral exposure to high levels of asbestos is unlikely. The available data suggest that health effects from asbestos ultimately are functions of fiber dose, fiber dimension (length and diameter), and fiber durability or persistence in the lung (ATSDR, 2003). Fibers with lengths greater than 5.0 μm are more likely to cause damage than fibers with lengths less than 2.5 μm (1 μm is about 1/25,000 of an inch.)
Workers who are exposed to fibers have an increase in mortality from noncancer respiratory diseases, including fibrosis (thickening and scarring of the lungs) or asbestosis and deficit in pulmonary function (ATSDR, 2001; EPA, 1988, 2014). These effects have been reported in workers exposed repeatedly over a longer term through inhalation of fibers with lengths greater than or equal to 5 μm and at concentrations ranging from about 5 to 20 f/mL (e.g., 5,000 to 20,000 fibers per m3) (ATSDR, 2001; EPA, 2014). Asbestos workers have increased chances of developing two principal types of cancer: cancer of the lung tissue itself, and the almost always fatal mesothelioma, a cancer of the thin membrane that surrounds the lungs and other internal organs. Workers can also develop cancer in other locations, for example, the stomach, intestines, esophagus, pancreas, ovaries, and kidneys, although this is less common. Exposure to asbestos via drinking water may result in cancer of the esophagus, stomach, and intestines, but it is difficult to determine whether this is caused by asbestos or something else. Epidemiological studies also demonstrate associations between exposure to airborne asbestos and autoimmunity (EPA, 2014).
Limited data in animals suggest that single high inhalation exposures may cause fibrosis of the lungs or lung tumors. In animals, short-term oral exposure to high levels of asbestos have been shown to cause abnormal colon and rectum structure, which is one of the earliest changes seen in the colon that may lead to cancer. Lung lesions (inflammation and fibrosis) have also been reported in animals following longer-term exposures to asbestos, and tumors that were observed in animal tissues following these exposures, such as mesothelioma and lung cancer, are consistent with the cancer effects observed in humans. However, animals exposed to very high doses of asbestos in food did not generally develop more fatal cancers than usual.
Other experimental animal studies also support human studies demonstrating potential autoimmune effects of exposure. Available data in both humans and animals indicate that the amphibole types of asbestos may be more harmful than the chrysotile type, particularly for mesothelioma (ATSDR, 2001; EPA, 2014).
Asbestos Safe Or Virtually Levels
Federal and state governments develop regulations and recommendations to protect public health. Regulations and recommendations for chemicals are often expressed as a safe or virtually safe level, that is, a level of a substance in air, water, soil, or food that is not expected to cause any adverse health effect, even in sensitive people. These safe levels are usually based on information from experiments with animals (usually rodents) at much higher levels of the chemicals than humans would typically encounter. However, in the case of asbestos, we have sufficient information which to determine the virtually safe level. Sometimes these safe levels differ among federal and state organizations because they assume different exposures, use different experimental animal studies, or employ slightly different methods. The recommendations for safe levels may also differ because new science develops that suggests different levels are toxic or safe. Recommendations and regulations are also updated periodically as more information becomes available.
Recently, the EPA (2014) derived a non-cancer safe level of 9 × 10-5 fiber/cc (or 9 fibers/m3). For cancer, the EPA derived a unit risk level of 1.7 x10-1 per fiber/cc (0.17 per mg/m3) for inhalation exposure based on cancer mortality from lung cancer and mesothelioma. No virtually safe level has been derived for asbestos in water or air. The weight of evidence indicates that asbestos ingestion does not cause any significant noncarcinogenic effects in the gastrointestinal tract or other tissues. This supports the generally held perception that oral exposure to asbestos does not present a high priority public health concern for noncancer effects (ATSDR, 2001).
Why Is EPA Looking At Asbestos Under The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act?
EPA scientists are currently looking at the likely routes of exposure to asbestos in the environment and will be developing exposure scenarios, or pathways, for the public.
These exposure pathways will be studied by EPA scientists by comparing the amount of asbestos exposure in the pathway to its safe or virtually safe level. If exposure in the pathway is at or below this safe or virtually safe dose, then asbestos exposure from the pathway is not considered to be a health concern. If exposure is above this safe or virtually safe level, then the pathway might be considered as a possible health concern, and regulations might be developed to lessen the exposure of asbestos from this pathway. Small excesses of the safe or virtually safe dose are seldom cause for concern since these safety levels are developed from conservative assumptions, including the use of safety factors that tend to exaggerate risk or exposure pathways that tend to exaggerate exposure.
See also EPA (2018) for specific questions related to the assessment of asbestos under the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA).
Controversy Over Asbestos
Three general controversies exist with asbestos. The first has to do with the extrapolation of cancer findings to commonly encountered asbestos exposures. The second controversy is whether asbestos fibers smaller than 5 µm are considered toxic. The third has to do with whether all uses of asbestos could be banned.
Regarding the first controversy, several government and other agencies have evaluated the carcinogenicity of asbestos in humans. Epidemiological evidence shows a significant association between exposure to all forms of asbestos and increased lung cancer and mesothelioma mortality following exposure in humans. This association is supported by experimental animal studies. Based on this evidence, asbestos is considered carcinogenic to humans (EPA, 2014; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2012). Although this statement is not controversial, EPA (2014) describes multiple ways in which tumors can be formed from asbestos exposure, including mutation, DNA toxicity, chronic inflammation, cell toxicity, and regeneration of tissue from severe injury. Although EPA determined that the available evidence is generally supportive of chronic inflammation or cell toxicity and regeneration in the formation of tumors, and that the available data are not sufficient to conclude that asbestos is mutagenic, it still defaulted to a conservative linear extrapolation for estimating the virtually safe dose for asbestos. In such cases, EPA could have conducted a dose response assessment with both mutagenic and threshold ways of tumor formation as per its guidelines (EPA, 2005, page 3-22). However, EPA chose not to do so.
Regarding the second controversy, available studies indicate that inhalation of fibers greater than 5 µm in length are associated with both pulmonary fibrosis (i.e., asbestosis) and malignancies (carcinoma of the lung and mesothelioma), while there is a strong weight of evidence that asbestos fibers shorter than 5 µm are unlikely to cause cancer in humans (ATSDR, 2003). ATSDR (2003) indicated that there are several notable exceptions, for example, in laboratory animals short asbestos at sufficiently high doses have been shown to cause inflammation and lung effects, the doses needed to cause these effects in humans may not be relevant to environmental exposures.
Several authors have also expressed concerns regarding the prevailing scientific opinion that short fibers (less or equal to 5 μm in length) have not been demonstrated to be pathogenic (see Roggli, 2015). In reviewing these studies and the available scientific literature, Roggli (2015) noted that there is no convincing scientific evidence from studies in both experimental animal models and human tissue samples to support a pathogenic role for fibers 5 µm or less in length. According to Roggli (2015), unlike the short fibers, clearance from the respiratory system is very slow for the long, thin persistent fibers, which become concentrated in the lungs and in the membrane surrounding the lungs.
Regarding the third controversy, EPA (2018) interprets the mandates within the LCSA to conduct risk evaluations on current and prospective uses of asbestos for which “manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce is intended, known or reasonably foreseen, rather than reaching back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal…” That is to say that EPA’s evaluation process focuses on the “continuing flow of chemical substances from manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce into the use and disposal stages of their life cycle.” In contrast, some groups are calling for the complete ban of asbestos products, including legacy uses. Such a request, while not inconsistent with the uses of asbestos that were banned under TSCA in 1989 (Asbestos: Manufacture, Importation, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce Prohibitions; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 763), also known as Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule Remanded), would be extremely difficult to manage under LCSA, but which otherwise is being managed in other areas. Unfortunately, the controversy continues to be ongoing.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/18/acsh-explains-whats-story-asbestos-13206
-
House Chemical Bill Stalls Because Another Panel Has Dibs
Jul 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scot
A House panel’s plan to consider a chemical bill July 18 was thwarted when it turned out the committee didn’t have jurisdiction over the measure.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would allow multiple EPA offices to manage chemical assessments known as IRIS reviews. The legislation was introduced July 17.
Biggs said he heard just before the scheduled Science, Space and Technology Committee markup of the measure that the House parliamentarian instead assigned it to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But he said the move “doesn’t necessarily” mean the measure can’t later be referred back to the science panel.
Biggs, who sits on both committees, has raised concerns for years over the EPA Integrated Risk Information Program, which the agency’s Office of Research and Development has managed for years. His Chemical Assessment Improvement Act (H.R. 6399) has 16 cosponsors, all Republicans.
IRIS assessments can underpin a variety of EPA actions, including drinking water and hazardous waste cleanup standards.
“There’s been a longstanding series of problems with IRIS, everything from standards that are being used and the processes used” to conduct the assessments, Biggs said. “What we’re trying to do is move it to the groups that actually do the research anyway.”
Democrats said the measure would wreak havoc on the EPA’s chemical assessment process.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-chemical-bill-stalls-because-another-panel-has-dibs
-
Bill to Eliminate EPA IRIS Programme Introduced in Congress
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A Republican Congressman has introduced a bill to eliminate the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
The so-called Chemical Assessment Improvement Act (HR 6399), moved by Andy Biggs (R–Arizona), calls for assessments conducted under IRIS to be moved to the "relevant programme office" of the EPA. It also includes provisions mandating that assessments be conducted in "a manner consistent with the best available science" and be subject to third-party review.
The bill's introduction represents the latest assault on the programme, which independently conducts risk evaluations on substances of concern that can inform future regulatory action at EPA.
In recent years, IRIS has been the target of relentless industry attacks on the validity of its findings, and was the subject of a critical report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2011.
And Republicans in both chambers have routinely threatened to eliminate or defund the programme, and have conducted inquiries into its processes.
Yet, despite a NAS report earlier this year finding "substantial progress" in improving IRIS, Biggs described the programme as "unauthorised and duplicative", with a "track record of carrying out flawed chemical assessments using improper science".
"My bill ensures that future chemical assessments will be carried out only when necessary, will be subject to proper oversight, and will rely on the best available scientific methods," he said.
Lamar Smith (R–Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, added the measure "addresses serious deficiencies" previously identified by the committee.
The bill had been scheduled for a full committee markup this week, but that did not occur. Details were not immediately available as to the change or when it will be taken up.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68776/bill-to-eliminate-epa-iris-programme-introduced-in-congress
-
Science Panel Drops Markup Of IRIS Bill After Energy Panel Wins Jurisdiction
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
House science committee Republicans were forced to drop their planned markup of legislation redirecting the work of EPA's influential but controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program after the House Energy and Commerce Committee won jurisdiction over the just-introduced measure, raising doubts about the legislation's future.
The bill, H.R. 6399, introduced July 17, was scheduled for a markup July 18, but was pulled from the committee's schedule minutes before lawmakers met.
The bill was pulled from the schedule because of a “jurisdictional issue,” a spokeswoman for the committee tells Inside EPA. She explained that when Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) introduced the bill July 17, “the parliamentarian referred it to [the] Energy and Commerce [Committee.]”
Biggs (R-AZ) chairs the House Science Committee's environment subpanel. The bill has 16 GOP co-sponsors, including Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the departing chairman of the science committee.
The spokeswoman added that it is unclear how the bill will proceed -- whether the two committees will share jurisdiction over the bill, or whether Energy and Commerce will retain it solely.
But according to Congress.gov, Congress' website that tracks legislation, the House Parliamentarian referred the bill solely to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
H.R. 6399 would move responsibility for new and existing assessments from EPA's IRIS program, housed in EPA's research office, to “the relevant program office of [EPA], so long as the relevant program office determines there is a need for such an assessment.”
The legislation's approach won praise from former Trump EPA toxics nominee Michael Dourson, echoing his long-standing call to expand the scientists participating in the functions of the IRIS beyond its program staff.
In an interview with Inside EPA, Dourson, who helped create and staff IRIS in its early days, described the bill as “brilliant” and “the way IRIS was intended” to operate. “This is a good step in the right direction,” he added.
Such an approach is similar to how Dourson and other former EPA staff who created and staffed the IRIS program in the early 1980s have described it to Inside EPA. Then, IRIS assessments were conducted by technical staff in various EPA program offices who were part of a pair of intra-agency committees that developed the chemical toxicity values. The assessments were coordinated and managed by EPA's research office.
The bill marks the latest effort to scale back the program from critics who charge its use of conservative modeling approaches results in risk values that drive unnecessarily strict regulatory standards. Those efforts have so far failed to advance in Congress, where appropriators recently preserved the program while “encouraging” the agency to continue a series of reforms the program's staff has been implementing.
H.R. 6399 also proposes a series of standards for how any new IRIS assessments must be performed and encourages EPA to develop more than one risk value. EPA is currently considering such an approach for its pending hexavalent chromium assessment, which, if adopted, would mark a win for industry groups that have long advocated for an alternative to EPA's more-conservative single point estimates generated by strict linear dose-response modeling.
“When supported by the available data, the toxicity value or values shall include a range of point estimates of risk as well as sources and magnitudes of uncertainty associated with the estimates. When multiple point estimates can be developed, the relevant program office shall -- consider all datasets; and make a determination about how best to represent the human health risk posed by the chemical substance involved.”
The bill further directs EPA's administrator to create a “chemical hazard identification and dose response steering committee … to coordinate the conduct of covered assessments by relevant program offices for purposes of ensuring that, with respect to such assessments, there is no duplication of effort.”
The bill says the committee will be chaired by EPA's research chief and that it will contain 15 staff selected by the administrator, representing the program offices and regions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/science-panel-drops-markup-iris-bill-after-energy-panel-wins-jurisdiction
-
Jul 19, 2018 | DeSmog
By Julie Dermansky
What should be done about a chemical plant in Louisiana’s St. John the Baptist Parish that releases chloroprene — a chemical so toxic that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined nearby residents face the highest risk in the country of developing cancer from air pollution?The answer is simple, according to Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré: “Fix it, move it, or shut it down.” Honoré is founder of the Green Army, a coalition of environmental groups and concerned citizens fighting against pollution in their communities.
But local, state, and federal regulators haven’t resolved issues swirling around emissions released by the Denka Performance Elastomer plant, located in LaPlace, Louisiana. The plant is next to the Mississippi River, on a stretch of land between New Orleans and Baton Rouge known as Cancer Alley.Chloroprene Emissions on the Decline But Still Too High?
DuPont’s synthetic rubber plant in LaPlace emitted chloroprene for 46 years before it was sold to Denka. Shortly after Denka took over the plant, the EPA reclassified chloroprene in 2010 as a likely human carcinogen. The EPA deems 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter the acceptable standard for chloroprene emissions, a level that the plant overshoots considerably.
EPA’s 2010 Toxicological Review of Chloroprene determined that short-term exposure to high levels of chloroprene can cause a range of health impacts, from dizziness to chest pains, and suggests that chloroprene causes an increased risk of lung, liver, and kidney cancers, as well as leukemia and immune-system problems.
Though Denka doesn't agree with the EPA’s findings, the company agreed in January 2017 to reduce chloroprene emissions by 85 percent. It installed costly emissions reduction equipment that began operating at full capacity in March 2018. Emissions are trending downwards, but not to the level that EPA scientists say is the threshold for dangerous exposure or to a level that state or federal regulators are satisfied with.
In June 2017, Denka challenged the agency’s findings on chloroprene’s toxicity, prompting the EPA to formally review its 2010 assessment. After completing the review at the end of January 2018, the EPAbacked its findings, but Denka has filed an appeal, which is still under review.
Robert Taylor, founder of Concerned Citizens of St. John the Baptist Parish, a community group borne out of the fear of breathing toxic air, welcomed the EPA’s findings. “We all knew there was something wrong with our air, and then the EPA put a name on it,” he says.
It makes sense that Denka would challenge the EPA’s findings, but the Concerned Citizens group is frustrated with Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and Department of Health, which also question them.
At a parish council meeting in December 2016, Chuck Carr Brown, head of the LDEQ, accused members of the group of fear-mongering for insisting Denka cut chloroprene emissions to the EPA’s recommended standard.
Brown stands firm that the EPA’s figure of 0.2 micrograms is for guidance; it is not a legal standard that the plant is required to meet. The current standard was set years before the EPA reclassified chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen.
At an April 24, 2018 meeting of the St. John the Baptist Parish Council, Brown said that the EPA’s number might not be the final standard, once Brown and others have a chance to study results of Denka’s emissions-reduction efforts.
“Currently there is not an ambient air quality standard for chloroprene,” Jennah Durant, an EPArepresentative said in an email. “EPA, state, and company on- going actions are designed to reduce chloroprene emissions from the plant.
At the same meeting, Jimmy Guidry, M.D., the top state health officer and medical director, declared that people living near the plant do not face a health emergency and downplayed chloroprene’s health risks.
But when pressed by Councilman Lennix Madere, Jr., who represents the district closest to the plant about what Guidry would feel comfortable saying is a safe
level, Guidry did not contradict the EPA’s 0.2 microgram suggested standard. “The EPA has come out and set their number that they calculated from a mathematical formula and until we can prove otherwise we should strive to get to that number,” Guidry said.
Brown gave the council assurances that the emissions levels were much lower than before, and that his agency is continuing to work with Denka to reduce emissions as much as possible.
But Wilma Subra, a technical advisor with the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) who has been advising the Concerned Citizens group, told the council that Denka has shown an unwillingness to lower production (which immediately would reduce emissions) or to spend additional money on emissions reduction measures beyond its previous commitment.
Members of the citizens group who attended the parish council meeting were disappointed that the council seemed to accept Brown and Guidry’s wait-and-see attitude. After the meeting, Taylor reached out to Honoré, who since then has been strategizing with the citizens group on what he sees as an undeniable environmental justice issue.Assessing the Health Risks to Students
In March this year, the St. John the Baptist School Board expressed concern about the safety of children attending the school closest to the Denka plant, leading to a parish council request to the state to review potential health risks.
As a result, the Louisiana Department of Health examined whether potential health risks would be significantly reduced if the children were sent to another school nearby.
On July 6, the department released an assessment indicating that moving students at the Fifth Ward Elementary School, about a half-mile west of the Denka plant, to East St. John Elementary, which is three miles north of the plant, “would not greatly decrease their theoretical risks of developing excess cancers from exposure to chloroprene.”
The preliminary assessment was based on data limited to air sampling results from March to May 2018 and collected after Denka activated its emissions reduction devices.
Subra questions the assessment’s value. She said that looking at a few months of data to determine the risk to students misses the long-term effects of higher exposure that children and their families experienced before the equipment was installed.
The Department of Health’s findings don’t surprise Denka, because the company believes chloroprene is being cast unnecessarily as a dangerous
chemical. “There is no evidence to suggest our operations pose any increased risk of health impacts to our surrounding community,” Jim Harris, a spokesperson for Denka, said in an email.John Cummings is one of the lawyers involved in a lawsuit against Denka and DuPont by residents of St. John the Baptist Parish. The suit is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages for various issues, including health-related problems and lost property value.
He, too, questions the premise of the state’s health assessment and the timing of its release.
“What sense does it make to consider the value of moving children from one area with bad air to another?” asks Cummings.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2017, is still pending. Federal Judge Martin Feldman denied granting class action status to the lawsuit in March due to a missed deadline. The same judge is expected to rule very soon on a motion by Denka’s attorneys to dismiss the suit altogether.Disputing the State Health Assessment
Taylor called the state’s health assessment irresponsible. “It is unbelievable that people in positions of authority would make the statement that the Department of Health has made since we became aware of the EPA’s findings,” Taylor said. He gives the report no credence because he can’t see the value in a health assessment that doesn’t include input from the people who live in the community.
The concerned citizens group is anxiously awaiting a health assessment from a Stanford Human Rights Clinic team, which spent weeks earlier this year conducting a randomized health survey of households within a 1.5 mile radius of the Denka plant. The group helped the Stanford team survey more than 500 area households, gathering data on incidences of cancer, other medical diagnoses, and health symptoms.
As far as Taylor knows, no one from the Department of Health has ever asked anyone impacted by the chloroprene emissions about their health. The department confirmed it has not spoken with people in the community near the plant about their health issues since the EPA reclassified chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen.
Instead, the department relies on the Louisiana State University Tumor Registry, which collects data on cancer diagnoses. But the tumor registry relies on reported cases of cancer in Louisiana only, and some cases go unreported while others are treated and diagnosed out of state.
State officials and Denka representatives point to the registry’s findings as an explanation for why they think the EPA assessment of cancer risk for St. John the Baptist Parish is wrong. A recent assessment broken down by zip codes doesn’t show an elevated risk of two types of cancer that have chloroprene as a risk factor, according to Robert Johannessen of the Department of Health’s communication office.
“The tumor registry is malarkey,” Cummings told me. “If you go down some streets and talk to people, you will find 80 percent of the households have a family member with cancer.”
“There is clearly something fishy going on here,” Taylor said. “Otherwise, why won’t these state officials sit down and face us?”
He thinks the citizens group’s demands are quite reasonable. “We aren't asking officials to shut the plant down. We just don’t want them to be allowed to go on poisoning us.”
I asked Councilman Madere if the council planned to take any further actions. He told me what happens next is up to the EPA. He said that without a legal standard for emissions, there is nothing anyone at the state level can really do.
I asked the EPA if or when it plans to set a standard for chloroprene emissions, but did not receive an answer.
“While they are looking at numbers on a report, I’m taking care of my daughter and my wife,” Taylor said. Last year, after his wife had a stroke, he convinced her to move to California. He was afraid the air-borne chemicals from the plant, about a mile from their home, would interfere with her recovery.
Taylor would also like to relocate his daughter, Raven, who suffers from an immune deficiency condition — which EPA’s assessment says is in line with high chloroprene exposure — but the family's financial situation has prevented the move. He now splits his time between Louisiana and California.
He regrets being unable to attend the funeral of Walter Gerard, a member since the beginning of the Concerned Citizens of St. John the Baptist Parish. Gerard died of cancer on June 27. “How many more members will we lose before we get clean air?” Taylor wonders.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/07/18/epa-health-risks-chloroprene-denka-chemical-plant-st-john-the-baptist-parish-louisiana
-
EPA Updating School Lead Guidance After GAO Report
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is planning to update guidance to help schools determine when action is needed to reduce lead in drinking water following a critical Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that is spurring calls from Democratic lawmakers for the agency to take further steps to reduce lead exposures, including updating its lead and copper rule (LCR).
In a report released July 11, “Lead Testing of School Drinking Water Would Benefit from Improved Federal Guidance,” GAO recommended ways for EPA to better assist states and school districts in testing for and reducing lead in schools' drinking water, including updating guidance and coordinating with the Department of Education.
“Although EPA guidance emphasizes the importance of addressing elevated lead levels, GAO found that some aspects of the guidance, such as the threshold for taking remedial action, were potentially misleading and unclear,” GAO says. “Without providing interim or updated guidance, EPA is providing schools with confusing and out of date information, which can increase the risk of school districts making uninformed decisions."
The report found that less than half of all school districts nationwide test for lead in drinking water. Among school districts that did test, more than one third found elevated lead levels.
In a June 18 response to an earlier version of the report, EPA water chief David Ross agreed with GAO's recommendations and says headquarters officials are seeking input from regional offices to inform improved guidance
“Potential revisions include updates to implementation practices, the sampling protocol, and the remediation trigger, including clarifying descriptions of different action levels and standards,” Ross says.
A half dozen Democratic lawmakers who requested the GAO audit say the findings further emphasize the need for the Trump administration to complete an update of the LCR, which has been repeatedly delayed.
“This report should serve as a wake-up call to the Trump Administration that it must take immediate action to address lead in drinking water,” Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, say in a statement. “The Administration should finalize a stronger Lead and Copper Rule and issue protective guidance requiring lead testing for all public schools.”
The Democratic lawmakers who requested the GAO audit are Pallone and Reps. Paul Tonko (NY), Rosa DeLauro (CT) and Mike Quigley (IL), as well as Sens. Patty Murray (WA) and Brian Schatz (HI).
EPA is planning to revise its Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) LCR to address aging drinking water infrastructure but legal and financial questions over how to meet recommendations for the rule have complicated the effort. EPA plans to issue a proposed LCR in February 2019 and a final in February 2020, according to the most recent Unified Agenda.
While most of the nation's K-12 public schools are not subject to the LCR, GAO notes that schools receive water from public water systems that are covered by that rule. Environmentalists in New Jersey are suing state and local officials over alleged SDWA LCR violations after high lead levels in Newark's water supply were detected at several schools in 2016.
Late last year, EPA generally agreed with another GAO report, issued in October, that argued better data on the location of lead service lines would improve the agency's LCR oversight, though the agency stopped short of committing to GAO's call to require states to report the data and take other steps to help enforce the rule.
EPA said it would consider GAO's recommendations along with other stakeholder comments when revising the rule. EPA met with several stakeholders in January to discuss several possible LCR revisions. State regulators have cautioned some of the changes would increase their workloads while reducing federal funding, and water utilities have urged the agency to focus on “financially prudent” ways to reduce human health risks when changing the rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-updating-school-lead-guidance-after-gao-report
-
Multinational Insulation Manufacturers Phase out Flame Retardant HBCD
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Multinational manufacturers Dow, Owens Corning and Kingspan have phased out halogenated flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) from their building insulation products.
HBCD has been commonly used in expanded and extruded polystyrene (EPS and XPS) foam produced for the building and construction industry to meet fire safety standards.
The substance was added to the Stockholm Convention in 2014 which meant that all countries signed up to the treaty should aim to eliminate its use, manufacture and importation.
However, the US is not a signatory to the Convention and it has therefore been the adoption of regulations in North America and other countries that have prompted companies to phase it out. Several US states, including Massachusetts, California and Washington, have also taken steps to address and manage certain flame retardants, including HBCD.
According to a Dow press release, HBCD is no longer being used in its XPS or EPS polystyrene insulation and replaced the substance in stages, starting with Japan in 2014, the EU in 2015, Canada in 2016 and the US last year.
Owens Corning also said that in 2017 it completed a transition to a "fire retardant that contains no HBCD for our XPS foam insulation in North America". Its motivation, it says, is to meet regulations in Canada and market demand. Owens Corning did not say what alternative it was using instead of HBCD.
And following a review of its products in 2014 Kingspan decided to stop using HBCD "given concerns about its use in several end markets". It has been using an alternative fire retardant since 2016, but did not say what this is.
In 2016, the US EPA announced HBCD will be one of the first ten existing chemicals subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA.Alternative
Dow is only company to reveal its alternative It said its "polymeric flame retardant technology" known as PolyFR, is a "butadiene styrene brominated copolymer,". Through a licensing agreement, Dow has made its PolyFR alterntive available to Israel's ICL Industrial Products (ICL-IP), Albermarle Corp and Chemtura.
Unlike HBCD, PolyFR is a polymer with a higher molecular weight, so it is no longer bioaccumulative, according to Mark Barger, a chemical engineer at Dow and a Fellow of the Society of Plastics Engineers.
In 2016, the US EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) programme released an alternative assessment report on HBCD. This identified butadiene styrene brominated copolymer as a "safer alternative ... that is unlikely to be released from the polystyrene". However, the report added "this alternative is inherently persistent. Its long-term behaviour in the environment is not currently known."
According to the Green Science Policy Institute, the possible health and ecological impacts of PolyFR, and its potential impurities and environmental breakdown products, are not yet known.
It said an estimated 23,000 metric tons of the polymeric flame retardant is being produced annually, and global production is expected to increase.
"PolyFR may provide a textbook example of a 'regrettable substitution'," the Institute said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68746/multinational-insulation-manufacturers-phase-out-flame-retardant-hbcd
-
EU Opens Consultation on Updating CLP Alignment with GHS
Jul 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has opened a consultation on a draft regulation to align the EU's CLP Regulation with the sixth and seventh revised editions of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals.
The consultation, which closes on 13 August, comes under the Commission's Better Regulation agenda. Under this the EU executive aims to make evidence-based proposals for EU policies and laws to "address the needs of citizens and stakeholders".
The UN's Committee of Experts adopted the sixth and seventh editions of the GHS in 2014 and 2016 respectively. The EU aligned with the fifth revised edition of the GHS in 2016. Its rules became mandatory on 1 February this year.
The US recently announced that its planned updates to the US Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) are also likely to mirror the seventh edition of the GHS.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68783/eu-opens-consultation-on-updating-clp-alignment-with-ghs
-
Arizona Utility Spends Millions Fighting Renewable Energy Measure
Jul 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brenna Goth
The owner of Arizona’s largest electric utility is spending millions of dollars to defeat a measure that would require the company and others in the state to produce more energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources.
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the parent company of utility giant Arizona Public Service Co., spent about $7.5 million through June on a campaign telling voters that more renewable resources would mean higher prices for customers, according to new campaign-finance reports. Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona is spearheading a November ballot measure to mandate that regulated utilities get half their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.
NextGen America, founded by billionaire political activist Tom Steyer, is backing the Arizona push for more renewables. NextGen Climate Action donated the majority of the $4.5 million the clean-energy group raised through June.
The finance reports come as a state utility regulator recently came under fire for ties to Arizona Public Service. Arizona Corporation Commission Executive Director Ted Vogt resigned this month over concerns about his wife’s work with the lobbying firm that Pinnacle West hired to lead the clean energy opposition campaign.
The corporation commission will consider an interim executive director at a July 19 meeting.
Spending CriticizedClean energy supporters turned in hundreds of thousands of signatures earlier this month to get the higher renewable requirements on the ballot. The state has yet to determine if the measure qualifies.
Arizona Public Service, however, is spending big to keep voters from approving the potential new rules. Pinnacle West Capital Corporation is the sole funder of the Arizonans for Affordable Electricity opposition campaign.
Another group linked to the giant utility, Arizonans for Sustainable Energy Policy, had nearly $3 million on hand through the end of June, according to its campaign finance report.
Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona spokesman DJ Quinlan criticized Arizona Public Service’s spending in a statement, saying the company is “polluting our politics with their money.”
The group is launching an effort to oppose corporation commission candidates in the November election who take donations from Arizona Public Service or Pinnacle West.
Arizonans for Affordable Electricity argued that the clean-energy money from NextGen is also an outside influence.
“All of Tom Steyer’s money can’t hide the thousands of Arizona jobs that will be lost” if the ballot measure passes, Matthew Benson, the group’s spokesman, said in a statement.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/arizona-utility-spends-millions-fighting-renewable-energy-measure
-
San Francisco Judge Rejects Calls to Move Fracking Lawsuits to Wyoming
Jul 18, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
A federal district court judge in San Francisco has denied motions by the Trump administration and the oil and gas industry to move a pair of lawsuits concerning an Obama-era rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands to more friendly territory -- a district court in Wyoming.
In U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. on Tuesday denied motions by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to move the cases to U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
At issue is a decision by BLM, under orders by Trump, to rescind the fracking rule, issued by BLM in 2015. California and a coalition of environmental groups filed separate lawsuits in January challenging the rescission.
Last March, BLM and the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Western Energy Alliance (WEA) filed motions to transfer the cases to Wyoming, arguing that the state would be a more appropriate venue.
However, Gilliam said three legal actions -- a district court judge's ruling in June 2016 that BLM did not have the authority to regulate fracking; a decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to dismiss litigation over the rule last September; and a decision by the same panel to deny rehearing arguments two months later -- meant that there was no problem with the cases moving forward in San Francisco.
"Given the posture of the Wyoming action, the court is not convinced that there is any risk of inconsistent judgments," Gilliam wrote. "The Tenth Circuit recently vacated the court's holding in the Wyoming action. In doing so, the Tenth Circuit found that the plaintiffs' appeals were prudentially unripe as a result of BLM's rescission of the fracking rule."
Gilliam said since the Tenth Circuit in June issued a corresponding mandate to enforce its judgment, "there is no standing decision of the Wyoming district court for this court to contravene."
The judge also took note of separate motions by BLM and North Dakota and Texas to transfer a pair of lawsuits over the Obama-era rule governing associated natural gas flaring and venting on public and tribal lands -- aka the venting and flaring rule -- from Northern California to Wyoming for similar reasons.
While conceding there was "substantive overlap" between challenges to the fracking rule and the venting and flaring rule, Gilliam said "the issue before this court -- the legality of BLM's rescission of the fracking rule -- was not presented to or reached by the court in the Wyoming action. The question in the Wyoming action, whether BLM had statutory authority to enact the fracking rule, has not been presented to this court."
WEA President Kathleen Sgamma told NGI's Shale Daily that Tuesday's ruling was not unexpected. "Rare is the judge who let's go of a case," she said.
Gilliam granted motions by API, IPAA and WEA to intervene in the case. He also denied as moot a motion filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in April to strike the State of Wyoming's response to BLM's motion to move the cases to Wyoming.
The lead case over the fracking rule, which included Tuesday's ruling, is State of California v. BLM, No. 4:18-cv-521. The second case is Sierra Club et al v. Ryan Zinke et al, No. 4:18-cv-00524.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115104-san-francisco-judge-rejects-calls-to-move-fracking-lawsuits-to-wyoming
-
Reports of FERC LNG Delays Are Greatly Exaggerated, Says Chairman McIntyre
Jul 19, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
A published report claiming that FERC has informed liquefied natural gas (LNG) developers that reviews of project applications are 12-18 months behind schedule is incorrect, according to Chairman Kevin McIntyre.
"FERC has issued no such letter," McIntyre said in a podcast released Tuesday by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. "Indeed, with regard to the timing of the remaining pending LNG applications, there is good news to report.
"In just the last few days, we have made truly significant strides in reforming the permitting process with our federal partners, eliminating duplicative efforts and instituting a streamline procedure that will significantly reduce our LNG permitting timelines. The details are still being hammered out, but we expect to have a formalized agreement in place in the coming days."
The Commission has issued revised notice schedules for two projects, as well as one schedule for a greenfield LNG project subject to the FAST-41 process, in the past six months, McIntyre said. No other LNG project schedules have been revised or released.
"FERC staff is very cognizant of the financial market impacts of its LNG project schedules. Moreover, since we have been working diligently to streamline our permitting process and are still making significant strides in that direction, the release of any schedules to date would have been premature.
“For these reasons, among others, FERC takes very seriously the schedules that it issues regarding these LNG projects,” he said. “To that end, we will not issue schedules until we have all the facts necessary and have implemented our improved processes to create accurate schedules."
Fifteen LNG terminal applications are pending before the Commission, most of them for export projects, compared with a single export application in 2011, McIntyre said.
"But it’s not just the number of applications that have increased. We're seeing evolution in the size and complexity of the projects as well. Further, we not only review these applications, but we also monitor the construction of these projects post-authorization. Currently, the Commission's Office of Energy Projects staff are performing construction inspections for six authorized projects."
To address the rapid increase in LNG workload, FERC is hiring additional engineering staff, McIntyre said.
"We have made offers to several talented LNG engineers, and we are looking for ways to attract additional LNG engineers."
The Commission is also identifying other opportunities to hire third parties to assist LNG staff, and looking for ways to improve coordination with other federal entities, including the Energy and Transportation departments.
Last month, McIntyre told a Senate panel that he is personally committed to seeing the Commission accelerate permitting interstate natural gas pipelines, while also hiring more staff to address a backlog of permitting for LNG export infrastructure. Concern that the Commission was short-staffed and faced a backlog in the permitting process for LNG export infrastructure was also raised during a House Subcommittee on Energy hearing last April.
Commissioner Neil Chatterjee recently proposed pay increases, fellowship programs and a new regional office as ways to combat "personnel resource constraints inhibiting" an ongoing review of LNG export terminal applications.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115098-reports-of-ferc-lng-delays-are-greatly-exaggerated-says-chairman-mcintyre
-
Drillers Burned Off Less Natural Gas in 2017, Reversing a Trend
Jul 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christine Buurma
Oil producers around the globe burned off less natural gas last year, reversing a trend that started in 2010 and sparked concern the emissions were contributing to climate change.
About 141 billion cubic meters (4.98 trillion cubic feet) of gas was flared in 2017, down about 5 percent from the previous year, according to the World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership, a public-private initiative to limit the practice. Flaring occurs when gas that’s produced alongside crude is burned off instead of being sold, often because there aren’t enough pipelines connecting the field to major markets.
Though Russia burned off the most gas, it also saw the biggest drop in flaring. The nation is exporting more of the fuel to Europe, where production from the continent’s largest gas field is dwindling, and has also boosted liquefied natural gas shipments to overseas buyers with the startup of a new export plant last year.
Elsewhere, the data appeared tied to fluctuations in oil supply: Flaring rose in the U.S., a nation pumping record amounts of crude from its shale plays. About 3 to 5 percent of gas produced in the Permian Basin is flared as pipeline bottlenecks threaten oil growth, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. It also increased in Iran and Libya, where crude production has climbed, while falling Venezuela and Mexico, where output has declined.
The report comes as the World Bank and environmental groups call on oil and gas producers to rein in flaring, which boosts the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change. The U.S., Russia and Mexico are among the nations endorsing the World Bank’s initiative, which is also supported by companies from BP Plc to Gazprom PJSC.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/drillers-burned-off-less-natural-gas-in-2017-reversing-a-trend
-
Texas Set to Pass Iraq, Iran as World's Third-Largest Oil Producer
Jul 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Texas's oil industry is set to surpass Iraq and Iran to become the third-largest oil producing region in the world, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia.
CNN Money reports that HSBC Bank predicted in a recent report that the state's explosive growth in oil production over the last two years could result in Texas passing the two Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members as oil prices rise around the world.
"It's remarkable. The [Permian Basin oil field] is nothing less than a blessing for the global economy," Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group, told CNN.
The surge in production comes just two years after the oil fields in Texas were seeing much lower production levels at the tail end of the Obama administration, according to CNN.
"In 2014, it was amazing. 2016 was down in the dumps. Two years later, it's back to crazy," Texas railroad commissioner Ryan Sitton told the news network.
Production cutbacks in Russia and OPEC nations have also led to a rise in U.S. oil prices, a boon for the economy as companies in Texas struggle to find qualified workers and the infrastructure required to support the surge.
"To say there's a shortage of bodies is an understatement," Jeff Bush, president of CSI Recruiting president, told CNN. He said lower production under the Obama administration had left companies struggling to adjust to the economic boom in time.
"These service companies took it on the chin the last few years. They're trying to make hay while the sun shines, but you can't do that if you don't have people," he said.
"Right now, everything's an issue: Water, sand, buildings, transportation. You name it," Sitton added.
President Trump tweeted last month that he had spoken to Saudi Arabia's King Salman, urging him to increase oil production to counter rising prices.
“Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference...Prices to high! He has agreed!” Trump said in June.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/397669-texas-set-to-pass-iraq-iran-as-worlds-third-largest-oil-producer
-
Green Groups Sue over Expanded Gulf Drilling
Jul 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Wyatt Schiff
Green groups are suing the Trump administration over its decision to expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on Monday on behalf of three groups, the Gulf Restoration Network, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, against the Interior Department and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
The suit targets a decision from the administration to open up 78 million acres of the Gulf to potential drilling.
The groups say regulators have failed to do the necessary environmental checks and are in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
“The Gulf is one of the most productive marine regions in the United States, supporting many species of turtles, dolphins and whales as well as accounting for one third of the nation’s seafood catch every year," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of the Gulf Restoration Network, in a statement.
"Commercial fisheries and coastal tourism alone generate more than $40 billion annually in the five Gulf states. After the BP drilling disaster, we cannot afford to loosen common sense safety measures while increasing risky drilling operations in the Gulf.”
The groups also say that the recent sales are allowing industry to purchase leases at record-low prices.
"In a departure from past practices, the agency is now offering essentially all available, unleased acreage in the Gulf," said Earthjustice in a release. "The effect is to reduce competition for available blocks and to allow fossil fuel companies to acquire and hoard leases at rock-bottom prices."
It's the second lawsuit Earthjustice has filed over the Trump administration's efforts to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Interior Department hopes to use the sales to raise funds to pay for a number of other projects. But a sale earlier this year in the Gulf drew lukewarm interest.
The moves have sparked pushback from environmental groups.
“With these massive lease sales in the Gulf, the Trump administration is holding up President Obama’s policies with one hand to claim the environment and worker safety won’t be compromised, while slashing those same policies with the other hand and aggressively attempting to expand drilling. Trump can’t have it both ways.” said Chris Eaton, an attorney with Earthjustice.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/397661-green-groups-sue-over-expanded-gulf-drilling
-
Energy Agency Clarifies How Utilities Share Cyber Info in Draft Rule
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Electric utilities would get more clarity on how to share critical cyber and physical security information with the Energy Department in a proposed rule that the White House is reviewing.
The proposed rule would implement how the Energy Department would designate, protect and share critical electric infrastructure information from utilities.
The information is about how a physical or cyberattack on the power grid could harm national security, the economy, or health and safety, according to a portion of the rule obtained by Bloomberg Environment.
“Protecting our critical electric infrastructure information has been a priority of the Office of Electricity and the greater department,” a source within the administration told Bloomberg Environment.
The source spoke on the condition of anonymity because rule is still under review. It was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget on July 10.
“We’re increasing our standards and procedures related to critical electric infrastructure information following our congressional direction,” the source said.
Administration PriorityThe rulemaking is a priority for the Trump administration, following lack of action on it during the Obama administration, the source said.
The FAST (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation) Act, signed into law December 2015, designated the Energy Department as the lead agency on cybersecurity for the electric sector.
It also amended the Federal Power Act to designate a rulemaking defining critical electric infrastructure and how the electric utility industry would share this information with the Energy Department and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
FERC adopted rule in November 2016 implementing how it handles such cybersecurity information.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-agency-clarifies-how-utilities-share-cyber-info-in-draft-rule
-
Ministerial Alliance Seeks 'Paris Agreement' for Chemicals and Waste
Jul 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Ministers and vice ministers from eight countries have formed an alliance to push for a global agreement on managing chemicals and waste.
Together the alliance (see box) wants to see the adoption of something similar to the Paris Agreement on climate change for chemicals.
According to Sweden's environment minister Karolina Skog – who initiated the project – it will "provide a platform for ambitious countries to work together to promote and discuss what such an agreement should look like".
"The spread of chemicals and waste is a global problem requiring global action" she says in a Swedish government press release. Just as the Paris Agreement has brought countries around the world together to reduce climate emissions, she says, there is a need for global cooperation to "sustainably manage the world's chemicals and waste".
The alliance, launched at this week's at the UN's high level political forum (HLPF) in New York, brings together ministers from:Sweden;Switzerland;Zambia;Norway;France;Germany;Finland; andThe Netherlands.
The HLPF is a forum for discussing how to advance the UN's 2030 sustainable development agenda.
In the lead up to the event, Ms Skog said "trade in goods is becoming increasingly global, and this necessitates a global, collective regulatory framework for hazardous substances and waste".
"Strong and committed leadership from both politicians and the business sector is required to achieve this," she said.
"The international community has developed conventions on a few substances. However, proactive risk management must clearly be carried out for more than one substance at a time," Sweden said.
With the alliance officially launched, it will now begin the process of getting other countries to formally join. In addition to government representatives, it will include representatives from key international bodies, the business sector and civil society.
"After [the] launch, I am overwhelmed by the great support that the Alliance has already received at this early stage, and I am hopeful for our continued work," said Ms Skog.Beyond 2020
In the lead up to the New York HLPF, the Swedish government noted the importance of the current global framework – the UN's non-binding Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) – but pointed out that its mandate ends in 2020.
It, along with the alliance, aims to use the 'intersessional process' of deciding whether Saicm should continue, or be replaced with an alternative framework, as an opportunity to seek a legally binding agreement beyond 2020.
In February, five European NGOs called for a legally binding protocol on hazardous chemicals to be considered during discussions on a post-2020 global chemicals framework. The International Council of Chemicals Associations (ICCA), however, has opposed the idea.
Officials involved in the intersessional process, along with the the Saicm secretariat and bureau, are putting together a draft text for a post-2020 framework. This will be disseminated to delegates of the process and then negotiated at the third meeting in June next year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68775/ministerial-alliance-seeks-paris-agreement-for-chemicals-and-waste
-
Republicans Move to Condemn Carbon Tax Before It Gains Steam
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
A new, Republican-led effort to tax carbon dioxide emissions isn’t likely to make it to the House floor for a vote anytime soon—but opponents aren’t taking any chances.
The House was slated to vote as soon as July 18 on a resolution offered by Majority Whip Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, condemning the very idea of a carbon tax as “detrimental” to the U.S. economy.
The move aims to undercut growing momentum for imposing a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions that drive climate change.
Prominent conservatives, including former Secretary of State James Baker and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson have advanced a plan to tax carbon dioxide and redistribute the revenue to households in the form of quarterly dividend checks. Republican political operatives are running a new campaign to buttress the idea, using funding from nuclear power generator Exelon Corp. and renewable manufacturer First Solar Inc.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida) is preparing to introduce legislation as soon as next week that would impose a carbon tax on oil refiners, gas processors, and coal miners.
Carbon tax proposals have never made it very far in Washington, but Scalise’s measure aims to cut off these latest efforts at the knees. His anti-tax resolution is designed to lock in votes against the idea, weaken the ability of lawmakers to later change their minds, and symbolically declare the Republican establishment’s opposition to the approach.
“It sends a strong signal to voters about where a member stands on the creation of a massive new energy tax,” said Paul Blair, director of strategic initiatives for Americans for Tax Reform, the conservative advocacy group led by Grover Norquist.
The group has been warning lawmakers that “new energy taxes are political losers” that “will get you unelected,” Blair said. “Innovation and the free market has already made the U.S. a leader in reductions without absurd new taxes on American companies, manufacturers and consumers.”
The House passed an identical non-binding resolution two years ago declaring that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses and is not in the best interest of the United States.” Every Republican who voted supported the measure.
First Since 2009This time, the long-term prospects for a carbon tax are less theoretical, as Curbelo prepares to introduce the first Republican-sponsored legislation proposing a cap or tax on carbon dioxide since 2009.
According to a bill summary obtained by Bloomberg, the measure would force oil refiners and coal mining companies to pay a $23 tax on every metric ton of carbon dioxide—and in exchange end the gasoline tax and temporarily pause regulations on some greenhouse gas emissions.
Curbelo is developing “an innovative solution” to address carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, but the details are not finalized and the circulated summary is “not an accurate representation of the plan,” said the lawmaker’s spokeswoman, Joanna Rodriguez.
“Breaking a decade-long drought from one of our two major political parties on carbon pricing or carbon taxing is no small thing,” said Charles Komanoff, director of the Carbon Tax Center, which supports taxing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Curbelo bill is not slated to be taken up by House Republican leaders anytime soon and would probably be defeated if it did. But supporters say the measure has the potential to trigger an elevated discussion on carbon pricing. It also could illustrate movement on the issue, possibly helping to appease activists frustrated with a lack of progress.
Curbelo’s bill could aid the broader, long-term push to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions, said Joseph Majkut, with the libertarian Niskanen Center.
“We’ve waited for years for Republicans to see the merits of carbon pricing and to develop their own ideas for how it can move forward,” said Majkut, the center’s director of climate policy. “The more specific plans we see, the more other members of the Republican coalition can learn about all that a properly designed carbon tax bill can do in terms of raising revenue, fairly treating an industry in transition and efficiently reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
Climate CaucusThe House vote on Scalise’s resolution could be politically treacherous for some moderate Republicans who are facing tough re-election contests, including some of the 42 Republican members of the climate caucus.
The group’s Democratic co-chairman, Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, said the vote is a critical moment “to show the American people that Democrats and Republicans can stand together against anti-climate efforts.”
“When a climate denier who represents the oil industry tries to squash even a discussion about a possible strategy for curbing emissions, my caucus colleagues must rise above politics and do what’s right,” Deutch said in an emailed statement. “Every member of Congress, especially caucus members, should keep all options available and not preempt an effective strategy before we even have an opportunity to debate it.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/republicans-move-to-condemn-carbontax-before-it-gains-steam
-
Carbon Tax Hits House Floor, and Democrats Focus on Russia
Jul 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Mark K. Matthews and Nick Sobczyk
A resolution that blasts carbon taxes as harmful to the U.S. economy presented Democrats with a rare chance yesterday to debate climate change on the House floor.
Instead, several Democratic lawmakers used the procedural fight to talk about immigration, Russia and prescription drug prices — a move that they said was in response to the carbon measure's lack of seriousness.
At issue is a nonbinding "sense of Congress" resolution from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). It broadly dismisses the idea of taxing carbon emissions. The House voted yesterday to move ahead with the Scalise measure, and a final vote is expected today.
The debate comes days ahead of the anticipated release of a separate carbon tax proposal from Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) that would replace the federal gas tax with a $23-per-ton levy on emissions from energy industry facilities such as gas processing plants.
The House voted on a resolution similar to the Scalise measure in 2016, and it received full Republican support. But there are signs that Scalise's current version won't receive the same GOP backing. Curbelo, who co-founded the Climate Solutions Caucus, already has said he would vote against it.
House Democrats don't like the Scalise resolution either, and they accused Republicans of wasting lawmakers' time on a proposal that has little legislative heft.
"We have real issues to address," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The American people deserve more than show votes that throw red meat to the oil lobby."
Soon after, McGovern — who serves as the top Democrat on the Rules Committee — ushered a slew of Democratic colleagues to the podium to highlight another issue: Russian interference in the 2016 elections. They called on Republican leaders to use the carbon tax resolution as a vehicle to steer money to election security.
"This is the integrity of our democracy," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.).
Not surprisingly, the gamesmanship didn't gain traction with the GOP majority, which blocked the move as it kept trying to return the debate to the resolution itself.
"A carbon tax is an attack on the welfare of all Americans, especially on seniors and families on fixed income," said Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.).
Democratic opposition wasn't limited solely to non-climate matters. Several lawmakers took issue with the Scalise measure itself — including Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).
She called it a "love note to the fossil fuel industry" and said Congress would be better served by focusing on the "real issues around climate change" such as extreme weather, ocean acidification and rising sea levels.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said any serious debate about a carbon tax will have to wait until January, when Democrats potentially could control the House.
"It doesn't matter," Blumenauer said. "It's a stupid and meaningless resolution. It's not tied to anything specific, it's not tied to any of the proposals."
The debate is being closely watched by environmental groups, which are keeping an eye on climate-conscious Republicans — particularly those on the Climate Solutions Caucus.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and 15 other conservation groups penned a letter yesterday of opposition, adding to a long list of environmentalists, think tanks and fossil fuel groups that have weighed in on the nonbinding resolution.
"At a time when the American taxpayer is already paying to move vulnerable American communities to higher ground because of climate-driven sea level rise and parts of the country are still recovering from the last hurricane season, lawmakers should not be pursuing hyper-partisan actions to stifle and silence thoughtful, informed debate on climate action," the groups wrote.
Taxing carbon is not an easy sell, even for moderate Republicans. It stirs up basic ideological objections.
Rep. Scott Taylor, a GOP member of the Climate Solutions Caucus who represents coastal Virginia, said he didn't know how he would vote on the Scalise resolution. But he opposes the idea of a carbon tax, he said.
"I think it's punitive," Taylor said. "I'm against taxing people. I do think we should be good stewards of our environment, and I've put forth legislation to deal with those issues in terms of sea-level rise and things like that."
Taylor said there are areas where Democrats and Republicans can come together on the issue — namely on adaptation. But a carbon tax doesn't fit the conservative mold.
"I like incentives more than I like punitive actions," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/19/stories/1060089583
-
Studies See Carbon Tax Driving Major GHG Cuts, Modest Economic Effects
Jul 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
As an unlikely carbon tax policy fight emerges in the GOP-controlled Congress during an election year, several academic and think tank researchers are releasing joint studies finding that such a policy could significantly reduce greenhouse gases while having a relatively modest effect on the economy.
However, there are major variables in how a carbon tax would affect different income groups, depending on how lawmakers decide to use revenue generated from the taxes, according to the July 17 research coordinated by Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.
A paper on the environmental and energy effects of a carbon tax, written by the Rhodium Group and Columbia, finds that such a tax causes power sector GHGs to decline “rapidly and deeply,” with coal power falling to a single-digit market share by 2030 in some scenarios from its current level of about a third of domestic electricity.
“We find that a carbon tax accelerates the shift away from coal and toward natural gas and renewables,” the paper says. “This decline of coal is the largest driver of emission reductions due to the carbon tax.”
The sector is poised to emit 1.8 billion tons of GHGs in 2019, which would fall to 1.3-1.75 billion tons in 2030 under current policy, the paper says, with the latter figure assuming slower innovation in low-carbon technology.
Under a $50-per-ton carbon tax, however, electricity sector emissions range from 445 million to 675 million tons 2030. Even under a modest $14-per-ton tax, the sector's emissions would still fall to 1.3 billion tons, assuming slow technological innovation.
While the Rhodium-Columbia paper projects major effects from a carbon tax in the power sector, it assumes that a carbon tax would have much a smaller impact on the transportation sector -- a key finding because that sector recently became the nation's largest source of GHGs.
It similarly assumes little effects in industrial facilities and buildings. That is due to the relative immaturity of low-carbon alternatives in those sectors, as well as consumers' past tendency not to respond much to higher fuel prices when driving or heating homes and businesses, the paper says.
Even so, Columbia economist Noah Kaufman, who edited the recent studies, told Axios that the study might underestimate drivers' response to a carbon tax.
“What you’ve seen out in real-world carbon pricing programs is something pretty different,” Kaufman told the outlet. “If you look in British Columbia, the evidence suggests consumers are responding quite a bit more strongly than expected,” he added, noting that drivers there are three times as responsive to fuel increases caused by a carbon tax compared to daily fluctuations in fuel prices.
That means that the recent research might low-ball the policy's effect on transportation GHGs. “If the carbon tax causes an acceleration in innovation in low-carbon technologies (such as electric vehicles) or if the consumers’ response to a carbon tax is stronger than . . . day-to-day price changes, as some evidence suggests, then studies like ours may underestimate emissions reductions in these sectors,” the report says.
Economic Effects
The findings come amid a burst of activity in Congress on carbon taxes. House Republican leaders have teed up a July 19 vote on a non-binding resolution that would put lawmakers on record about whether carbon taxes are “detrimental” to the American economy and families.
An identical measure sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) cleared the chamber in the run-up to the 2016 election on a largely party-line vote with no Republicans voting against it.
Sources say that vote appears to be scheduled to combat the imminent release of carbon tax legislation by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), a moderate lawmaker from Miami who is co-chairman of the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus.
Curbelo's bill, which could be released the week of July 23, is slated to impose a $23-per-ton carbon tax, though it is unclear how much GOP support he can garner for the measure this year, particularly after members are forced to vote on Scalise's anti-carbon tax resolution.
The Columbia research acknowledges the uphill battle faced by carbon tax proponents. It notes that while some “continue to explore” how such a tax could serve as a revenue source in a bipartisan infrastructure bill in the Trump era, “others are considering how a carbon tax could serve as a key component of a Democratic campaign platform in the 2020 presidential elections.”
Republicans are pressing their case that a carbon tax would have adverse economic impacts, but a separate reportdeveloped by Rice University's public policy institute finds relatively small impacts on the economy from a carbon tax that are “typically negative” but could be positive depending on how revenue is used.
That paper finds annual affects of less than 0.6 percent of gross domestic product for all carbon tax scenarios. “The economic drag caused by higher prices is roughly offset by the positive effects of revenue use,” the paper says.
For instance, using the revenue to reduce payroll taxes could encourage more hiring and an overall minor boost to the economy, while using the funding for rebates to households or debt reduction would harm the economy on balance.
However, the report notes that it did not consider a carbon tax's effect on avoided regulations and reduced air pollution -- factors that would likely lead to “better economic outcomes” than the study's findings.
Additionally, a third report by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center finds that a carbon tax's effect on various income groups depends highly on how lawmakers use the tax revenues.
For instance, using all of the revenues for rebates to households is a boon for lower-income groups who would receive far more in rebates than they would pay in additional taxes.
Payroll tax cuts would benefit middle and upper-middle income households the most, while a corporate tax cut would benefit the top 1 percent of earners, the study says.
Using carbon tax revenue to reduce the deficit is “initially regressive,” the report finds, given that poorer households spend a disproportionate share of their income on energy. “In the long run, however, lower debt will enable lower taxes and/or increased government spending, which can be structured in ways that are progressive, regressive, or neither,” the report says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/studies-see-carbon-tax-driving-major-ghg-cuts-modest-economic-effects
-
Curbelo Seeks To Finesse EPA GHG Authority In Landmark Carbon Tax Bill
Jul 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Rep. Carlos Curbelo's (R-FL) upcoming carbon tax bill, the first major climate mitigation legislation from a sitting GOP lawmaker in almost a decade, seeks to finesse the contentious issue of how or whether to preempt EPA greenhouse gas rules by retaining the agency's underlying authority while imposing a moratorium on enforcing rules on stationary sources.
Curbelo's bill, expected to unveil early next week, plans a $23-per-ton carbon tax that would replace the current federal gas tax, a draft summary says. The tax rate would increase annually by 2 percent, according to the summary.
The forthcoming bill, details of which were first reported by E&E News, is garnering qualified praise from some environmentalists, pegged not to its specifics but to the fact that the bill exists at all and could be a stepping stone to restarting Capitol Hill discussion of comprehensive climate legislation.
Even so, Curbelo's plan is set to be formally unveiled just days after an expected July 19 vote on a resolution from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) opposing a carbon tax, a vote that is likely to underscore the continuing challenges faced by carbon tax backers who acknowledge such policy has no chance in the current Congress.
“We think [Curbelo's bill] is an extremely positive development,” World Resources Institute's (WRI) Christina DeConcini told Inside EPA. “We see it as a positive step toward restarting a conversation.”
DeConcini refrained from endorsing the specifics of the package -- which reportedly would impose a relatively modest $23-per-ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industrial facilities -- and stressed that a “price on carbon alone cannot solve the climate problem."
But she called a carbon price “a very essential, fundamental piece” of a broader climate strategy and praised Curbelo -- and any additional GOP cosponsors -- as the “first Republicans stepping forward with solutions on climate” in years.
While the rationale for Curbelo's tax rate is not entirely clear, it may be pegged to the level necessary to replace the gasoline tax, even though nearly a third of the revenues would be used for other purposes including 5 percent for coastal climate adaptation, 10 percent for rebates to low-income consumers, and smaller amounts for assistance to fossil fuel sector workers and low-carbon technology research.
The plan, according to the draft summary, would set GHG emissions goals for measuring the success of the tax, and would impose a “rolling, performance-based moratorium” on enforcing most stationary source GHG rules under the Clean Air Act if the tax achieves those goals. The moratorium does not apply to “certain methane emissions” and vehicle fuel economy standards.
Specifically, draft goals start with a 24 percent GHG reduction from 2005 levels in 2020, reaching a 27 percent cut from covered sources in 2025, 29 percent in 2030, and 30 percent in 2032.
Under the moratorium concept, enforcement of stationary sources rules would be deferred upon enactment of the tax law, with provisions that continue the moratorium until as far out as 2033 if emissions goals are met.
One source following the issue says the 2025 target for the covered emission sources would be right in the middle of the Obama administration's economy-wide target under the Paris climate agreement for a 26-28 percent cut in that year. However, that target seeks to reduce emissions from forestry and other land-use areas, which are not covered by the draft bill.
Political Prerequisite
Throttling back EPA's climate rules is viewed as a political prerequisite -- particularly among Republicans -- for enactment of a carbon tax.
But it is an obvious sticking point for environmentalists and other backers of climate action who fear that a weak carbon tax plan could simply become a pretext for eviscerating regulatory programs. Many argue that Congress will lack the political will to pass a carbon tax that would cut a sufficient amount of GHGs to meaningfully address climate change.
Observers says Curbelo's approach represents an attempt to finesse the EPA issue by deferring enforcement of stationary source GHG rules, while retaining the agency's underlying authority for such programs.
Whether such a “moratorium” contains the seeds for political success is anything but clear.
DeConcini did not endorse this aspect of the plan but said the performance-based approach shows an effort to provide some assurance that the proposed tax would achieve GHG reductions.
She also noted that WRI has called for defending EPA's Clean Power Plan utility GHG rule “to the hilt,” and said “I don't think anyone would say this is the most aggressive carbon bill.” She cited a competing carbon tax plan by the Climate Leadership Council -- a group of former GOP administration officials -- that would impose a carbon tax starting at $40 per ton.
But she nonetheless praised the bill as a sign of GOP “re-engagement” on the climate issue. “We really want to talk about it in terms of the re-engagement politically, so we can get to another bill, so we can get to someplace further down the road to solve this very urgent climate problem.”
Carbon tax supporters are also touting the plan as potentially linked to future action on infrastructure -- while acknowledging action this Congress is not going to happen -- given that prior scenarios seeking to move a carbon tax as part of now-enacted corporate tax cut legislation are now moot.
The draft June 1 summary of the bill includes several other details, including that the points of taxation would be at the coal mine mouth, refineries, gas processing plants and the owner/operator of an initial list of 19 industrial sectors.
Other elements of the plan include a border tax adjustment on imported goods equal to the increase in costs paid by “comparable U.S. products,” and a credit for entities subject to state programs.
A Curbelo spokesperson says details of the bill are “still being discussed,” and another source following the issue does not rule out the potential for some tweaks, including the possibility the carbon tax will start at $24 per ton.
Emissions Modeling
Several sources note there will be calls for legislation stronger than Curbelo's bill but also suggest that modeling of his measure is likely to show it could compare favorably with existing policy.
In that vein, a recent Rhodium Group analysis cautioned that U.S. emissions under current policies are headed towards a 12-20 percent reduction from 2005 levels, a “far cry” from Obama's Paris target.
Another carbon tax proponent expects that Curbelo's approach could “outperform the Obama climate action plan significantly.”
But WRI in a recent paper also argued that complementary policies will also be needed to address climate change, including but not limited to energy efficiency standards. The group also suggested options for including an “emissions target mechanism” in carbon tax legislation that would impose a new policy, such as a stronger tax rate or new GHG rules, if the tax has less bite than anticipated.
Among those options, WRI suggested that automatic adjustments in the tax rates could be most politically palatable for industry, given that it would offer a relatively predictable path for emitters. Imposing a “back stop” regulatory policy might not achieve emission cuts “as large and as certain as a strong carbon tax” given the limits EPA's existing authority.
And while carbon tax legislation could include new policies that act as a backstop -- such as a national cap-and-trade program or “far more stringent versions of federal climate regulations” -- those would “significantly increase the political hurdles of passing legislation,” the WRI paper said.
Several sources, meanwhile, are downplaying the consequences of Curbelo's plan to eliminate the gasoline tax with a new tax on emissions, citing the fact that transportation emissions are relatively inelastic to fuel price changes.
A new analysis from several groups coordinated by Columbia University finds that a carbon tax could significantly reduce greenhouse gases while having a relatively modest effect on the economy.
Even so, the research acknowledges the significant political barriers to moving a carbon tax, noting that “some continue to explore” its use to finance infrastructure in the short- to medium-term but that it may ultimately be a campaign issue in 2020.
“While some continue to explore how a carbon tax could potentially serve as the source of revenue as part of bipartisan legislative compromise under the current administration, others are considering how a carbon tax could serve as a key component of a Democratic campaign platform in the 2020 presidential elections.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/curbelo-seeks-finesse-epa-ghg-authority-landmark-carbon-tax-bill
-
Plastic Straws Strike Out at the Ballpark
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
You can still buy your peanuts and Cracker Jack, but the next time you head out to the ballgame you might not be able to get a straw.
More than 8 million metric tons of plastic items enter the ocean every year, according to a 2015 study. Several cities and states across the country already have banned single use plastic bags in an effort to curb plastic pollution and now straws are in the crosshairs. Having already taken a hard look at their waste, some major leagues sports teams and concert venues want to lead by example.
Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson served as an unofficial spokesman for the city’s movement, joining environmental group Lonely Whale in collaborating with about 200 retailers in tackling plastic straws.
The Strawless in Seattle campaign effectively removed more than 2 million single-use plastic straws from the city in about a month. Seattle banned plastic straws in July, and other cities are following suit.
“Sports teams are a critical cultural pillar in the global movement For A Strawless Ocean because sports teams are an extension of a fan’s persona, a mirror for their values, and their connection to a global community,” Dune Ives, executive director of Lonely Whale, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Last StrawAmong Major League Baseball teams, the Chicago White Sox were the first to ditch plastic straws in April, and Bon Appetit Management, which runs concessions for the San Francisco Giants at AT&T Park, announced its company-wide plastic straw ban in May with plans to make the ballpark completely straw-free by next year. Straws will still be available for those with disabilities.
“Whenever the private sector takes action for the environment without being pushed by legislation, it both proves to other companies that it can be done and eases the way for a law to be passed,” Maisie Ganzler, chief strategy and brand officer for Bon Appetit told Bloomberg Environment. “If we show that plastic straws can be eliminated and guest satisfaction remains high, or possibly increases because everyone wants to do the right thing, that should aide in quashing resistance beyond Bon Appétit Management Company.”
Major League Baseball may be moving quicker than cities on the issue, but it’s happening without an official league-wide mandate. While the league can encourage initiatives, whether clubs choose to implement them is their decision.
“Major League Baseball proudly encourages our clubs to implement new and innovative environmental practices that best fit their ballparks,” Paul Hanlon, senior director of ballpark operations & sustainability for the MLB, told Bloomberg Environment. “We applaud the New York Yankees and Chicago White Sox for choosing to eliminate single-use plastic straws and being leaders in this effort. We will continue to support our clubs as they adopt innovative ideas in environmental stewardship.”
Party Without the PlasticOrganizers of stadium-sized events are also looking at ways to cut their addition to plastic. For example, Live Nation announced April 20 that it is removing single-use plastic straws from 45 amphitheaters across the U.S.
“Per unit, environmentally friendly paper straws are more expensive than plastic, but to cut down on overall waste, we’ve also implemented a ‘straw by request only’ policy,” Lucy August-Perna, manager of venue sustainability for U.S. concerts at Live Nation, told Bloomberg Environment. “This means we’ll still provide alternative paper straws to attendees who require or request them, but overall we expect to spare the use of over 3 million plastic straws in our U.S. venues this summer alone.”Plastic straws may be getting ejected from ballparks, but companies are seizing the opportunity to offer alternatives with a smaller environmental footprint.
“The traditional petroleum based plastic suppliers are really getting pushed on this, and the paper straw suppliers are also getting pushed because all of a sudden they’re all getting [more] inquiries,” Mark Marinozzi, a spokesman for World Centric, a compostable tableware provider, told Bloomberg Environment. “The volume of feed-stock that is currently being made here or even in Asia is so low that it wouldn’t be able to supply all of the straws that are necessarily used even for us. That’s going to change over the next three to five years.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/plastic-straws-strike-out-at-the-ballpark
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested