Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - August 14, 2018

Industry and Association News

Citing Legal Flaws, States Urge EPA To Withdraw Or Clarify Science Rule
Aug 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

Citing significant legal flaws, state environmental agencies are urging EPA to withdraw or delay and clarify its proposed rule barring the use in major regulatory decisions of any science where the underlying raw data and models are not publicly available, arguing that the proposal is vague and the agency has not engaged with states on its content.
Understanding EPA’s Fuzzy Math
Aug 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Amy Sinden and James Goodwin

Sometimes numbers do lie. A little-noticed move by the Trump/Wheeler Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests we may see more cooking of the books to justify going easier on polluters

LCSA News

EPA to Revisit Three Provisions in TSCA Risk Evaluation Rule
Aug 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA plans to reconsider three portions of its TSCA risk evaluation rule related to data gathering.
EPA Faces Broad Criticism Over Plan To Limit Asbestos Analysis, Regulation
Aug 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA's plans to analyze and possibly regulate some existing and renewed uses of asbestos is drawing broad criticisms from a coalition of Democratic attorneys general, environmentalists and former agency officials, who say it precludes a host of possible uses and falls short of the total ban that is needed.
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides Cluster (HBCD)?
Aug 14, 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.

Chemical Management News

Despite Monsanto Trial Verdict, Demand for Pesticide Persists
Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lydia Mulvany

It may seem like Judgment Day has come for glyphosate, with a California jury slapping $289 million in damages on Monsanto Co. in a cancer trial, and a federal judge in Brazil halting the herbicide use over health concerns—all in the space of a week.
Bayer Takes the Hit After Monsanto Loses Roundup Cancer Trial
Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt, Robert Burnson and Naomi Kresge

Two months after clinching its $66 billion purchase of Monsanto Co., Bayer AG faces a protracted legal battle over the U.S. company’s Roundup weed killer—a prospect that wiped more than $11 billion off the German conglomerate’s market value.
Environmentalists Hail Ruling Finding Glyphosate Caused Cancer
Aug 14, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmental groups are hailing a California court ruling that found the world's most commonly used herbicide glyphosate caused a groundskeeper's cancer and fining a producer hundreds of millions as a victory for sound science, countering EPA's repeated assertions that the substance is not likely to cause human cancers.
Pneumo Abex, Owens-Illinois Face Asbestos Conspiracy Claims
Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes and Steven Patrick

Pneumo Abex and Owens-Illinois failed to shake claims they conspired with other manufacturers to conceal the dangers of asbestos.
Chlorpyrifos Critics Eye Preemptive Steps To Counter EPA Appeal On Ban
Aug 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Opponents of the pesticide chlorpyrifos concerned about its human health harms are eyeing preemptive steps to block use of the substance including calling on California to suspend it and rallying support for legislation to impose a national ban, as they expect EPA to appeal a recent appellate ruling that requires it to prohibit the substance.
Trump Signs NDAA With Climate, Chemical, Species Riders
Aug 13, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Courtney Columbus

President Trump this afternoon signed into law the latest National Defense Authorization Act with a host of energy and environment provisions.
EU Advisers Offer Chemical Legislation Recommendations
Aug 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has provided recommendations on the EU’s options to address the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation under the circular economy package.
UK Projects To Explore Impact Of Hazardous Chemicals On Ecosystems
Aug 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

The UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) has awarded £6m (€6.7m) to three projects that will investigate the impact of hazardous chemicals on habitats and wildlife.

Energy News

Trump Trade Spat Threatens U.S. LNG Exporters as China Eyes Halt
Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard and Ryan Collins

This winter could be a bleak one for America’s natural gas exporters as the fastest-growing buyer of the fuel threatens to halt purchases amid an escalating trade war.
Shale Boom Zaps Volatility in US Natural Gas Market
Aug 14, 2018 | Financial Times
By Gregory Meyer

When US natural gas futures passed a milestone this month, they did so quietly: volatility fell to the lowest levels since the market’s debut nearly 30 years ago.
Oil and Gas Leasing, Climate Change Head to 10th Circuit
Aug 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer

A high-stakes battle over how the Bureau of Land Management analyzes climate change is heading to a federal appeals court.
Cheniere Secures Another SPA, to Supply LNG to Taiwan’s CPC
Aug 14, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

Cheniere Energy Inc. has snapped up another natural gas export contract with Taiwan’s state-owned oil and gas company.

Chemical Security News

Chemical Accidents Could Trigger Hundreds of Public Meetings
Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson and

Companies handling dangerous chemicals might favor notifying nearby residents about accidents through a group email list, as opposed to public meetings as the EPA has proposed—a move that could reduce costs and interactions with the community.
Markey Asks Utilities, Agencies About Russian Cyberattacks
Aug 13, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Courtney Columbus

Sen. Ed Markey asked 10 power companies and several federal agencies for information today about Russian cyberattacks on utilities.
Researchers Search for a Missing Cyber Crime Scene
Aug 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

A hacking mystery has stumped some of the world's top security researchers here.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Atlantic City Train Shutdown Feeds Fears for the Future
Aug 14, 2018 | Philadelphia Inquirer
By Jason Laughlin

Finding a seat on the 6:31 a.m. NJ Transit train to Atlantic City was no challenge. There were 110 seats per car on the four-car train to the Jersey Shore resort city, and virtually all were empty.

Environment News

Trump OKs Bill with Climate Risks, Calls Coal Indestructible
Aug 14, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman

The defense bill signed by President Trump yesterday shows that the military is planning to meet the threat of climate change.
Industry Shakers: Clean Power Plan Defender Talks ‘Narrow’ Replacement
Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Fatima Hussein

Kevin Poloncarz played an important role defending the Clean Power Plan—the Obama Administration’s signature policy aimed at combating climate change—in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Industry and Association News

Citing Legal Flaws, States Urge EPA To Withdraw Or Clarify Science Rule

Aug 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

Citing significant legal flaws, state environmental agencies are urging EPA to withdraw or delay and clarify its proposed rule barring the use in major regulatory decisions of any science where the underlying raw data and models are not publicly available, arguing that the proposal is vague and the agency has not engaged with states on its content.
Their calls for EPA to withdraw or significantly overhaul the controversial proposal lends weight to similar advocacy from a host of other groups, including many administration critics, who have charged that the proposal is intended to limit use of studies that rely on private medical data and have long been used to drive strict air quality and other standards.
But even neutral parties, like EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), as well as some administration allies, like the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), that support the goals of the proposal, are still criticizing it and urging officials to consult broadly before significantly overhauling it.
As such, the comments from state regulators -- submitted prior to an Aug. 16 comment deadline -- pose a significant test for acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, who has pledged to continue the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda, of which the proposed rule is a key part. Wheeler will determine how to advance the proposal, which was issued by his predecessor, former Administrator Scott Pruitt.
The latest criticisms come from state officials who regulate a range of environmental media. For example, two groups representing state air quality regulators, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), urge EPA to withdraw the rule, arguing it is unlawfully vague, inadequately justified and raises questions over many issues should the rule be implemented.
“The proposal fails to clearly articulate the problem EPA seeks to address, the specific Proposed Rule requirements, and the rule’s potential benefits and costs. These are well understood and basic elements that federal regulatory agencies must include to ensure informed public comment. Given these elements are completely missing from this proposal, EPA should withdraw it,” NESCAUM's Aug. 9 comments state.
NACAA, too, “recommends that EPA withdraw the proposed rule,” in its comments submitted late last month, saying it should be “thoroughly vetted by the scientific community and other key stakeholders” given its “significant ramifications for EPA’s science-based decision making.”
Echoing the air regulators, groups representing water regulators, like Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and the Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. (ASWM), also charge the proposal is too vague. But they stop short of calling on EPA to withdraw the rule, instead seeking clarification and consultation before EPA moves forward.
“In the spirit of cooperative federalism, and before the rule is finalized, we ask that EPA host coregulatory discussions that provide more details regarding the intent, scope, and implementation processes associated with this proposal,” ACWA writes in its Aug. 9 comments. Alluding to the possibility that Wheeler could decide not to advance the proposal, ACWA adds that it “believes these discussions will improve the quality of the comments on the rule and will contribute to an enhanced and improved final rule, should this rulemaking go forward.”
The group also “requests that EPA issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that includes actual regulatory language. As part of this supplemental notice, ACWA also requests that EPA provide sufficient detail for an analysis of whether this new approach will achieve the results intended, while also continuing to support states efforts to implement the requirements of the [Clean Water Act (CWA)].”
Legal Violations
Like other groups, NESCAUM cites the 1991 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Fertilizer Institute v. EPA, charging that EPA “fails to provide the Agency’s own 'sufficient detail and rationale'” for comment on the proposal, “in contravention” of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
“Commenters are left in the position of speculating on EPA’s views and on those of other commenters that would presumably shape EPA’s final rule. It is well settled law that this approach fails to provide adequate notice for informed public comment.”
NESCAUM and others also cite the 2002 D.C. Circuit case American Trucking Assns. v. EPA in their argument that EPA has not provided justification for the necessity of the new proposed rule.
The case, in which the trucking associations challenged EPA over the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter national ambient air quality standards, “differentiated the substantial difference and administrative hardship between reliance on peer-reviewed scientific studies cited in a rulemaking record rather than on the raw data underlying those studies. . . . In light of the court’s holding, and without additional clarity from EPA, we are having difficulty identifying the problem EPA seeks to address with this Proposed Rule.”
NESCAUM goes on to question language in the proposal regarding which types of dose-response analyses and modeling are used to determine harmful levels of pollutants -- calculations that underlie many agency decisions. In particular, the group questions provisions in the proposal requiring underlying data and models in such analyses be “publicly available” and requiring EPA to conduct independent peer review of all “pivotal” regulatory science.
“The approaches for 'independent validation' and 'independent review' are not described. Would EPA’s staff scientists conduct these validations and reviews, or would EPA contract this out to third parties?”
Like others, NESCAUM also questions the broad authority the proposal grants EPA's administrator to exclude certain decisions from it, arguing like earlier comments from TCEQ that EPA should better clarify the criteria on these proposals lest the decisions politicize the proposed rule. “Lacking clear guidelines for transparent decision-making, the Administrator’s discretion would appear to be unbounded and haphazard in application, with an undisclosed rationale.”
Environmental Standards
NACAA, like the other state groups states, says that while it favors transparency in science, that should not come at the expense of the best available science -- a specific requirement of more than one of EPA's statutes.
Of particular concern to NACAA is language in the proposal that it views as suggesting that EPA would bar from use in future National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) decisions studies such as the “landmark Harvard School of Public Health 'Six Cities' epidemiological study, which established the strong association between fine particulate matter pollution and mortality.” NACAA notes that many commenters have opined that this study and other epidemiology studies would not pass the rule if finalized because they rely on individuals' private medical data which often cannot be released publicly.
NACAA explains that it is particularly concerned because a footnote in the proposal “suggests” EPA “would exclude such studies from consideration. There, EPA cites two D.C. Circuit cases that upheld its reliance on data that is protected from widespread view by third parties in setting NAAQS for lead and fine particulate matter, respectively, and states, 'EPA is proposing to exercise its discretionary authority to establish a policy that would preclude it from using such data in future regulatory actions.' NACAA is concerned by the clear implication that EPA will discard rigorously vetted scientific literature such as the Six Cities Study, withdrawing from its legal obligation and stated intention to rely on the best available science.”
NACAA urges EPA to “publicly confirm that it would consider existing literature such as the Six Cities Study in future rulemakings, should the proposed rule be enacted.”
And NACAA also recommends that the policy should not be applied retroactively and should not apply to the NAAQS, “This would be inappropriate,” it says. “To apply such a rule retroactively would create significant regulatory uncertainty by calling into question existing regulatory standards as well as the permits, state implementation plans and other decisions that are based on those standards.”
In a similar vein, ACWA warns that the proposal would also undermine development of water quality standards, including standards governing perfluorinated chemicals, that EPA is currently developing.
For example, it says the proposal would undermine the development of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC), which “rely on an extensive number of scientific studies for both aquatic life protections and human health. In what way could this rule affect the use of those studies?”
On perfluorinated chemicals, the group says EPA is currently reviewing and evaluating toxicity data for several perfluorinated compounds but states “have raised questions as to whether implementation of this rule would delay these evaluations or affect the scope of what is evaluated.”
In its Aug. 3 comments, ASWM criticizes the proposal's vagueness and urges EPA to require “information regarding the entity providing financial support for the related research. Funding by federal agencies and many foundations are typically identified in research reports, but corporate and other private funders may not be.”
ASWM also urges EPA not to expand the proposal to consider information beyond dose-response, such as “economic and environmental impact data and models that are designed to predict the costs, benefits, market impacts and/or environmental effects of specific regulation interventions on complex economic or environmental systems.”
And it especially urges EPA not to apply the proposal changing the definition to of the Waters of the U.S. rule. “Applying the proposed rule to the information gathered to support a WOTUS rule is unnecessary given currently availability of the underlying science to the public,” the group argues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/citing-legal-flaws-states-urge-epa-withdraw-or-clarify-science-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
Understanding EPA’s Fuzzy Math

Aug 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Amy Sinden and James Goodwin

Sometimes numbers do lie. A little-noticed move by the Trump/Wheeler Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests we may see more cooking of the books to justify going easier on polluters. On August 13, the agency completed the first step of a rulemaking that would further rig its cost-benefit-analysis methods for divining the economic impacts of proposed regulations. Its apparent goal is to put an industry-friendly thumb on the EPA's cost-benefit analysis scale by prioritizing profits ahead of the public interest and by selling short regulatory benefits.
Even when attempted in good faith, cost-benefit analysis is a poor fit for environmental and public health safeguards. As a theoretical matter, it assumes that children who want to play outside without suffering asthma attacks have no stronger moral claim to clean air than industries that want to profit from polluting. As a practical matter, the goals of EPA regulations — things like averting cancers or protecting ecologically important fish species — are rarely amenable to either quantification or monetization.
But cost-benefit analysis is rarely attempted in good faith. Too much is at stake in the numbers it produces.
Over the past 20 years, EPA has been receptive to adopting cost-benefit analysis tricks that skew results against safeguarding public health. In 2003, the agency decided to treat the value of the lives of seniors as significantly less than those of younger people. In its cost-benefit analysis for a rule to limit air pollution from cranes and other “off-road diesel” vehicles, EPA claimed the life of a person over age 70 was worth only 65 percent as much as the life of someone under 70.
It’s easy to see why polluting industries would line up behind something like this “senior death discount:” It drastically diminished the benefits of EPA’s off-road diesel rule on paper, preventing the agency from imposing stronger controls on these air pollution sources. Only a loud public shaming persuaded EPA to abandon the practice.
Another morally dubious accounting practice continues to be used in EPA’s cost-benefit analyses: low-balling the value of children’s IQ points. Among the harms of toxic air pollution is that it can damage the still-developing brains of fetuses and children, causing measurable IQ loss.
In its cost-benefit analysis for a 2011 rule to limit mercury emissions from power plants, EPA managed to calculate the “value” of each saved IQ point down to the last dollar — $9,775, in fact — based on the expected increase in lifetime earning potential (as if that were the only “benefit” that IQ points carry). But it then reduced that amount by $1,762 to account for the extra “costs” a child burdened by those IQ points would likely incur by pursuing more post-high school education.
By shrinking the benefits side of the ledger through this “education penalty,” polluters again come out as winners since the reduced values make it harder for the agency to justify stronger safeguards to protect children from mercury, lead, and other toxic pollutants.
The EPA’s benefits-busting proposal could invite more such accounting abuses. We’ve already seen EPA under Trump flagrantly cook the books to support its attempts to repeal the Waters of the United States rule and the Clean Power Plan — both rules that had been shown to have benefits that exceeded their costs. Making this kind of creative math official agency policy would help advance the rest of its rollback agenda.
It should come as no surprise that the proposal has an anti-safeguard motive. After all, the move was initiated by disgraced former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt as part of his broader campaign to permanently cripple the agency so that even under a future administration determined to responsibly fulfill its public interest mission, the EPA wouldn’t be able to safeguard public health and the environment. This assault on public protections has also included stacking EPA’s expert advisory boards with industry representatives and a companion rule that would rig EPA’s use of science by arbitrarily disqualifying important scientific studies that have found evidence of harms from common pollutants and chemicals.
Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler now has the opportunity to distinguish himself from the scandalous and toxic legacy left by his predecessor, and he should take advantage of it by abandoning this misguided rulemaking.
Amy Sinden is James E. Beasley professor of Law at the Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia and a board member at the Center for Progressive Reform. James Goodwin is the senior policy analyst at the center. Both are experts in cost-benefit analysis.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/401635-understanding-epas-fuzzy-math

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

EPA to Revisit Three Provisions in TSCA Risk Evaluation Rule

Aug 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA plans to reconsider three portions of its TSCA risk evaluation rule related to data gathering.
The development arose during ongoing litigation over the agency’s final prioritisation and risk evaluation rules. A coalition of NGOs filed a lawsuit in 2017 claiming the rules had been dramatically skewed in industry’s favour, away from the original intentions of proposals issued under the Obama administration.
While the agency acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns with three provisions, the EPA was adamant that the rules and its interpretation of a substance’s conditions of use were "reasonable and supported by the administrative record".
The agency has called on a federal court in San Francisco to deny the coalition's petition.
Revisiting the rule
In light of arguments made by the petitioners in an April opening brief, the EPA said it "intends to reconsider … and take appropriate agency action" on three provisions in the risk evaluation rule related to information gathering.
The provisions in question are:
·        the penalty provision, which allows for criminal penalties against those who submit "inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information" to the EPA. The NGOs argued this provision "could chill public comments" for fear of criminal prosecution for submitting incomplete information;
·        the relevancy provision, which specifies that for a manufacturer-requested risk evaluation, the manufacturer must provide "all the existing information that is relevant" to determining whether the substance poses an unreasonable risk. NGOs argued that this would allow manufacturers, not the EPA, to determine which information was relevant to the evaluation; and
·        The consistency provision, which directs manufacturers requesting evaluations to submit information consistent with certain scientific standards. The petitioners argued that this unlawfully placed the responsibility of determining which information was scientifically sound with manufacturers rather than the agency.
The EPA has filed a motion for voluntary remand of these portions so it can administratively revisit them, rather than "consuming the parties’ and [the] court’s time litigating issues that may be mooted or significantly narrowed by further administrative proceedings".
Conditions of use
At the heart of the NGO lawsuit, however, is the question of whether the EPA acted appropriately in establishing rules that do not evaluate all possible uses of a chemical.
On this, the agency dug its feet in.
In a response brief, the EPA said its interpretation of ‘conditions of use’ – focusing on the circumstances flowing from a substance’s current and future activities – represented "a reasonable exercise of EPA’s discretion, consistent with Congressional intent".
The law leaves the agency "broad discretion to determine what constitutes a condition of use", the EPA said in its brief. If it were to look at "every circumstance wherein chemicals exist in the environment in some way … [this] could ultimately swallow all of EPA’s resources and impede its ability to evaluate ongoing and prospective activities."
The agency also argued that it was reasonable to exclude from risk evaluations uses that it has no authority to regulate under TSCA, such as legacy uses.
"It would frustrate the statutory goals to spend [EPA’s] limited resources evaluating activities it has limited or no authority to regulate," it said.
The agency dismissed the argument that its authorities under section 9 of TSCA – under which it can refer identified risk to another agency to manage – resolved this issue, as the law requires the EPA to regulate unreasonable risk even if the other agency fails to act.
In such a situation, "EPA would still find itself in the absurd position of being simultaneously required to regulate while lacking authority to do so," the agency said.
It also disagrees with the NGOs’ assessment that the rule gives EPA "unfettered discretion" to exclude any condition of use it chooses.

The case, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v EPA, is being heard in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69489/epa-to-revisit-three-provisions-in-tsca-risk-evaluation-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Faces Broad Criticism Over Plan To Limit Asbestos Analysis, Regulation

Aug 14, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA's plans to analyze and possibly regulate some existing and renewed uses of asbestos is drawing broad criticisms from a coalition of Democratic attorneys general, environmentalists and former agency officials, who say it precludes a host of possible uses and falls short of the total ban that is needed.
The critics charge in recently submitted comments that criticize EPA's problem formulation document for how it plans to assess risks posed by existing asbestos uses under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). They argue the plan fails to consider legacy uses, uses regulated by other EPA programs as well as uses regulated by other agencies.
In addition, a proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) that EPA issued to address renewed uses of previously halted uses limits its oversight to 15 potential enumerated uses but fails to address other possible uses, such as reuse of asbestos in brake liners from scrapped vehicles which is turned into materials for car parts and other products, they add.
To address this, the critics urge EPA to instead consider all uses in its problem formulation document as a first step toward a permanent ban.
Their criticisms underscore broader concerns that the agency is taking an unlawfully narrow view of the revised TSCA, which was enacted in large part because of the agency's inability to ban asbestos under the original 1976 statute.
“Asbestos is one of the most harmful chemicals, taking 15,000 lives a year. There is no safe level of exposure,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said in an Aug. 6 Tweet announcing comments from a group of Democratic attorneys general. “The #Trump administration can’t cherry-pick their data on dangerous chemicals and threaten lives when @EPA evaluates their safety,” he added.
EPA in June released its problem formulation documents for the first 10 chemicals that it is evaluating as directed in TSCA as revised by Congress in 2016. The documents, particularly that for asbestos, quickly drew concern because they state that EPA plans to eliminate from consideration legacy uses of asbestos -- uses that are no longer being implemented, but remain, such as insulation containing asbestos placed in homes prior to the 1980s -- and uses that could be controlled by other statutes.
In an unanticipated move, EPA at the same time proposed a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to govern 15 previously abandoned uses of asbestos that manufacturers could seek to revive, though the measure, by definition, cannot apply to ongoing uses. Once final, the SNUR would require anyone seeking to start using asbestos in those ways to notify EPA and be subject to a review process.
The proposed SNUR has already drawn criticism from agency staff, who echoed charges from state officials and other critics that the measure does not go far enough. According to their leaked emails, an earlier draft of the SNUR would have applied to all uses of asbestos rather than just the 15 specified in the proposal.
Even before the internal emails came to light, environmentalists questioned whether the SNUR's proposal -- coupled with the narrowed problem formulation on the risk evaluation -- suggested the Trump EPA would decide not to ban all uses of asbestos under TSCA section 6, their longtime goal.
But acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler responded to reported concerns about the proposed SNUR in an Aug. 8 tweet, “There have been some inaccurate media reports regarding @EPA's actions on asbestos. The facts is @EPA is proposing a new rule that would allow for the restriction of asbestos manufacturing and processing of new uses of asbestos.”
He provided a fact sheet explaining that the intent of the proposed SNUR is “to ensure that manufacture, import, or processing for the currently unregulated new uses identified in the SNUR are prohibited unless reviewed by EPA. EPA’s proposed new review process empowers EPA to take action, including prohibiting or limiting its intended use.”
Permanent Ban
But environmentalists say that the two actions EPA is taking are inadequate and should proceed to a permanent ban. In Aug. 10 comments, the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition and a score of other advocacy groups say that while the proposed SNUR is “one tool to track and potentially restrict or ban discontinued unsafe products before they re-enter commerce, the overwhelming evidence of asbestos’ dangers to public health dictates that the best long-term course is to address such products i[s] EPA’s ongoing risk evaluation for asbestos.”
“This would enable EPA to determine that current and former uses present an unreasonable risk of injury and then to ban them permanently under section 6 of TSCA,” the group adds.
The groups charge that with “substances like asbestos, a SNUR will create needless uncertainty in the marketplace and fail to protect public health because it merely requires notice of the reintroduction of discontinued uses and offers no assurance that these uses will be prohibited despite their demonstrated risks to exposed populations. We believe that EPA’s TSCA section 6 authority extends to discontinued uses of unsafe products in appropriate cases like this one.”
The groups argue that EPA should issue a SNUR only for the purpose of providing stopgap protection until the agency can finalize the risk evaluation and enact a rule banning asbestos.
Similarly, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which signed on to the groups' letter but also submitted its own Aug. 10 comments, writes, “The solution is not a weak SNUR that does not ban any use of asbestos but to expand the ongoing risk evaluation to include all uses, past and present, and then to conclude that these uses present an unreasonable risk of injury, which would enable them to be banned permanently.”
ADAO explains that it and others hoped EPA's ongoing risk evaluation of asbestos “would pave the way for reinstating the comprehensive ban adopted in 1989. However, EPA has done everything possible to remove use and exposure pathways from the scope of the evaluation, making it much less effective in curbing the dangers of asbestos than the 1989 rule.”
EPA's 1989 attempt to ban asbestos under section 6 of the original TSCA -- and its reversal by the Fifth Circuit in 1991 -- were part of the impetus for reforming the original statute in 2016.
ADAO argues that the ongoing asbestos evaluation fails “to address the significant risks of ongoing use and disposal of discontinued asbestos products that are pervasive in the built environment but it does not address the additional risks that would occur if these products were reintroduced into commerce. In fact, the evaluation does not even address the significant risks of resuming mining of asbestos in the U.S., which is now permitted under U.S. law. These omissions mean that EPA will not be able to use the evaluation to support a meaningful asbestos ban under section 6(a) of TSCA.”
ADAO adds that while “EPA may claim that it lacks legal authority to evaluate the risks of discontinued products and uses but they fall within the TSCA definition of 'conditions of use' because their resumption is 'reasonably foreseen' in the absence of a ban. It would be surprising indeed if, in strengthening TSCA in 2016, Congress made it impossible to reinstate the broad 1989 asbestos ban...”
Problem Formulations
Similarly, in comments posted Aug. 7 on planning documents for the risk evaluations, Becerra and other attorneys general are urging EPA to issue revised plans “for each of the Initial Ten TSCA Chemicals to address the agency’s fatally flawed approach to identifying the conditions of use as that term is understood under TSCA and to ensure that the data EPA considers in the process satisfies TSCA’s 'best available science' standards. Given the well-documented hazards of many of the Initial Ten TSCA Chemicals, we fully expect that after conducting appropriate risk evaluations, EPA will impose new protective restrictions, and in some cases bans, for the chemical substances in this group.”
The Environmental Protection Network (EPN), a group of former EPA staff who oppose Trump EPA actions, also issued July 26 comments on the problem formulation documents for asbestos and two of the other 10 chemicals undergoing evaluation, HBCD and carbon tetrachloride, “which we find are setting improper precedents for future chemical risk evaluations under the new” TSCA. They write with concern regarding EPA's decisions to exclude legacy uses of asbestos and others of the 10 chemicals from the evaluations, and also the decision to exclude uses “under the jurisdiction of regulatory programs” implementing other environmental statutes.
EPN writes that EPA's “exclusion of 'legacy' exposures in the problem formulation documents is particularly flawed for asbestos, and very likely problematic for the cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster chemicals (HBCD) as well. While much of the current risks from asbestos occur among workers involved in asbestos abatement or removal during remodeling, demolition and disposal, there are also risks among maintenance workers with in-place asbestos and auto mechanics performing brake work.”
EPN argues that ignoring such long-term exposure from legacy uses of asbestos would be “reckless.” And, the group says that “EPA’s planned approach to exclude exposure pathways associated with other EPA statutes is contrary to plain statutory language and legally unsound.”
EPN cites TSCA section 8(b), which directs EPA's administrator to “coordinate actions taken under this chapter with actions taken under other Federal laws administered in whole or in part by the Administrator.” In doing so, section 8(b) directs the administrator to “consider . . . all relevant aspects of the risk . . . and a comparison of the estimated costs and efficiencies of the action to be taken . . . and an action to be taken under such other law to protect against such risk.”
EPN argues that by excluding these pathways from the risk evaluation, EPA has deprived the administrator of information necessary to coordinate risk management as directed by TSCA section 8(b). “These provisions clearly establish the role for other EPA programs: information known through other statutory programs shall be considered in the risk evaluation phase for existing chemicals under TSCA, and after completion of the risk evaluation, the administrator must follow a process to consider the potential use of other programs to address the risk under the TSCA standard. The proposed EPA approach would reverse and fundamentally alter this process.”
Further, EPN argues that removing uses of the chemical under evaluation under the jurisdiction of other regulatory programs “makes it impossible” for EPA's toxics office to make the risk finding required under Sec 6(b)(4)(A), determining whether a substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment without considering cost.
“A risk assessment that omits exposures considered under other statutes cannot be assumed to meet this standard. Indeed, other statutory schemes generally do not operate under comparable environmental standards and requirements for consideration. They often require consideration of costs, technical feasibility or other non-risk factors. They are not designed to consider the interaction among air, land and water, but are focused instead on exposure in the specified medium.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-faces-broad-criticism-over-plan-limit-asbestos-analysis-regulation

Return to headline | Return to top
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides Cluster (HBCD)?

Aug 14, 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 and policy makers.
What is Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides Cluster?
Cyclic aliphatic bromides cluster, also known as hexabromocyclodecanes (or HBCD), are polybrominated flame retardants. They consist of three chemicals with similar characteristics: hexabromocyclododecane; 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane; and 1,2,5,6-tetrabromocyclooctane. Since uses for 1,2,5,6-tetrabromocyclooctane have not been identified (EPA, 2017), the current commentary on HBCD is limited to either hexabromocyclododecane and/or 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane.
HBCD is a white, odorless solid with a chemical structure of C12H18Br6, as shown in the US National Library of Medicine’s Toxnet database (NLM, 2018). HBCD comes in either technical or commercial grade, neither of which vaporizes easily, but both of which are slightly soluble in water. Technical HBCD is often described as a mixture of the three main chemicals listed above, which differ only in the way that the atoms are arranged or spaced within the molecule. Commercial-grade HBCD may contain some impurities, such as tetrabromocyclododecene or other isomers (an isomer of a molecule has the same number of atoms of each element but has a different arrangement of the atoms) of HBCD.
The primary use of HBCD is as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam and extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam in the building and construction industry for thermal insulation boards and foam insulation panels. HBCD also has limited use in replacement parts for automobiles. Past uses of HBCD included use in high impact polystyrene for electrical and electronic appliances, such as audio-visual equipment, refrigerator lining, some wire and cable applications, and in the back coating of textiles.
HBCD is expected to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic at low levels, and is therefore listed as a persistent organic pollutant under the Stockholm Convention in 2013 (EPA, 2018). According to EPA, this listing has resulted in industry phasing out manufacture and use of HBCD.
In recent years, domestic manufacture of HBCD has ceased, although a small amount of import of HBCD may be ongoing.
Exposure To HBCD
Potential exposures to HBCD may result from suspended particles in the air, and from exposure to levels found in sediment, soil and indoor dust by either direct contact or incidental ingestion. However, inhalation exposure to particulates and dermal exposure, including skin contact with particulates are likely to be the predominant route of exposure for workers and the public. This exposure comes from import, processing, distribution, repackaging and recycling of industrial, commercial, and consumer uses of HBCD and subsequent releases into the air, water or land. In indoor environments, there may also be exposures resulting from legacy uses of HBCD in articles (textiles, electronics and electrical products) containing HBCD. These exposures are expected to decline over time as use of these articles is phased out (EPA, 2018).
As described in a number of EPA documents (EPA 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018), HBCD is expected to take months or greater for half of the amount released into the environment to break down. Moreover, HBCD is expected to bind to particulates and sediments and not to readily move through the soil. Thus, it is expected to remain largely immobile in landfills. It is also not expected to escape into the atmosphere from soils and water surfaces.
HBCD has been detected in the dust of residences, commercial buildings, automobiles, and airplanes in the U.S. When detected in the dust, concentrations are generally reported in the parts per billion (ppb) or parts per million (ppm) range. Studies of surface water in the U.S. are limited to a study of suspended sediment from the Detroit River, a highly industrialized area (EPA, 2015). In this study, the maximum measured concentration in sediment suspended in water was 3.7 ppb. However, greater than 300 ppb was found in sediment at the Yadkin River at the outfall downstream from a textile facility in North Carolina, U.S.
Approximately 20 ppb HBCD was measured in sludge samples analyzed from the EPA 2001 National Sewage Sludge Survey (EPA, 2015). Unfortunately, other measured concentrations of HBCD in wastewater or in soils in the U.S. are not available.
Health Effects Of Hexabromocyclododecanes
According to both EPA (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018) and the European Chemicals Agency (EChA, 2008), humans may be exposed to HBCD thorough oral, inhalation, and dermal routes. Information is lacking in humans on the potential of HBCD to be absorbed, metabolized, distributed and eliminated following exposure. In experimental animals, HBCD can be absorbed following oral exposure, but absorption through the skin is poor. No information exists on absorption after inhalation. Following oral absorption in animals, HBCD is preferentially distributed to fat, where it can accumulate. It is distributed to a lesser extent to other organs and tissues including the liver, skin, muscles, blood, heart, lungs, gonads, uterus, spleen, kidneys, and the brain. Absorbed HBCD is eliminated mostly in the feces as an unchanged parent compound, but is also eliminated in the urine as breakdown products.
Like exposure to any chemical, toxicity of HBCD depends on the level to which one is exposed and the length of time of exposure. Both EPA (2014, 2015, 2016) and EChA (2008) have health effects information on HBCD. Limited available human studies have reported potential effects of HBCD on thyroid hormones. In experimental animals, exposure to single, oral high doses of HBCD may result in death, while high inhalation exposures may cause eye squint, slight difficulty in breathing, salivation, lacrimation, and nasal discharge. Short- and long-term oral exposures may cause an increase in thyroid weight, changes in the level of thyroid hormones, and changes in the structure of the thyroid gland showing disease; and may also cause increases in liver weight with changes in the liver that show disease.
However, the effects on the liver are inconsistent across the available experimental animal studies, and EPA noted that it is not clear if the observed effects are treatment-related. According to EPA (2018), animal studies provide stronger evidence of changes in the thyroid associated with HBCD exposure than in humans.
In addition, while the potential for HBCD to affect the female reproductive system has not been investigated in humans, experimental animal studies provide some evidence that HBCD exposure may alter fertility and pregnancy outcomes. For male reproductive effects, epidemiological studies provide some support for an association between HBCD exposure and changes in the levels of serum testosterone and the sex hormone binding globulin. (1) However, animal studies did not report any effects on male reproductive organ weights, reproductive development, hormone concentrations or spermatogenic measures.
Epidemiological data provided mixed results on the developmental toxicity of HBCD. However, in animal studies, exposure to high doses of HBCD early in life may cause developmental toxicity, including reduced offspring viability, reduced pup weight, and changes in eye opening. Based on the available studies for HBCD, EPA concludes that there is sufficient evidence to support a concern for moderately to high toxicity from exposure to HBCD based on its potential developmental and reproductive effects.
In similar fashion, epidemiological data do not suggest a strong association between HBCD exposure and developmental neurotoxicity, where potential effects include alteration of physical or behavioral signs of development in infants and children and changes in muscular activity and thinking that persist into adulthood. However, experimental animal studies provide evidence that HBCD exposure around the time of birth may cause developmental neurotoxicity (EPA, 2018). For example, HBCD exposure appears to affect changes in hearing, brain weight, and function in multiple studies. Effects on nervous system development were observed in both sexes and across a wide range of doses and exposure durations. There is also some evidence that hearing impairment is another effect, however it is difficult to determine if the effect is due to fetal exposure to HBCD, or is a result of repeated-dose exposure, or results from a combination of these two exposures (EPA, 2018). Neurotoxicity appears to be the most sensitive endpoint studied, and, therefore, a concern exists for exposure to HBCD during pre-conception through weaning.
No studies that adequately evaluated the carcinogenic potential of HBCD in humans or experimental animals were found in the available literature (EPA, 2015, 2016); however, based on the available genotoxicity data and one limited carcinogenicity study, existing assessments have concluded that HBCD is not carcinogenic (EPA, 2018).
HBCD Safe or Virtually Safe Levels
The federal and state governments develop regulations and recommendations to protect public health. Regulations and recommendations 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 people who are sensitive to the chemical’s effects.
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. The higher animal exposures are used to see what the adverse health effects could be. The scientists then conjecture what the adverse effects could possibly be in humans at a lower level of exposure. Scientists can then estimate the level that will most likely protect humans, including sensitive humans.
Sometimes these safe levels differ among federal and state organizations because they used different assumptions for human exposure, different animal studies, or employ methods that differ slightly. Other times, these recommendations 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.
For HBCD, no safe or virtually safe concentrations/doses have been developed by any authoritative body. However, EPA (2014), conducted a benchmark dose (BMD) modeling to predict at which dose the effects caused by HBCD could occur, including impaired hearing, pup mortality, and thyroid effects. EPA (2014) derived an oral BMDL of 0.2 mg/kg/day based on hearing impairment. BMDL = 95% lower confidence limit on the benchmark dose (BMD). A BMD modeling is used to estimate the dose or exposure of a chemical or chemical mixture associated with a given response level, to facilitate hazardous pollutant risk assessments.
No toxicity values are available for the inhalation or dermal route. No oral cancer slope factor or inhalation unit risk has been developed for HBCD.
Why Is EPA Looking At This Under The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act?
EPA (2018) is currently looking at the likely routes of exposure to HBCD in the environment and will be further developing exposure scenarios, or pathways, of how the public comes into contact with HBCD. These exposure pathways will then be studied by EPA scientists by comparing the amount of HBCD exposure in the pathway to its safe or virtually safe level.
If human exposure in the pathway is at or below this safe or virtually safe level, then HBCD exposure from the pathway is not considered to be a human health concern. If exposure is above this safe or virtually safe level, then the pathway might be considered as a possible health concern; (2) also, several pathways may be added together to suggest a health concern.
In either event, regulations might be developed to lessen the exposure of HBCD from this pathway(s). See EPA (2018) for additional information related to the assessment of HBCD under the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA).
Controversy Over HBCD
EPA (2018) interprets the mandates within the LCSA to conduct risk evaluations on current and prospective uses of hexabromocyclodecanes for which manufacturing, processing, or distribution in commerce “is intended, known or reasonably foreseen.”
Thus, EPA is excluding from its problem formulation conditions of the use of HBCD that are not intended, known, or reasonably foreseen. Since domestic manufacture of HBCD has ceased, prior domestic uses of HBCD are excluded. This excluded list includes uses in expanded polystyrene resin and extruded polystyrene masterbatch, the use of HBCD in high impact polystyrene (HIPS) in electronic components, and legacy uses of HBCD including adhesives, textiles (including upholstery fabric, floor mats and headliners in automobiles, and commercial uses), electronics and electrical products, and other uses (e.g., toys and games, car seats, toys, and toy vehicles). However, HBCD has a number of other uses, for example, within the automotive and building industries, and these categories of use are included within the current scope of EPA’s evaluation. See EPA (2018) for a much more complete description of included and excluded uses.
The fact that studies in both humans and animals have identified neurotoxicity to be the most sensitive endpoint for hexabromocyclodecanes is not controversial. Many flame retardants, including the best known and used flame retardant–water, are known to be neurotoxic at a high dose. Controversy does exist, however, regarding the usefulness of flame retardants in preventing injury and death. For some information on the benefits of flame retardants see http://www.kidschemicalsafety.net/Flame-Retardent-Clothing-kids.html or https://www.flameretardantfacts.com.
NOTES:
(1) Sex hormone-binding globulin is a glycoprotein that binds to the two sex hormones: androgen and estrogen. A glycoprotein, also called glycopeptide, is any of a class of proteins that have carbohydrate groups attached to the polypeptide chain.
(2) 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 and exposure pathways that tend to exaggerate exposure.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/14/acsh-explains-whats-story-cyclic-aliphatic-bromides-cluster-hbcd-13302

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Despite Monsanto Trial Verdict, Demand for Pesticide Persists

Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Lydia Mulvany

California, Brazil courts rule against glyphosate pesticide
Crop chemicals have become critical part of modern farming
It may seem like Judgment Day has come for glyphosate, with a California jury slapping $289 million in damages on Monsanto Co. in a cancer trial, and a federal judge in Brazil halting the herbicide use over health concerns—all in the space of a week.
Dramatic headlines are par for the course for Monsanto, a company that activists have targeted for decades and which Germany’s Bayer AG just bought for $66 billion. Bayer shares tumbled Aug. 13 on concerns over a protracted legal battle, but Monsanto has weathered these kinds of storms before since its herbicide and the genetically modified crops it’s used on have become such a critical part of modern agriculture.
Upon appeal, damages and rulings will likely be overturned or reduced, said Chris Perrella, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.
In the end, glyphosate is the world’s most popular and widely used weedkiller for a reason. It has been good for the environment and good for farmers, and it’ll be needed as the global population expands by billions in the coming decades, Perrella said. The only alternatives to glyphosate are far “nastier” chemicals, or using diesel tractors to till fields, which creates a host of environmental problems, he said.
Soaring Yields
Crop yields have soared in recent years thanks to advances in seed technology, pesticides, herbicides and other inputs. Booming world harvests have helped to keep food inflation relatively tame even as global climate change has brought increased risks from drought, heat and storms. At the same time, there’s been growing consumer distrust of crop chemicals and GMOs, helping to drive a surge in demand for organic food.
While regulators around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, say that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer, the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, labeled the chemical a probable carcinogen in 2015, opening the door to such lawsuits.
The California trial was just the first of more than 2,000 similar cases are pending, according to Jonas Oxgaard, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
Monsanto plans to appeal the jury’s verdict.
An Aug. 3 ruling by a federal judge in Brasilia suspended the use of glyphosate as the health ministry evaluates its toxicity. The Brazilian Soy Producers Association has promptly appealed.
“It’s as if the court just randomly said, you can’t use tractors, and we need to study the health effect of tractors,” Oxgaard said of the Brazilian ruling. “Ultimately, GMO haters have been spectacularly unsuccessful—as much as they hate it and with the passion they hate it, penetration of GMOs keeps increasing every year.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/despite-monsanto-trial-verdict-demand-for-pesticide-persists

Return to headline | Return to top
Bayer Takes the Hit After Monsanto Loses Roundup Cancer Trial

Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Joel Rosenblatt, Robert Burnson and Naomi Kresge

First jury verdict was test for thousands of pending claims
Monsanto hit with $289 million in damages on weed killer
Two months after clinching its $66 billion purchase of Monsanto Co., Bayer AG faces a protracted legal battle over the U.S. company’s Roundup weed killer—a prospect that wiped more than $11 billion off the German conglomerate’s market value.
Bayer shares plunged the most in almost seven years after Monsanto was socked with $289 million in damages in the first trial over claims that the herbicide causes cancer. Now a deal Bayer pursued to keep pace with DowDuPont Inc. and China National Chemical Corp. is turning into a potentially expensive quagmire.
The verdict in favor of a California school groundskeeper who said exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—which Bayer denies—is just one of thousands of cases related to the weed killer that are working their way through the courts. If more go against the German company, the costs could be “ruinous,” Sanford C. Bernstein analysts led by Jonas Oxgaard said in a note.
Bayer to Challenge Ruling
Bayer said it will appeal and U.S. jury awards against companies are often overturned or reduced. Still, the shares fell as much as 14 percent as investors were reminded of a previous legal debacle, when the company paid more than $1.1 billion to settle suits over the heart drug Lipobay in 2005.
“Investors might worry that this will become a ‘Lipobay 2.0,’” said Markus Mayer, an analyst with Baader Bank AG.
Bayer closed its acquisition of Monsanto in June after a two-year antitrust review. Despite disposal of some of its businesses to BASF SE, it emerged as the biggest seed and agricultural chemicals maker in the world, alongside its drugmaking operations.
The reliance of the U.S. company—and now, its German acquirer—on Roundup extends far beyond just selling it as a weed killer. Monsanto genetically engineered the DNA of corn, soybeans, and other crops to make them resistant to Roundup; it now makes more revenue from seeds and traits than it does from herbicide sales.
Roundup, introduced in 1974 and based on a chemical called glyphosate, has long been controversial. While it became the world’s most popular and widely used herbicide, the question of whether it causes cancer has been hotly debated by environmentalists, regulators, researchers and lawyers—even as Monsanto has insisted for decades that it’s perfectly safe.
“More than 800 scientific studies and reviews—and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world—support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in an Aug. 10 statement.
San Francisco Jury
Jurors awarded Lee Johnson, the groundskeeper, $39 million for his losses and $250 million to punish Monsanto after finding it liable for a design defect and failing to warn of Roundup’s risks.
Working for a school district in Benicia, California, about 40 miles east of San Francisco, Johnson mixed and sprayed hundreds of gallons of Roundup. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2014, and in July 2017, after chemotherapy and other treatments, his oncologist gave him six months to live. The gardener’s lawyers argued that his exposure, including accidents that soaked him from head to toe in Roundup, caused his cancer.
The trial was an important test of the evidence against Monsanto and will serve as a template for litigating thousands of other claims over the herbicide. If the litigation generates other large verdicts, it could have a material impact on Bayer’s bottom line, said Chris Perrella, an analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence.
“The jury’s verdict is just the first step in this case,” Bayer said in an Aug. 13 statement. The German company is due to begin integrating Monsanto’s operations into its own later this month.
Failure to Inform?
Monsanto scientists knew of the cancer risk posed by Roundup as far back as the 1970s, but failed to inform the public and instead engaged in a “deliberate effort to distort the truth” as the weed killer generated hefty returns, Johnson’s lawyer, Brent Wisner, told the jury in closing arguments.
“Despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to require labeling, we are proud that an independent jury followed the evidence and used its voice to send a message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup is over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits,” Wisner said in a statement after the verdict.
Monsanto argued that the type of cancer Johnson contracted takes many years to form. The short period between Johnson’s first exposure in 2012 and his diagnosis in 2014 made any connection between his contact and the disease impossible, according to the company.
“They’re going to appeal, and we’re going to have to see what happens then,” said Ulrich Huwald, an analyst with Warburg Research in Hamburg. Even if Bayer doesn’t face similar verdicts in other cases, the company may need to pay out settlements. “As the northern Germans say, ‘In court and on the high seas, you’re in God’s hands.’”
—With assistance from Gabriella Lovas, Chitra Somayaji, Jade Cano and Chris Vellacott.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bayer-takes-the-hit-after-monsanto-loses-roundup-cancer-trial

Return to headline | Return to top
Environmentalists Hail Ruling Finding Glyphosate Caused Cancer

Aug 14, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmental groups are hailing a California court ruling that found the world's most commonly used herbicide glyphosate caused a groundskeeper's cancer and fining a producer hundreds of millions as a victory for sound science, countering EPA's repeated assertions that the substance is not likely to cause human cancers.
A California jury Aug. 10 fined pesticide producer Monsanto Co. $289 million, ruling that exposure to the company's glyphosate-containing Roundup weedkiller caused 46-year-old school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, according to news reports.
“This verdict represents a victory of medical science over corporate propaganda, and will hopefully help other victims of Monsanto’s hazardous Roundup herbicide achieve some measure of justice,” the environmentalist Center for Food Safety (CFS) says in an Aug. 10 statement. “EPA found glyphosate could possibly cause cancer in the 1980s, then was strong-armed into reversing its position by Monsanto.”
“The jury not only found that Roundup caused the plaintiff’s cancer, awarding him $39.3 million in pain and suffering and economic damages, but also that Monsanto acted 'with malice or oppression' and awarded an additional $250 million in punitive damages,” CFS adds.
The lawsuit could be a sign that additional liability is looming as numerous other personal injury claims are pending, though Monsanto is preparing for continued litigation.
“We will appeal this decision and continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use and continues to be a vital, effective, and safe tool for farmers and others,” Monsanto says in a statement to Inside EPA.
Bloomberg is reporting that Bayer stocks suffered their largest drop in almost seven years following the ruling that came two months after the chemical giant purchased Monsanto.
Despite the ruling, there are mixed signals from regulators on glyphosate's potential cancer risk.
Late last year, EPA in a preliminary human health risk assessment reiterated a prior conclusion that glyphosate is not likely to cause human cancers. The agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration review of the substance is ongoing, and EPA plans to issue an interim decision in 2019.
Along with its determination, EPA in December issued a host of supporting documents, including an update to its September 2016 issue paper where the Obama EPA also found glyphosate is not likely to cause human cancers, and a response to a December 2016 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel that split on the question of glyphosate's carcinogenicity.
EPA's finding that glyphosate is unlikely to cause human cancers conflicts with the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in a 2015 monograph concluded that glyphosate probably causes cancer.
Environmentalists have long pressed EPA for stricter oversight of glyphosate, arguing that heavy use of the substance, particularly since the advent of genetically-modified crops designed to withstand glyphosate in the 1990s, poses significant ecological and human health risks.
But the pesticide industry and Republican lawmakers have faulted the IARC finding and pressed EPA to speed its registration review to rebuke the IARC cancer risk finding and allow continued use of the substance.
In the statement, Monsanto says, “We are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family. Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews -- and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world -- support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer.”
In April, a California appellate court upheld the state's listing of glyphosate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, rejecting arguments by Monsanto that the listing was unconstitutional, though a federal court has blocked the state from requiring the pesticide be labeled as a carcinogen.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-hail-ruling-finding-glyphosate-caused-cancer

Return to headline | Return to top
Pneumo Abex, Owens-Illinois Face Asbestos Conspiracy Claims

Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Peter Hayes and Steven Patrick

Pneumo Abex and Owens-Illinois can’t shake claims they conspired to conceal asbestos dangers
Construction worker’s lung cancer claims reinstated
Pneumo Abex and Owens-Illinois failed to shake claims they conspired with other manufacturers to conceal the dangers of asbestos.
Former construction worker John Jones presented enough evidence to proceed with his conspiracy claims,
an Illinois appeals court said Aug. 10.
Jones alleges he contracted lung cancer from his exposure to asbestos-containing insulation during his career in construction.
Jones’ allegations are sufficient to proceed with claims that Abex entered into an agreement with Johns-Manville to suppress or misrepresent information regarding the health hazards of asbestos, the court said.
He also presented enough evidence that Owens-Illinois entered into an agreement with Owens-Corning to suppress information about the hazards of asbestos, the court said.
Abex manufactured asbestos-containing brake linings, while Owens-Illinois manufactured Kaylo, an asbestos-containing insulation.
The complaint does not allege Jones was exposed to an Abex product.
Judge Richard P. Goldenhersh wrote the opinion, joined by Judges John B. Barberis and Thomas M. Welch.
Wylder, Corwin, Kelly, LLP represents Jones. Riley, Safer, Holmes & Cancila, LLP represents Owens-Illinois. Wilkinson, Goeller, Modesitt, Wilkinson & Drummy LLP represents Pneumo Abex.
The case is Jones v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 2018 BL 286586, Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., No. 5-16-0239, 8/10/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pneumo-abex-owens-illinois-face-asbestos-conspiracy-claims

Return to headline | Return to top
Chlorpyrifos Critics Eye Preemptive Steps To Counter EPA Appeal On Ban

Aug 14, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Opponents of the pesticide chlorpyrifos concerned about its human health harms are eyeing preemptive steps to block use of the substance including calling on California to suspend it and rallying support for legislation to impose a national ban, as they expect EPA to appeal a recent appellate ruling that requires it to prohibit the substance.
In an Aug. 9 decision a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit slammed EPA for delaying a chlorpyrifos ban in favor of further study of the substance's neurodevelopmental risk to children, and ordered the agency to ban the pesticide's use on food within 60 days. The lawsuit stemmed from a challenge filed to the Trump administration's reversal of an Obama-era proposed ban on the substance.
But EPA and the pesticide's producer DowDupont are suggesting an appeal of the decision, so farmworker groups and a House Democrat are calling for preemptive steps to limit exposures regardless of any continuing legal battle.
“With science and the courts on their side, California farmworker community leaders called on state officials to immediately protect residents by suspending chlorpyrifos use in California,” Californians for Pesticide Reform says in an Aug. 9 statement.
The group adds that California's Department of Pesticide Regulation recently completed a review that found chlorpyrifos endangers children through residues on produce, contaminated water and drift, but has taken no action.
“Every day that this pesticide is used puts another family’s child at risk of permanent brain damage and lowered IQ,” they say. “If the officials who made these decisions lived where we live, they would have already taken action.”
Similarly, Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) in an Aug. 10 statement called for Congress to approve bills introduced in the House and Senate last summer seeking to ban use of chlorpyrifos on food to protect children.
“While this ruling is an important step, it is unclear what will happen next and whether EPA may appeal,” Velázquez says. “To that end, I urge Congress to pass my bill, which would codify a ban on Chlorpyrifos into statute.”
The push for alternative means of limiting chlorpyrifos exposures follows signals from EPA and Dow that an appeal is likely and faulting science supporting the neurodevelopmental risk that has supported tightening regulation.
“Chlorpyrifos is a critical pest management tool used by growers around the world to manage a large number of pests, and regulatory bodies in 79 countries have looked at the science, carefully evaluated the product and its significant benefits and continued to approve its use,” Gregg Schmidt, a Dow spokesman, says in an Aug. 10 email to Inside EPA.
“We note that this was a split decision of the panel and we agree with the dissenting judge’s opinion,” the statement adds. “We expect that all appellate options to challenge the majority’s decision will be considered.”
EPA echoed Dow's suggestion of an appeal, saying it is reviewing the court's decision, and that the ruling's finding of a developmental risk is based on a controversial Columbia University study for which the agency has been unable to obtain the underlying data.
“EPA is reviewing the decision,” EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said in an Aug. 9 statement. “The Columbia Center’s data underlying the Court’s assumptions remains inaccessible and has hindered the Agency’s ongoing process to fully evaluate the pesticide using the best available, transparent science.” he added.
Chlorpyrifos' Risks
In the scathing 2-1 decision, in League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Wheeler, the majority faulted former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's March 2017 order reversing the Obama EPA's November 2015 proposed rule banning use of chlorpyrifos on food to protect against neurodevelopmental risks.
"There was no justification for the [Trump] EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children," the ruling said.
While a dissenting judge disagreed with the majority’s rejection of EPA's claims that petitioners lacked standing to sue, the agency's recent statement faulting the Columbia study suggests that the Trump administration is gearing up to defend Pruitt's decision on the merits, as well as on standing grounds.
The Columbia University study was the lynchpin in an Obama EPA plan to shift oversight of chlorpyrifos from protecting against inhibition of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) in the nervous system to protecting against neurodevelopmental effects, which may occur at lower levels of exposure, and result in tightened regulation.
In April 2016, members of a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) faulted the Obama EPA's plan to rely on the Columbia epidemiological study of human exposures as "premature and possibly inappropriate," backing pesticide industry criticism that EPA had not adequately vetted the plan.
At the time, EPA staff argued that the Columbia study was "one piece of a very large" body of research on a neurodevelopmental risk for chlorpyrifos.
Soon after the SAP, the Obama EPA struck a deal improving agency access to the study in an apparent attempt to alleviate concerns of industry and some SAP members that failure to review the underlying data hampered use of the study.
Under the deal, Obama-era pesticides officials accepted a Columbia offer to work with the agency to develop redacted data sets, despite arguing that EPA privacy rules made the precaution unnecessary.
Now EPA's website shows the agency is pushing for further access to the Columbia study, backing Pruitt's assertions that additional consideration is needed before epidemiological data is used in pesticide risk assessment.
The website “Chlorpyrifos: EPA's Seven Year Quest for Columbia's Raw Data,” notes that EPA has repeatedly requested the study's underlying data and notes objections of both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and members of the FIFRA SAP to EPA's use of human exposure to strengthen chlorpyrifos oversight.
EPA also faults prior court rulings as rushing the agency toward a decision despite scientific uncertainty.
“Given that the Ninth Circuit would not provide additional time for a new administration to review the issue, EPA denied the petition, based on the lack of time, divergent views from the cabinet departments and the fact that the scheduled FIFRA review for all pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, allows for a public process that included more time to further evaluate the science and come to a clearer scientific resolution of the issues.”
The statement on EPA's website appears to scrap the deal with Columbia researchers as grounds for using the study and echoes Pruitt's assertions in the 2017 reversal order that conflicting signals from multiple SAPs backed his decision for the agency to continue studying chlorpyrifos under its FIFRA registration review scheduled to last through 2022.
“While industry and public interest groups on both sides of this issue can debate what the recommendations mean and which recommendations should be followed, one thing should be clear to all persons following this issue: the science on this question is not resolved and would likely benefit from additional inquiry,” the order says.
Pesticide Reviews
Pruitt's shift away from using epidemiological data was a win for the pesticide industry which had recently said it would seek a public statement that EPA will adhere to FIFRA in pesticide reviews.
The 2017 reversal is also consistent with the Trump administration's April proposed rule calling for the disclosure of data underlying studies used in agency risk assessments, though the administration's critics have argued that the rule is intended to limit use of studies that have long been used to drive stricter standards under other statutes.
While the Trump administration is faulting data the Obama EPA to support its proposed chlorpyrifos ban, an EPA employee union is arguing that the court's order is consistent with the opinion of agency staff.
“Chlorpyrifos is a widely used pesticide that is dangerous to children who eat food produced with it and American farmworkers directly exposed,” Denise Morrison, acting director of the AFGE Council #238 says in an Aug. 13 statement. “The Court agreed with sound science and the Agency’s staff scientists and state regulators’ data showing chlorpyrifos was also affecting air quality in largely agricultural communities.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/chlorpyrifos-critics-eye-preemptive-steps-counter-epa-appeal-ban

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Signs NDAA With Climate, Chemical, Species Riders

Aug 13, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Courtney Columbus

President Trump this afternoon signed into law the latest National Defense Authorization Act with a host of energy and environment provisions.
"The National Defense Authorization Act is the most significant investment in our military and our warfighters in modern history, and I am very proud to be a big, big part of it," Trump said during a ceremony at New York's Fort Drum.
The $716 billion package passed Congress with bipartisan support, including an 87-10 vote in the Senate earlier this month (E&E News PM, Aug. 1).
Several controversial resource riders didn't make it into the final version of the NDAA, including a sage grouse provision that was championed by House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah). It would have prevented the grouse and the lesser prairie chicken from being listed under the Endangered Species Act for 10 years.
Earlier language would also have delisted the American burying beetle. Bishop has argued that state management plans provide sufficient protection for these species (E&E Daily, July 24).Climate change and chemicals
The defense authorization bill includes language on climate and resilience.
"This bill reflects the fact that Congress has accepted the consensus that climate change affects national security," said John Conger, director of the Center for Climate and Security, who published a blog post today on the related provisions.
The law requires new military construction projects to disclose whether they are within a 100-year floodplain. Such projects would require mitigation plans.
"The fact that these proposals are included indicates that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle realize that military installations must have the necessary tools to be ready for the climate change impacts they're already facing, particularly tidal flooding from sea level rise, which is a growing problem for military bases," climate resilience analyst Shana Udvardy of the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a press release today.
"For some bases flooding has reached a crisis point so we must guarantee that new projects are resilient to future floods," she said.
The NDAA contains several provisions related to chemical cleanup, authorizing nearly $60 million for remediation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and up to $15 million for dioxin contamination in Vietnam. It calls for continued funding for the study of PFOS and PFOA.Marine mammals
Despite Democrats and environmentalists succeeding in blocking several controversial environmental riders, including related to mining, compromise language extends the maximum length of the Navy's incidental take permits for marine mammals from five years to seven years.
NOAA has said the provision won't harm marine mammals because the Navy will still need to go through the same process for obtaining permits.
Retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, who served as assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations and environment from 2013 to 2017, agrees with the rider.
"Were I still in office, I would be very much in favor of the NDAA language because it preserves the spirit and intent of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but it makes the process much more effective and much more efficient," said McGinn, now an advisory board member at the Center for Climate and Security.
"It's almost an automatic reaction that anytime you make changes to any of the environmental protection laws, that the assumption is that it's going to be bad," he said. "And that is not the case."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/08/13/stories/1060094001

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Advisers Offer Chemical Legislation Recommendations

Aug 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has provided recommendations on the EU’s options to address the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation under the circular economy package.
An EU advisory body including representatives of workers' and employers' organisations, the EESC delivers opinions on issues to the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
Its latest opinion, published in the EU's Official Journal, follows a Commission Communication in January on options to address the links between the different legislation.
EESC conclusions and recommendations include:
·        full application of REACH and other legislation on chemicals already in place should be prioritised. Existing legislation which prevents hazardous chemicals from initial entry to the material cycle is still not being fully used, especially concerning entry into the EU on products from third countries;
·        the Committee strongly supports the view that better information on the presence, location, and concentration of hazardous chemicals in products and materials recovered from waste can reduce problems encountered by operators in the recovery chain;
·        the identification of both potential sources of value or of necessary protective action on hazardous chemicals in the waste stream will support the cost/benefit analysis required to justify legislative action and practical interventions; and
·        it is essential to improve and reinforce identification and tracking requirements on imported goods that may contain SVHCs to enforce prohibition, where necessary, and adequate tracing mechanisms throughout the product lifecycle.
In July, the Commission opened a public consultation addressing the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation. It runs until 29 October.

https://chemicalwatch.com/69711/eu-advisers-offer-chemical-legislation-recommendations

Return to headline | Return to top
UK Projects To Explore Impact Of Hazardous Chemicals On Ecosystems

Aug 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

The UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) has awarded £6m (€6.7m) to three projects that will investigate the impact of hazardous chemicals on habitats and wildlife.
The council is Britain’s main agency for funding and managing research, training and knowledge exchange in the environmental sciences.
The projects aim to uncover "unforeseen effects" of substances and will devise a new method to test these impacts that can be applied to different types of ecosystems, the Nerc said.
One project will identify which wildlife populations are doing well despite current chemical use and which are not. It will utilise hundreds of millions of UK data records gathered over the past 40 years which have never been examined on this scale for response to chemicals.
Another will investigate the detailed mechanisms through which mixtures of pesticides and other chemicals affect terrestrial invertebrates. Scientists will employ a range of ecological, analytical, genetic and modelling methods to identify cases where a mixture of exposures result in greater effects than can be predicted by current models.
And the last project will pioneer a framework for assessing and predicting the impact of new chemicals on the environment. It will combine modelling, experimental manipulations and monitoring across a range of freshwater ecosystems that provide "crucial" services to society.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69698/uk-projects-to-explore-impact-of-hazardous-chemicals-on-ecosystems

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Trump Trade Spat Threatens U.S. LNG Exporters as China Eyes Halt

Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rachel Adams-Heard and Ryan Collins

PetroChina said to consider suspending U.S. gas purchases
Cheniere last winter reaped big earnings from spot market
This winter could be a bleak one for America’s natural gas exporters as the fastest-growing buyer of the fuel threatens to halt purchases amid an escalating trade war.
PetroChina, a unit of the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp., may suspend its buying of U.S. liquefied natural gas cargoes during the colder months, just as new American LNG terminals start up. The move could force gas suppliers like Cheniere Energy Inc. to cut prices as they seek to lure other buyers during the heating season, when demand peaks.
While U.S. LNG companies make the bulk of their money from long-term contracts, Cheniere last winter reaped big earnings from the spot market, which saw Asian prices climb to three-year highs amid booming consumption in China. The world’s second-largest economy is boosting its use of the fuel as it cuts pollution from coal-fired plants.
But with China eyeing a 25 percent tariff on U.S. LNG, Cheniere and other U.S. LNG traders may have no choice but to sell spot volumes at a discount, Jason Gabelman, vice president at Cowen and Company LLC, said by telephone Aug. 13. Cheniere didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The “U.S. is probably going to have more spot LNG available than it would have had otherwise if it had been selling into the Chinese market,” Gabelman said.
Other buyers in Asia may look to take advantage of low-cost U.S. gas. Cheniere announced Aug. 10 a binding 25-year contract with Taiwan’s state-owned CPC Corp. beginning in 2021.
“If you’re selling gas in the spot market, you need to find a new place” for cargoes that would have gone to China, said Nikos Tsafos, a senior fellow at the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “And for companies that only have U.S. gas, that’s a bigger headache.”
—With assistance from Stephen Stapczynski.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-trade-spat-threatens-us-lng-exporters-as-china-eyes-halt

Return to headline | Return to top
Shale Boom Zaps Volatility in US Natural Gas Market

Aug 14, 2018 | Financial Times

By Gregory Meyer

When US natural gas futures passed a milestone this month, they did so quietly: volatility fell to the lowest levels since the market’s debut nearly 30 years ago.
The event seemed improbable. Volatility usually fades when commodity stocks are ample. Yet US gas stocks are 19.5 per cent below average. When the winter starts they are set to be at their lowest in more than a decade.
This situation is the latest example of how the world’s largest gas market has been transformed by shale drilling. While demand for gas is galloping, it has been met by waves of supply that show no sign of abating. Conditions that put traders on edge a decade ago get shrugs.
Like much of the northern hemisphere, the US this year is experiencing extremely hot weather. Cooling degree days — a measure of air-conditioning demand — are expected to top 1,000 by the end of the season, ranking the summer of 2018 among the top five for heat, according to Commodity Weather Group.
That has required more generation from electric power plants that increasingly run on gas. Natural gas “power burn” surged to a record 37.7bn cubic feet per day during July, according to S&P Global Platts.
Exports have also fed demand. The US is now a net exporter of gas to the tune of 2bn cu ft/d, the Energy Information Administration estimates. The volumes flow through new pipelines to Mexico and liquefied natural gas export terminals recently opened on the coasts of Louisiana and Maryland.
The strong summer use of gas follows a winter when heating demand left gas stocks depleted. While producers will bank additional supplies over the summer and autumn, EIA forecasts that stocks at the end of the “injection season” in October will amount to just 3.3tn cu ft — the lowest for that month since 2005.

“It does create some concern that under the right conditions we could see some fireworks for prices,” said Rich Redash, head of North American gas and power research at S&P Global.
For now, though, gas prices have been a damp squib. Nymex September gas futures on Monday settled at $2.930 per million British thermal units, inside its range of $2.50-$3.50 over the past year.
Daily price moves have also been subdued. Realised 30-day volatility for front-month gas futures this month dropped to the lowest level since 1991, the year after the New York Mercantile Exchange first listed the benchmark Henry Hub gas contract, Bloomberg data show.
Volatility and prices have declined as production continues to surprise the market. Output has surged from shale formations such as the Marcellus and Utica in the north-east and the Permian and Haynesville centred around Texas.
The government last week forecast 81.1bn cu ft/d in dry gas production for 2018, a record high and up by 7.5bn cu ft/d from 2017. The flows have made traders less concerned about inventories. They have faith that gas wells will keep the market well supplied.
“I think that has contributed to a certain degree of complacency,” said Adam De Chiara, portfolio manager at CoreCommodity Management, a $4bn fund manager based in Connecticut. “And you see that in the volatility in the nearby price.”
Prices for some futures contracts tell a less comfortable story. The discount that gas contracts for October delivery have against gas for January 2019 delivery has shrunk to 21 cents per mBtu in recent weeks, suggesting companies buying gas to store for winter must compete with the current strong demand from the power sector.
Another heavily traded spread, between gas for March 2019 and April 2019 delivery, has a 31 cent premium for March, suggesting supplies could be tight by the end of a cold winter. As a gas trading executive pointed out, volatility tends to be lower in the summer than in the winter as demand is weaker.
The term structure for all US gas contracts reflects the profound shift that has taken place because of shale production. In years past, the futures curve sloped upwards in a jagged line.
Now the front of the curve slopes downward, then is largely flat. Gas for September 2022 delivery costs less than gas for delivery next month, for example.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
The shape of the futures curve reflects two things, said Teddy Kott, head of global gas analysis at Trafigura, a commodities trading house. The first is rapid US production gains. “The market expects production to continue to grow, making market participants confident that prices are going to continue to be low for the foreseeable future,” he said.
The second reflects hedging in the futures market by shale producers. As they lock in prices for increasing volumes of future gas sales, their volumes have “outnumbered” buyers and put pressure on future prices, he said.

The US market is unique in its lack of volatility. European and Asian gas benchmarks receive higher prices per thermal unit and tend to fluctuate more. Until exports of LNG increase, tying the US to international markets, its gas market is set to remain an island of relative calm.
https://www.ft.com/content/d67f006c-9c11-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil and Gas Leasing, Climate Change Head to 10th Circuit

Aug 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Ellen M. Gilmer

A high-stakes battle over how the Bureau of Land Management analyzes climate change is heading to a federal appeals court.
BLM filed a notice of appeal yesterday of a district court's recent decision scrapping oil and gas leasing plans in the Santa Fe National Forest in New Mexico.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico ruled in June that BLM failed to adequately consider greenhouse gas emissions that would occur from burning oil and gas produced through the federal leases.
The ruling was a big win for environmentalists in an important debate over how closely federal agencies must grapple with the indirect climate impacts of their actions (Energywire, June 15).
Tenth Circuit cases go through a mandatory mediation process aimed at resolving issues before lengthy litigation, so it remains unclear whether BLM's appeal will actually land before the judges.
If it does, though, the case will be closely watched as an opportunity for the 10th Circuit to clarify its expectations for federal climate analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The appeals court delivered a notable victory to environmental groups last year when it found that BLM ran afoul of NEPA when it concluded that federal coal leasing has no significant impact on the climate (Energywire, Sept. 18, 2017).
The Santa Fe National Forest litigation deals with a related issue: whether BLM is required to measure downstream climate impacts.
The case involves the agency's 2015 approval, under President Obama, of 13 leases covering about 20,000 acres in northwestern New Mexico.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/14/stories/1060094013

Return to headline | Return to top
Cheniere Secures Another SPA, to Supply LNG to Taiwan’s CPC

Aug 14, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

Cheniere Energy Inc. has snapped up another natural gas export contract with Taiwan’s state-owned oil and gas company.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. For full story: http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115416-cheniere-secures-another-spa-to-supply-lng-to-taiwans-cpc

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Chemical Accidents Could Trigger Hundreds of Public Meetings

Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sam Pearson and

Pending EPA regulation would require public meeting within 90 days of accident
Companies question whether requirement can be changed
Meetings could expose companies, plants to public scrutiny
Companies handling dangerous chemicals might favor notifying nearby residents about accidents through a group email list, as opposed to public meetings as the EPA has proposed—a move that could reduce costs and interactions with the community.
Industry organizations representing major chemical companies that would be affected by the changes—part of updates to the agency’s safety rules for high-hazard industrial sites—have questioned if the meetings are needed, favoring electronic notification as a cheaper alternative.
The proposed requirement falls under the risk management program, which requires about 12,500 facilities to submit information to the Environmental Protection Agency every five years on their chemical holdings, how the riskiest substances are controlled, and file incident reports. The regulations have been in place since 1999.
The new requirement, if adopted, would add something new: Plant employees would face community members to explain what happened and answer questions. That could equate to a lot of public meetings, because facilities under the program experience an average of more than 250 incidents per year, according to the EPA. The meetings could cost companies about $400,000 per year, the EPA found in an analysis.
“It’s important for the communities to have a direct dialogue with the facilities,” Yogin Kothari, a senior Washington representative at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg Environment. “The facilities are looking for every opportunity they can to ignore the communities the facilities reside in. This is not a big request of the facility.”
Under existing regulations, companies have to report chemical releases if they cause on-site deaths, injuries, or significant property damage as well as for incidents that cause offsite deaths, injuries, property or environmental damage, evacuations, or sheltering in place. Only chemicals and processes listed in the regulation have to be disclosed.
Industry Questions
Organizations representing major chemical and refining companies have questioned the requirement.
Companies and the public may find it more useful to disseminate information about an accident through a community email list, Lara Swett, senior director for health and safety programs at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents major oil and petrochemical firms, said in a teleconference with EPA officials July 10.
The EPA could change the proposal to let companies share information on recent chemical releases electronically to members of the public who subscribe to updates, Swett said.
Then, companies could present information at meetings of emergency response officials known as Local Emergency Planning Committees, which are already public. However, EPA officials questioned if an email list would provide the same ability for residents to get answers from company officials, according to an agency memo.
The trade group is still developing its position on the issue, Michael Frohlich, a spokesman for the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, told Bloomberg Environment, and is unable to comment further. The group, which represents companies including Chevron U.S.A. Inc., CITGO Petroleum Corp., and Exxon Mobil Corp., has previously argued that public meetings present a financial burden to companies because they must rent event spaces and could be of limited value if the company hasn’t had time to determine what caused the accident.
“EPA has not explained why additional procedures are necessary or how requiring disclosures and public meetings from facilities better protect the public or environment,” the group wrote in 2016, arguing meetings should be at the discretion of plant operators and area residents.
The meetings could bring attention to incidents that might otherwise pass without notice, Sally Hayati, the president of Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, which advocates for safer operation of an oil refinery in Torrance, Calif., that’s been owned by PBF Energy since 2016.
That could put pressure on companies to operate in a way that won’t trigger public notice, Hayati said.
Final Stretch
The Trump administration has worked for more than 18 months to roll back regulations related to the risk management program that the Obama administration’s EPA issued in its final days in office, and could complete the changes later this year.
The previous administration, acting after a fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, killed 15 people in 2013, wanted to direct high-risk facilities to report more information to the agency, local communities, and first responders.
The agency also wanted to require certain safety training, information sharing, compliance audits, investigations of close calls, and emergency response coordination. Under the Trump administration, the EPA has proposed (RIN:2050-AG95) removing much of the information sharing and investigation requirements, but not the public meetings.
The draft regulation would require companies to hold a public meeting within 90 days of an accident serious enough to require a report to the EPA. The meeting only has to address the most recent accident, not previous ones.
A system of one-way notification, such as an email list, is no substitute, Kothari said.
“Companies need to start having dialogue with leaders in the community,” Kothari said. “They need to have a better understanding of the needs of the community and what the community is looking for from the facilities.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-accidents-could-trigger-hundreds-of-public-meetings

Return to headline | Return to top
Markey Asks Utilities, Agencies About Russian Cyberattacks

Aug 13, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Courtney Columbus

Sen. Ed Markey asked 10 power companies and several federal agencies for information today about Russian cyberattacks on utilities.
The Massachusetts Democrat cited media reports that Russian hackers penetrated the U.S. electric grid last year in a large, coordinated and ongoing campaign that reached utility company control rooms.
"Unless we act now, the United States will continue to remain vulnerable to the 21st century cyberarmies looking to wage war by knocking out America's electricity grid," Markey said in a statement.
"We need answers and assurances from stakeholders who operate and oversee the grid that they are doing everything possible to secure our nation's electrical system against devastating damage from physical or cyber-terrorist attacks," he said.
Markey's letter to the utilities asks whether they were a victim of recent cyberattacks, what steps they are taking to identify vulnerabilities and how they work with various government entities.
He also asked for staff briefings from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and North American Electric Reliability Corp., which each have roles in trying to protect the grid from attacks.
Russian hacking efforts have alarmed both election and energy watchers (Energywire, July 31).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/08/13/stories/1060093997

Return to headline | Return to top
Researchers Search for a Missing Cyber Crime Scene

Aug 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

A hacking mystery has stumped some of the world's top security researchers here.
The puzzle is couched within a few lines of code from a sophisticated, long-running cyberespionage campaign tied to the Russian government.
The hackers tuned malware to pick up snippets of chatter over Modbus, a digital language normally used in industrial environments like the power grid or oil and gas platforms, according to research from cybersecurity firm Cisco Talos.
But the VPNFilter malware was designed to pick up only communications that passed through TP-Link R600 routers, devices normally found in small homes and offices.
The contradiction has flummoxed cybersecurity professionals and spurred joking calls to plaster the case on "Wanted" posters and milk cartons. What would a powerful hacking group want from an unknown control system, perhaps tucked behind someone's home network?
Or was the hunt for Modbus traffic part of some expensive ruse aimed at throwing security researchers on a wild goose chase?
"Were they really looking at Modbus, or did they want us to think that they were looking at Modbus?" said Patrick DeSantis, a cybersecurity engineer at Cisco Talos, in front of a packed room of control system specialists at the DEF CON hacking conference here. "If you know, I'll buy you a beer."
A needle among needles
DeSantis and his team have carried out some of the most detailed public research to date on the VPNFilter malware, which was found infecting hundreds of thousands of routers worldwide earlier this year. They bought dozens of vulnerable devices and hooked them up to the internet like bait, hoping to get the VPNFilter hackers to bite.
The "honeypot" worked perhaps too well.
"There was a large volume of traffic, and none of it was legitimate," DeSantis recalled. To root out the secrets of the VPNFilter malware, "we had to find something bad in gigabytes and gigabytes of bad stuff."
DeSantis likened Cisco's task to searching for a needle in a stack of needles.
VPNFilter was especially prickly.
In addition to the Modbus sniffer, the malware had a destructive payload up its sleeve that could render hacked devices unusable.
When Cisco first publicized the VPNFilter pandemic in May, researchers worried that the hackers would react by "bricking" infected devices, burning down their global operation and sowing salt on the ashes.
"The attacker had the effective ability to knock about a half-million networks off the internet at once — not just the routers, but the networks behind the routers, as well," DeSantis said. "Thankfully, it never happened."
'Sandworm' strikes again
DeSantis and his colleague, Carlos Pacho, presented their research at DEF CON's Industrial Control Systems Village, a hub for learning about — and hacking — the specialized networks that underpin energy, manufacturing and chemical facilities.
They hoped getting the word out about the curious Modbus case could one day solve it.
A few members of the audience chimed in with ideas: One pointed out that oil and gas companies could connect TP-Link R600 routers to their operational networks, and another shared technical takeaways from homespun research. TP-Link did not respond to a request for comment, but the company's marketing materials suggest the R600 is geared toward small office networks. The devices appear to be popular in the U.S. and Russia, with more than 1500 popping up on the Shodan search engine in those two countries, according to a search by Talos.
But the network the hackers really wanted to hit could be located anywhere, DeSantis noted. "It's intriguing because it's so targeted," he said.
On May 23, the day Cisco published its research, the U.S. Justice Department announced it had stepped in to disrupt hackers' control of the 500,000-device-strong "botnet" by seizing a key malicious domain. It urged members of the public to turn their devices off and back on again, a simple way to make it harder for attackers to keep a foothold.
The FBI also linked VPNFilter's architects to the "Sandworm" group, a Russia-linked campaign that has reared its head in U.S. critical infrastructure networks in separate cyber intrusions.
U.S. intelligence officials have warned that the VPNFilter botnet could still be revived with a little effort, and that the hackers behind the campaign remain active.
Last month, Ukrainian intelligence officials said they had thwarted an attempted VPNFilter cyberattack on a chlorination facility in the central part of the country (Energywire, July 17). Ukraine's security service (SBU) blamed the attempted intrusion at the Aul Chlorotransfer Station on the Russian government.
It takes a village
The "ICS Village" greeted DEF CON attendees with a forest of industrial equipment to explore.
The village organizers wore hardhats and yellow safety vests, weaving their way among dozens of hackers hunched over computer screens. The room always looked like it was on the verge of blowing a fuse.
"Most people don't know what an industrial control system is," said Bryson Bort, CEO of the Scythe cyber consultancy and an organizer of this year's ICS Village. "You may have read in the newspaper that the Russians have done something, and the Iranians are potentially going to do something, but what does that mean? We've provided a physical visual for you to see that, and to see the effect of that [hacking]."
The village featured mockups of chemical facilities, power grids and even a nuclear plant connected to a model "Gotham City."
A "Capture the Flag" competition challenged teams of hackers to break into various control networks, often first by pivoting in through simulated corporate computers.
Background conversations revolved around the few real-world examples of hackers hitting these sensitive computer networks, including a first-of-its-kind cyberattack on Ukraine's power grid in 2015, and the Triton malware found infesting the safety networks of a petrochemical facility in the Middle East last year.
If the hackers behind VPNFilter reached their Modbus-speaking target, the case could add to the short but growing list of confirmed control system cyber intrusions. Then hackers could dissect it at next year's conference, ostensibly to learn how to play better defense.
"We all have the same goal: That's to protect critical infrastructure," said Paul Smith, director of protect research and strategy at industrial cybersecurity firm Nozomi Networks.
Bort said it would be difficult to transpose the educational simulations in the village to actual attacks.
"This is real equipment, set up in a real way — it's just small, limited systems," he said. "What you see in the real world is this, times hundreds, times thousands. You get that systems-of-systems challenge."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/14/stories/1060093979

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Atlantic City Train Shutdown Feeds Fears for the Future

Aug 14, 2018 | Philadelphia Inquirer

By Jason Laughlin

Finding a seat on the 6:31 a.m. NJ Transit train to Atlantic City was no challenge. There were 110 seats per car on the four-car train to the Jersey Shore resort city, and virtually all were empty.
NJ Transit plans to shut down the line, served by 16 cars and four locomotives from Sept. 5 to early 2019 as part of a race against time to install positive train control (PTC), a critical safety system, by the end of the year.
The suspension has infuriated riders, workers, and politicians, who question the need to shut down the line. Train commuters, many of them casino workers, will have to rely on buses that could double their travel time, and train crews that have worked the line for years will likely be reassigned to routes far from home. Local NBC weatherman "Nor'Easter" Nick Pittman started a petition that has surpassed 2,600 signatures urging NJ Transit to reduce Atlantic City line service rather than end it completely.
"What we're concerned about is after that four- or five-month suspension — or whatever it is — the line not coming back," Pittman said. "I'd say I expect it to come back, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they decided to just pull the plug."
Kevin Corbett, NJ Transit's chief executive, has called the suspension temporary, and money is included in the 2019 budget for the Atlantic City Line. Meanwhile, officials with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have said NJ Transit is under enormous pressure to install PTC. Missing the federally imposed deadline could mean disastrous penalties.
"There are serious consequences to NJ Transit if we do not complete this federally mandated project," Corbett said in a statement last week, "such as FRA fines or a shutdown, or we run the risk of not being allowed to operate on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor."
PTC is 58 percent installed, the agency reported, but federal officials have said it will be a struggle to finish the job before the end of the year.
By the end of a typical workday, fewer than 2,000 people will take a trip on the route, less than 1 percent of NJ Transit's total rail ridership, which includes serving nearly 100,000 people out of Newark or New York City's Penn Station.
The beachgoers, Richard Sibley, 58, and Michael Wiskowski, 55, of Bridesburg, take the train twice a month for $10.75 each way. They would likely keep taking beach trips after Labor Day, they said, but the shutdown might make that too inconvenient.
"I'm more inclined to go by the train than by the bus," Wiskowski said. "The train is so much quicker."
The train made a long arc through Northeast Philadelphia to its next stop, Pennsauken, where Eileen O'Brien, 79, boarded. She goes to Atlantic City to spend $60 a day on penny slots with a devotion others apply to morning runs or calls to prayer.
"I don't go down to collect seashells, for God's sake," the New Jersey native said.
Tyrone Comegys, 62, got on with her. The two filled two rows, with O'Brien laughing and chatting over the seat back as rain streaked the windows behind them.
"I enjoy it," Comegys said of the ride he's been taking for 25 years to work at casinos in Atlantic City, most recently in the mail room at Caesars Atlantic City Hotel & Casino. "One of the reasons why is the community on the train itself."
They're both skeptical of NJ Transit's reasons for shutdown.
"If I thought for one minute it was a safety issue," O'Brien said, "I would say, go ahead."
That concern was echoed by passengers and labor leaders who are wary of NJ Transit's commitment to the line, which costs $23.5 million a year to operate. Only 17 percent of that is covered by fare revenue.
Corbett's recent statements highlighted the scheduling disruption PTC installation has caused. Years of minimal hiring has led to a net loss of 50 engineers over eight years, he said, exacerbating the problem. An internal email from an NJ Transit executive stated that equipment from the line would be reassigned elsewhere. The 27 people who work the Atlantic City Line trains will be as well, NJ Transit has said.
The decision could mean hours of commuting for conductors and engineers, said Steve Burkert, general chairman for United Transportation Union Local 60, which represents NJ Transit conductors. It also could create scheduling chaos. Atlantic City Line conductors tend to be veterans, he said, and seniority rules would give them bumping rights for any scheduling changes, which could displace North Jersey train workers from their routines.
"I'd love to be able to talk some options for [NJ Transit] to see if we wouldn't have to be able to shut down the entire line." Burkert said.
Critics see South Jersey riders and workers suffering to bolster service in the busier northern part of the state.
"We pay the same tax dollars here in South Jersey," O'Brien said.
Politicians have taken up the cause as well, with State Sen. Chris Brown (R., Atlantic) saying NJ Transit should keep morning and evening service running.
"Completely shutting down the Atlantic City Rail Line so that NJ Transit can transfer rail resources to other parts of the state at the expense of our local families is completely unacceptable," he wrote in a statement last week.
The train wasn't as empty after reaching Hammonton. People in casino worker uniforms filed onto cars, which buzzed with easy camaraderie.
"Bring back the train!" one woman shouted to a conductor. "We need it!"
The shutdown means more uncertainty for casino workers. Dolores Mammoccio of Monroe, a 25-year veteran of the industry, lost her job in 2016 when the Taj Mahal closed. Its successor, the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, made her perform a song to showcase her personality before hiring her back as a porter, she said. Mammoccio did a few verses from Herman's Hermits "I'm Into Something Good" on the train to demonstrate how she won her job back.
Now, she'll have to travel to Avondale to catch the bus to Atlantic City and hope to get to work on time. During the suspension, NJ Transit will offer discounted rides on the Route 554 bus, a local, and the 551, an express route.
"It's going to be a huge inconvenience," she said. "A lot of people depend on this train."
Rail between Philadelphia and Atlantic City made the Shore town a vacation destination in the 19th century, but the line was considered underused in 2011, when service shrank from a train an hour to 12 trains per day out of Philadelphia.
"This is what you would do to a train line if you wanted to kill it on purpose," said Joseph Russell, a NJ Transit activist.
Ridership on the route dwindled along with the casino industry. Current ridership is almost half what it was just four years ago.
Nearly an hour and a half after leaving Philadelphia, the gamblers, workers, and sun worshipers disembarked and entered the 30-year-old Atlantic City Train Terminal. From rafters high in the station, banners promoting the rail service announce, "We've Got a Good Thing Going!"
http://www2.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/atlantic-city-train-suspension-railroad-safety-nj-transit-20180814.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Trump OKs Bill with Climate Risks, Calls Coal Indestructible

Aug 14, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

By Scott Waldman

The defense bill signed by President Trump yesterday shows that the military is planning to meet the threat of climate change.
The legislation helps the U.S. military plan for sea-level rise, thawing permafrost and an Arctic with less sea ice cover. It also identifies a path for new icebreaker ships to increase Arctic access and addresses the actions of other countries, such as China, that are intent on exploiting newly available oil and gas reserves. Future military bases will be planned with climate change in mind.
Yesterday, Trump traveled to Fort Drum outside Syracuse, N.Y., to sign the $716 billion National Defense Authorization Act for 2019. The bill passed the House and Senate earlier this summer and provides funding for the military to provide broader protection from the threat of climate change.
Trump has called global warming a hoax and promoted fossil fuels. After signing the bill yesterday, Trump said that "in a military way, coal is indestructible. You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up the windmills — boom, boom, boom."
The legislation shows that Congress is taking climate threats more seriously than the White House, said David Titley, former chief operating officer of NOAA and the founding director of Pennsylvania State University's Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk.
"There has been a very substantial, almost shift in roles between the Congress and the executive branch in the last two years on the issue of climate as a security issue," he said. "And I'm sure politics has something to do with it, but also I think there is an increasing realization by members on both sides of the aisle that climate and the failure to prepare for the changes in climate does impact our security; it impacts the ability for our bases and our training ranges to operate; it also impacts the ability of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to best perform their job when they go downrange."
The president appeared with two Republican members of Congress during his trip to New York. Both are members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), who has cast doubt on established climate science and who praised Trump's exit from the Paris climate agreement, joined the president at a fundraiser. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who has pushed for more conservatives to engage on climate policy, appeared with Trump at Fort Drum for the bill signing.
Last month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers raised concerns after the Department of Defense stripped references to climate change in a report on the vulnerability of military installations to rising sea levels and extreme weather. In July, 34 Democrats and 10 Republicans cited the omission in a letter to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
"While we appreciate the need to update reports when it is appropriate and necessary, we are disturbed that the revisions may have intentionally targeted mentions of climate change," they wrote. "The facts are clear: climate change poses a threat to the Department and the nation."
Mattis recognizes the dangers of climate change and said during his confirmation hearings that he would "address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources and readiness." Earlier this year, the Pentagon released a report that found about half of U.S. military sites around the world are threatened by extreme weather.
The defense bill focuses on preparing for a changing Arctic, where warming has increased access to a once-remote region and where thawing permafrost has the potential to weaken some structures. It provides $15.5 million for an F-35 munitions maintenance facility damaged by shifting permafrost at the Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. It also requires the military to examine all structures that may face similar risks, and it authorized construction of six icebreakers for the Coast Guard, with a goal of having them in use within the decade.
The bill requires military planners to prepare for climate change, in part by building projects 2 or 3 feet above the 100-year floodplain. It also allows the military to pay for upgrades to local roads near bases that could be damaged by extreme storms, rising sea levels or other perils.
Environmental groups applauded the bill.
It "provides a valuable and badly needed example of bicameral, bipartisan leadership on energy and climate resilience and by doing so, on how we can use federal taxpayer dollars wisely," Shana Udvardy of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in a blog analyzing the spending plan. "Hopefully, Congress will continue to move the needle on flood and climate readiness to ensure our communities and military are more resilient to extreme weather events and climate change."
The legislation shows that members of Congress, including a number of Republicans, are not willing to dismiss climate concerns, Titley said.
"What we're seeing is a quiet alignment," he said. "There is an increasing realization by members on both sides of the aisle that climate and the failure to prepare for it does impact our security."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/08/14/stories/1060094017

Return to headline | Return to top
Industry Shakers: Clean Power Plan Defender Talks ‘Narrow’ Replacement

Aug 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Fatima Hussein

Clean Power Plan defender Kevin Poloncarz discusses Trump’s replacement plan
Faegre Baker Daniels and McGuireWoods get new attorneys
Kevin Poloncarz played an important role defending the Clean Power Plan—the Obama Administration’s signature policy aimed at combating climate change—in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Poloncarz, who moved to Covington & Burling LLP as a partner in the firm’s energy and industry group in San Francisco this month, represented a group of nine utility companies that supported the measure.
“The general position of my clients was that the rule doesn’t require anything more than what the industry is already doing,” he said in a phone call with Bloomberg Environment.
The policy, first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2014, would have gone into effect this September. It would have imposed limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants.
Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court halted implementation of the rule in February 2016. President Donald Trump has announced he wants to scrap the plan, and the White House is taking steps to complete a replacement for the rule in early 2019.
Poloncarz told Bloomberg Environment that he believes Trump’s replacement plan “will be a very narrow rule.”
“There are strong indications of what it will include—based on the revocation—that it will not allow generation shifting from higher [emitting fossil fuel plants] to lower [emitting natural gas] plants,” he said. “Instead it will be based solely on measures that can be implemented on the fence line” of plants.
Poloncarz previously worked at Paul Hastings LLP.
In Other Moves:
Tom Joensen has joined Faegre Baker Daniels LLP as counsel in the firm’s Des Moines, Iowa, office.
Joensen works as a trial attorney in product liability and environmental disputes. He also has represented clients in commercial disputes, including bankruptcy matters and class actions.
Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as an adjunct professor of communications disorders at Iowa State University.
Joensen was previously a shareholder at Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave PC in Des Moines.
Yasser Madriz has joined McGuireWoods as a partner in Houston. Madriz has experience in cases dealing with trade secret theft, unfair competition claims, and energy litigation.
“Yasser’s ability to address complex matters from the perspective of a trial lawyer and transactional attorney will be a tremendous asset for corporate clients across industries, particularly in the energy sector,” said Jay Hughes, managing partner of the firm’s Houston office. “We are delighted to welcome him.”
Madriz comes from Haynes and Boone LLP, where he practiced for 16 years.
Amy L. Edwards, a partner in Holland & Knight LLP’s Washington, D.C., office, was recently sworn in as the 92nd chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy and Resources. She will serve a one-year term.
“Amy is widely recognized as one of the top environmental lawyers in the country, and she is the perfect choice to head SEER,” said David Whitestone, head of Holland & Knight’s government section, in a news release. “We are proud of Amy’s accomplishments and congratulate her on her important new role.”
Edwards has previously served in a number of leadership roles within the ABA’s Section of Environment, Energy and Resources, including as chair-elect, vice chair, and chair of the Environmental Transactions and Brownfields Committee.
She also is the co-chair of Holland & Knight’s National Environmental Team.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/industry-shakers-clean-power-plan-defender-talks-narrow-replacement

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested