Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 21/08/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Real Time Economics: Putin, Trump & Central Bankers | China Tariffs | Abenomics
Aug 21, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
Good Morning! In today’s issue, we look at how an independent central banker has benefited Russian president Vladimir Putin, Trump’s criticism of his own central bank appointment, tariffs on China and a challenger to Japan’s Prime Minister Abe. -
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Slowdown on Dangers of Formaldehyde
Aug 21, 2018 | Downtown News Magazine
By Kevin Elliott
There is a skirmish taking place in Washington over a draft report on the acceptable levels of formaldehyde that critics say illustrates how the Trump administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is bending long-established review procedures to benefit industry. -
Safe Drinking Water for All
Aug 21, 2018 | The New York Times (Opinion)
By Laurel Firestone and Susana De Anda
In 2007, the small town of Lanare in California’s Central Valley finally got what it had desperately needed for years — a treatment plant to remove high levels of arsenic in the drinking water. -
Mich. Health Chief will Face Flint Manslaughter Trial
Aug 21, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Ed White
A judge decided yesterday that Nick Lyon, Michigan's health director, will face an involuntary manslaughter trial over two deaths connected to Legionnaires' disease in Flint. -
Science Review Supports N.C.'s Goal to Limit GenX
Aug 21, 2018 | AP/US News and World Report (In E&E Greenwire)
By Emery Dalesio
A North Carolina science panel said yesterday that it agrees with the state health officials who set a health target for GenX in drinking water at an amount 500 times lower than the industrial chemical's manufacturer suggested. -
Commission Could 'Build On' Industry Substances in Articles Work
Aug 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Cross-sector initiative, the Proactive Alliance, says its work could be a "foundation" for the European Commission and Echa's plans to track substances of concern throughout the supply chain. -
Oil Prices Rise on Expectations of Tighter Iran Crude Exports
Aug 21, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Dan Molinski and Christopher Alessi
Oil prices moved higher Tuesday on expectations of tighter supplies as U.S. sanctions on Iran lower its crude exports—and as investors worry less about a US-China trade spat. -
U.S. Offers 11 Million Barrels of Oil As Iran Sanctions Kick In
Aug 21, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Stephen Cunningham
The U.S. plans to release 11 million barrels of oil from its 660-million-barrel emergency stockpile, just as American sanctions on Iranian oil exports kick in. -
LyondellBasell Closes A. Schulman Acquisition
Aug 21, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
LyondellBasell on Tuesday finalized its acquisition of Ohio plastics maker A. Schulman for $2.25 billion, doubling the size of of its plastics compounding business as part of a multiyear growth strategy to capitalize on low-cost natural gas liquids from West Texas shale fields. -
The EPA’s Proposed Chemical Disaster Rule is a Disaster in the Making
Aug 21, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Charise Johnson
It isn’t new news or another hot take: communities of color are disproportionately exposed to and impacted by toxic chemical releases. -
E.P.A. Unveils New Coal Pollution Rules. In the Fine Print: More Deaths.
Aug 21, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Trump administration on Tuesday made public the details of its new pollution rules governing coal-burning power plants, and the fine print includes an acknowledgment that the plan would increase carbon emissions and lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths annually. -
Trump Proposes Unwinding Obama's Coal-Plant Pollution Curbs
Aug 21, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Jason A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday unveiled its plan to dramatically weaken carbon dioxide limits on coal-fired power plants by shifting most of the regulatory burden to states in a further assault on the Obama climate legacy. -
This Is The Day That the Climate Change Fight Was Obviously Lost
Aug 21, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Philip Bump
A particular challenge of the fight over climate change, if not a unique one, is that the shifts accrue subtly. -
Trump Kicks Off Next Big Climate Battle
Aug 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen and Nick Sobczyk
The Trump administration took a decisive step today to eviscerate President Obama's signature climate change rule by releasing an industry-friendly proposal to control power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. -
EPA Tucks Major Permitting Change Into Climate Proposal
Aug 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Trump administration's proposed replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan would greenlight a landmark change to EPA's New Source Review permitting program while allowing more emissions of pollutants linked to premature deaths, according to the plan's supporting documents released today. -
Agency Promotes States' Rights — Sometimes
Aug 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Maxine Joselow
The Trump EPA is doing a delicate dance when it comes to states' rights and climate change rules. -
The Plastic Waste Crisis Is an Opportunity to Get Serious About Recycling
Aug 21, 2018 | The Conversation (In EcoWatch)
By Kate O'Neill
A global plastic waste crisis is building, with major implications for health and the environment.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Real Time Economics: Putin, Trump & Central Bankers | China Tariffs | Abenomics
Aug 21, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
Good Morning! In today’s issue, we look at how an independent central banker has benefited Russian president Vladimir Putin, Trump’s criticism of his own central bank appointment, tariffs on China and a challenger to Japan’s Prime Minister Abe.
PRESIDENTS AND CENTRAL BANKS, RUSSIA EDITION
Why isn’t Russia experiencing an economic crisis? Like Turkey it is run by an autocrat who meddles extensively in the economy. Like Venezuela, it is highly dependent on oil revenues. And like both it has been battered by U.S. sanctions and tariffs. The most important reason may be central bank governor Elvira Nabiullina. As Anatoly Kurmanaev writes, President Vladimir Putin has given her remarkable autonomy to combat inflation and close weak banks. As a result, inflation is at a post-Soviet low of 2.2%. In Turkey, where the central bank has been pressured to limit interest rate rises, it’s 15% and in Venezuela, where the budget is financed with money printing, it may hit 1,000,000%. High inflation has helped topple many regimes, including the Soviet Union; perhaps that lesson is not lost on Mr. Putin.
PRESIDENTS AND CENTRAL BANKS, U.S. EDITION
After making Jerome Powell chairman of the Federal Reserve, U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have buyer’s remorse. At a fund raiser Friday, he claimed he was told Mr. Powell would support cheap money. But Mr. Powell has gone ahead and raised interest rates: “That can only happen to Trump,” he complained, according to a person familiar with the matter, Peter Nicholas and Nick Timiraos report. Mr. Trump is worried that higher rates will hurt his reelection chances in 2020, another person close to the White House said. While Mr. Trump may not show Mr. Putin’s restraint when it comes to criticizing the central bank, he hasn’t yet pressured it to change course as Turkey has. Short of firing Mr Powell – which might precipitate a financial backlash – there’s not much Mr. Trump can do other than fill remaining vacancies on the Fed’s board with more pliable governors. His criticism, rather, is a way of shifting the blame to the Fed if the economy and markets stumble, a person close to the White House said.
Comments or suggestions for Real Time Economics? Write to Greg Ip at realtimeeconomics@wsj.com, tweet to @WSJecon and visit wsj.com/economy for the latest.
WHAT TO WATCH TODAY
There are no major economic releases or speeches today.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION GETS EARFUL ON TARIFFS
Monday, the first of six days of hearings on the U.S.’ proposed tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports, was dominated by companies pleading for exemptions, Bob Davis and Andrew Duehren report. Whether this will change the outcome is doubtful: The American Chemistry Council got most targeted chemicals exempted from the first round of tariffs, but very few from the second round, which “means they aren’t really listening to people,” said a representative. It helps, though, to have a cabinet member plead your case. Budget director Mick Mulvaney is helping Element Electronics, which assembles televisions in his home state of South Carolina, pursue an exemption for a vital component, according to McClatchyDC.
ABENOMICS FACES A RECKONING
Japan’s economy is growing, unemployment is the lowest in decades, and wages are finally rising. But as in Germany and the U.S., that’s not necessarily benefiting the people in charge: in a poll released this week , only 23% thought Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s program, dubbed Abenomics, is going well and 57% thought it wasn’t, Megumi Fujikawa reports. Sensing an opening, former defense minister Shigeru Ishiba is challenging Mr. Abe for leadership of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. The party elects its leader (who will automatically become prime minister) on Sept. 20. Though Mr. Ishiba is polling better among voters, Mr. Abe appears to have locked up the necessary support from members of parliament.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Exporters made money on the cheap yen and monetary easing, and they’re all having fun playing golf at Mr. Abe’s vacation home.”
Japan’s former defense minister, Shigeru Ishiba, is bidding for the job of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe whose policies he says have have failed ordinary Japanese.
TWEET OF THE DAY
Felix Salmon✔@felixsalmon
don’t worry, folks, we’re still 23bp away from a bunch of boring Twitter fights about whether inverted yield curves predict recessionsLisa Abramowicz✔@lisaabramowicz1
A new post-crisis tight for the 2-10 yield curve.5:59 PM - Aug 20, 20184415 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacy
WHAT ELSE WE’RE READING
South Korea’s growth model is under threat as its once-dominant manufacturers lose market share to China, according to the Financial Times. In shipbuilding, its market share has declined in the past decade from 35% to 24% while China’s has almost doubled. “Ulsan, home to Hyundai’s heavy and automobile industries, was once South Korea’s fastest-growing and wealthiest city. Today, it represents the nation’s rust belt, the human toll of economic decline evident in the increasing spate of suicide attempts (nearly 200 so far this year). Young people are also fleeing: having quadrupled since the 1970s, the population of Ulsan began to decline in 2016.”
As president, Barack Obama lavished attention and stimulus money on Elkhart, Ind., the nation’s RV manufacturing capital. The town’s subsequent recovery is now threatened by Donald Trump’s tariffs. Yet, The Daily Beast reports, this has had no effect on political allegiances: “In 2016, Trump trounced Hillary Clinton with 64 percent of the city’s vote. And even today, as the impact of tariffs looms over the city, voters seem perfectly content with their political choices.”
The Fed should take out some insurance against future banking problems by raising capital requirements now, writes Jason Furman on the Journal’s op ed page. The Fed has the authority to adjust banks’ “counter-cyclical capital buffer” to moderate booms and busts in bank lending and risk. Raising it now “would set a precedent, moving the Fed’s decision making on capital standards toward a more predictable approach, like the one for setting interest rates. [It] would give the Fed the ability to lower them during a recession, which could … be an especially important new tool because … when the next recession hits, the Fed probably won’t be able to cut interest rates by its recent average of about 600 basis points.”
UP NEXT
On Wednesday the Fed releases minutes to its August 1 policy meeting.
https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/08/21/real-time-economics-putin-trump-central-bankers-china-tariffs-abenomics/
-
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Slowdown on Dangers of Formaldehyde
Aug 21, 2018 | Downtown News Magazine
By Kevin Elliott
There is a skirmish taking place in Washington over a draft report on the acceptable levels of formaldehyde that critics say illustrates how the Trump administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is bending long-established review procedures to benefit industry.
Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong smelling chemical. While best known for its use in embalming fluid and most widely used in industrial resins, it's commonly used as a precursor to other chemical compounds.
Formaldehyde is used in pressed-wood products, such as particleboard, plywood and fiberboard; glues and adhesives; permanent press fabrics; paper product coatings; and certain insulation materials. Additionally, it's commonly used as an industrial fungicide, germicide and disinfectant.
The chemical's unique and versatile properties also give it broad roles in the economy, supporting about 963,000 jobs and $433 billion in sales in the United States, according to the American Chemistry Council. Formaldehyde's use in housing applications and the automotive industry make it particularly valuable to Michigan's economy. Dow Chemical, a producer of formaldehyde, is located in Midland, Michigan.
A 1997 report by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission found formaldehyde is normally present in both indoor and outdoor air at low levels, usually less than .03 parts per million of air. However, materials containing formaldehyde can release formaldehyde gas or vapor into the air. Formaldehyde is also a byproduct in combustion, including automobiles.
Industrial workers who produce formaldehyde or formaldehyde-containing products, laboratory technicians, certain health professions and mortuary employees may be exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde than the general public. Exposure occurs primarily by inhaling formaldehyde gas or vapor from the air or by absorbing liquids through the skin.
The American Chemistry Council, the industry's largest lobbying and trade organization, is taking issue with the most recent assessment of the dangers of formaldehyde, claiming “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2010 draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment proposed risk value would set an acceptable air concentration that is thousands of times below levels that naturally occur in the environment."
The assessment, which was conducted by the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and released in 2010, concluded formaldehyde causes respiratory cancers, leukemia and other health problems, including asthma.
"The truth is, formaldehyde is a natural part of our world and the illogical findings of IRIS are not," the 2018 publication goes on to state. "Formaldehyde is found in every living system – from plants to animals to humans – produced as part of our normal metabolic process. If a person inhales formaldehyde, the body breaks it down rapidly, just like when it is naturally produced in our bodies."
Health assessment conducted by the EPA's IRIS program are used to determine "acceptable levels" of exposure to specific chemicals. The assessments are simply findings, and don't serve as regulations themselves however, the assessments influence the EPA and other regulators to determine regulations.
But, according to some health and environmental groups, the response from the American Chemistry Council is more hot air in an effort to suppress the EPA's findings that could lead to tighter regulations on formaldehyde and open the industry up to expensive lawsuits.
Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA's draft assessment, which was released in 2010 and has since been re-assessed a second time, has already been reviewed a second time by the independent National Academy of Sciences but is being held up by the EPA due to industry pressure.
"Nancy Beck is holding it up," she said, referring to the EPA's deputy assistant administrator in the agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. "She's a political appointee that didn't go through a confirmation hearing, and she was a former lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council. She went right from there as a lobbyist to heading up the toxics process at the EPA. She had been working on these issues and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act), and her office is overseeing the process."
A request from Downtown Publications to the EPA for comment or interview with Beck was not granted.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency's Office of Research and Development is currently "Developing a new approach of soliciting program input on current and future IRIS assessments to ensure IRIS assessments are focused on the highest priority needs." The EPA said the formaldehyde assessment will be included in that activity.
Kimberly White, an environmental toxicologist and senior director at the American Chemistry Council said, "Separately, it's produced for industrial uses. It's a basic building block in a lot of chemistry in automobile products, it's used as a resin and you hear about it a lot in composite materials. That's a high level picture."
A 2017 one-page publication by the council notes humans produce about 1.5 ounces of formaldehyde each day and that it's a "natural by-product" from all combustion processes. The cartoonish infographic depicts everyday people exposed to formaldehyde. For instance, there is 3.95 mg/kg in coffee; 6 mg/kg in an apple; .0001 ppm in human breath; 11 mg/kg in fish; 10 ppm in car exhaust and other sources.
"Low levels of formaldehyde occur naturally in a variety of fruits and vegetables, including apples, carrots and bananas," the sheet states. "It does not accumulate in the environment or within plants and animals.”
"If you look at the EPA's 2010 draft, their value was set at .001part-per billion (ppb). If your body produces 1 (ppb), you're already three orders above that magnitude just by exhaling. That's not really reasonable," she said. "As a state regulator, say in Michigan, how do they adjust to levels that you find in the background every day.
"That's one of the things, that we want the agency to do, is do a reality check. If you're setting values that aren't realistic or make sense, then you need to re-evaluate the process for setting those values."
With the ubiquitous presence of formaldehyde everywhere we turn, one might be led to believe that formaldehyde poses no threat to human health at all. But just because a chemical can be naturally occurring or metabolized by the body in low amounts doesn't mean it can't be a threat. For instance, apple seeds contain a cyanide and sugar compound that degrades into hydrogen cyanide when metabolized. In World War II, hydrogen cyanide was used in gas chambers and called Zyklon B.
"Nobody is arguing whether it's a carcinogen. They are arguing on what kind of cancer," Sass said. "They are saying it wouldn't cause blood cancer because it doesn't get into blood. ... The industry argument is theoretical, but that fact is, you have half a dozen studies showing formaldehyde is linked to leukemia."
In reference to formaldehyde, White said the American Chemistry Council doesn't suggest that high levels of the chemical aren't harmful.
"Formaldehyde is considered a nasal carcinogen at very high doses," she said. "Those would be levels that you wouldn't find in the environment or in environmental exposures. At very high levels of exposure, scientific data supports that it is a nasal carcinogen."
An initial draft of the IRIS assessment on formaldehyde was released in 2010. The following year, the non-governmental, non-profit National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed the initial assessment and severely criticized the 1,000-plus page draft assessment. Among the NAS's criticisms was that the assessment failed to support its conclusions.
"Overall, the committee found that the EPA's draft assessment wasn't prepared in a logically consistent fashion, lacks clear links to underlying conceptual framework and doesn't sufficiently document methods and criteria used to identify evidence for selecting and evaluating studies."
While the NAS review said the initial assessment didn't support the findings linking formaldehyde to leukemia and some other health problems, it did support the findings that link it to nasal cancers. Still, the IRIS program withdrew its initial assessment. A second draft assessment has been completed, but has not yet been made available to the public, making the current assessment within the EPA nearly 40 years old.
Sass said part of the problem with the initial review was that it failed to focus on science used to reach its conclusions, instead adding hundreds of pages to address industry criticisms.
"The NAS didn't challenge their conclusion, but they did hit the IRIS staff hard on their science communication," she said. "They basically said the staff failed to justify the science used in the assessment... they basically said 'you need a prewritten rational or framework, and it can't be a rebutting and selecting process.'"
The EPA's IRIS program is located in the agency's National Center for Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development. The placement of the program ensures IRIS can develop impartial toxicity information independent of its use by the EPA's program and regional offices to set national standards and clean up hazardous sites.
The criticism of the IRIS program applied not only to the formaldehyde assessment, but with what was viewed as longstanding problems in the program.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency has been responding to comments about the IRIS from the NAS and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) over the past year and a half. Changes include increased transparency and implementing review changes to create a clearer evaluation of underlying science. The EPA said those changes were deemed "substantial progress" by the NAS, and that the GAO noted significant improvements in their high-risk criteria ratings.
Sass, with the NRDC, said the issues have since been addressed, with the program being praised by the NAS in a 2014 assessment.
"That was a favorable review and the NAS said they were on the right track," Sass said.
While a second IRIS assessment of formaldehyde has apparently been completed, it has yet to be released for public review. Although the assessment hasn't been made public, the delay in its release suggests to some that the reassessment supports the findings of others in the scientific community that high exposure to formaldehyde may be linked to additional cancers.
"The reason industry cares about cancer classifications is because of liability of any litigation," Sass said. "If your workers have cancer associated with a specific site, it could lead to legal liability."
In August, U.S. Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) asked Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler about the release of IRIS assessment on formaldehyde and wasn't given a clear answer.
"(Former) Administrator Pruitt committed to release the EPA's scientific report on the carcinogen formaldehyde but never did so. Will you commit to releasing this report?" Markey asked.
"I've not been briefed specifically on the IRIS formaldehyde report, but I have sat down with our IRIS staff, and what I'm trying to do is provide more certainty to that process to make sure we know how the different assessments will be used in the regulatory programs, and it's my understanding that we still have a number of steps to complete on the formaldehyde assessment," Wheeler answered.
When pressed on when the assessment will be released, Wheeler didn't answer.
"The question I have put to our IRIS staff is 'what is the purpose of the assessment at this point, and whether or not that data they have used in the assessment is still current.' I know they started that before 2010," Wheeler said. "We will release it, but I need to make sure the science in the report is still accurate.
"What I've asked is for, not just that report, but everything we are doing on the IRIS program is to make sure we know the purpose of the assessment because we have a lot of chemicals that we should and could be assessing under the IRIS program, and I want to make sure that they are being used in our regulatory process because we have other chemicals that need to be assessed, as well. That is one of the questions that I've asked our program staff."
"Pruitt committed to releasing it, and I hope that you put it at the top of your list," Markey responded. "I expect you to, and to get it released so that the public can understand what those dangers are."
Markey followed up the exchange with a tweet on August 1: "EPA Admin Andrew Wheeler gave me an unacceptable answer today when I asked him if he would release the long-overdue study on the impacts of toxic #formaldehyde. The EPA should not continue to silence science that would protect public health and immediately release this report."
In May, Markey and senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) sent a letter to the EPA asking for the formaldehyde assessment to be released. The letter followed a statement by former administrator Pruitt in January in which he indicated the report was ready to be released.
"Unfortunately, it appears that the agency may be succumbing to the pressure from industry in its attempt to delay or block the publication of the formaldehyde health assessment," the senators said in the letter. "This is exceptionally disturbing, and lends further credence to the belief, already widely held, that the EPA has been captured by industry. We urge you to ensure there are not further efforts to delay or block the publication of this assessment that has serious implications for public health."
Nicholas Schroeck, director of clinical programs and associate law professor at University of Detroit Law School, and former director of the Transnational Law Clinic at Wayne State University Law School, said because formaldehyde is used for various industrial applications and is found in our air, water, foods, land and various consumer products, the EPA regulates it through the National Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
"If the EPA found that exposure at certain levels causes leukemia or nose and throat cancers, that's big," Schroeck said. "That would mean every state would potentially have to go back and look at all of their permitting, all the way down to manufacturing, and potentially homes and businesses that are off-gassing."
Schroeck said there's also likely to be litigation stemming from the assessment if it opens new classifications of cancer linked to formaldehyde, a move that has already been made by other agencies.
Research spanning decades has linked formaldehyde to nose and throat cancer, as well as respiratory problems. However, newer research suggests that it may be linked to leukemia.
A study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is an arm of the National Institutes of Health, suggested professionals who are exposed to formaldehyde in their work, such as anatomists and embalmers, may have an increased risk of leukemia and brain cancer compared to the general population.
One study looked at funeral industry workers who died between 1960 and 1986, with researching comparing those who died from hematopoietic and lymphatic cancers and brain tumors with those who died from other causes. (Hematopoietic or hematologic cancers such as leukemia develop in the blood or bone marrow. Lymphatic cancers develop in tissues and organs that produce, store and carry white blood cells that fight infections and other diseases, according to the NCI.)
The NCI analysis showed that those who performed the most embalming and those with the highest estimated formaldehyde exposure had the greatest risk of myeloid leukemia. There were no association with other cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems or with brain cancer.
Information provided by the NCI included another study that looked at 25,619 workers in industries with the potential for occupational formaldehyde exposure and estimated each worker's exposure to the chemical while at work. The results showed an increased risk of death due to leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, among workers exposed to formaldehyde.
The risk was associated with increasing peak and average levels of exposure, as well as with the duration of exposure, but it was not associated with cumulative exposure, according to the NCI.
An additional 10-years of data on the same workers were used in a follow-up study published in 2009. That analysis continued to show a possible link between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems, particularly myeloid leukemia.
As in the initial study, the NCI said the risk was highest earlier in the follow-up period. Risks declined steadily over time, such the cumulative excess risk of myeloid leukemia was no longer statistically significant at the end of the follow-up period. The researchers noted that similar patterns of risk over time had been seen for other agents known to cause leukemia.
A study of 11,039 textile workers conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found an association between the duration of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths. However, the evidence remains mixed, as a similar study of 14,014 British industry workers found no association between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia deaths, the NCI said.
According to the National Institutes of Health, formaldehyde undergoes rapid chemical changes immediately after absorption. Therefore, some scientist think that form is unlikely to have effects at sites other than the respiratory tract. However, some laboratory studies suggest that formaldehyde may affect the lymphatic and hematopoietic systems.
"Based on both the epidemiological data from cohort and case-control studies, and the experimental data from laboratory research, NCI investigators have concluded that exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans," the NCI said.
In 2011, the National Toxicology Program Report on Carcinogens changed the listing status of formaldehyde from "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" to "known to be a human carcinogen."
The current EPA IRIS assessment of formaldehyde was completed in 1990. That assessment identified formaldehyde as "a probable human carcinogen," based on incidences of nasal squamous cell carcinomas. As the EPA continues to contemplate its own assessment of formaldehyde risks, several protective measures are already in place.
In 1987, OSHA established a federal standard that reduced the amount of formaldehyde workers can be exposed to over an eight-hour workday, from 3 ppm to 1 ppm. That standard was reduced to .75 ppm in 1992.
Some private companies have also taken measures to reduce formaldehyde products for sale. For instance, in 2017, CVS Health announced it would phase the removal of the most prevalent formaldehyde-containing products from its CVS Health, Beauty 360, Essence of Beauty and Blade product lines. The phase out, which includes more than 600 products and will be complete by the end of 2019, also includes products containing parabens and phthalates.
Most recently, federal legislation was passed in 2010 and went into effect this year that regulates use of formaldehyde in hardwood plywood, particle board, fiberboard and other wood products. The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act limits amount of formaldehyde emissions in those products.
Restrictions from the finalized rule of the act went into effect earlier this year, following a lawsuit against the EPA that claimed it had illegally delayed the rule. Under the finalized rule in 2016, wood products had to comply with the limits by December of 2017. However, the EPA had set out to extend the compliance deadline until December of 2018.
New Orleans-based A Community Voice, The Sierra Club and Earth Justice filed suit against the EPA, challenging the delay in US District Court in Oakland, California. In February, the federal court ruled the delay was beyond the scope of the EPA's authority and not in accordance with the act.
"They are in effect, as of June 1," said Patti Goldman, managing attorney for Earth Justice. "They were adopted, and the Trump administration was delaying the compliance deadline. That's the pattern they use: delay, then try to change it and keep them from going into effect."
The new limits change how much formaldehyde can off-gas from wood products. Goldman said the act stems from off-gassing products used in trailers constructed for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) following Hurricane Katrina.
"People were housed in trailers and were sickened from formaldehyde," she said. "They were built so quickly, some described them as 'oozing' formaldehyde."
Following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, FEMA provided thousands of manufactured homes for displaced residents, both for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Soon after victims took residence, complaints of headaches, nosebleeds and difficulty breathing were made in relation to formaldehyde resins used in the homes.
According to FEMA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2008 tested FEMA supplied trailers and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi. The CDC found potentially hazardous levels of formaldehyde, with an average of .077 ppm, which the CDC said could be linked to increased risk of cancer for longterm exposure. The minimal risk level is .008, as prescribed by the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, a division of the CDC. Levels in FEMA trailers tested ranged from .003ppm to .59 ppm.
The lack of a federal legal limit of formaldehyde in wood products then led federal lawmakers to create the new act.
"There were some really weak limits before Katrina," she said. "There's a lot of controversy over formaldehyde. But it's an air irritant and causes a lot of cancers, and as a contributor to asthma, it has been documented more recently."
The new standard as it relates to wood products, she said, is among the strongest in the world.
Goldman said the new limits are based on those already in place in California. She said the tactic to delay compliance deadlines isn't new to the Trump administration.
The first time it happened was when Reagan came in," she said. "His chief of staff did a memo that said to the Federal Registry that if a law wasn't in effect, then freeze it and you have to review it. That's happened with every administration change, particularly when you have a different political party coming in.
"What was different this time was that it went a lot further. Bush had done some without a comment period and it was invalidated. Trump almost uniformly was extending deadlines and kept extending. Then they got caught on that. It was almost a cottage industry to keep the rules from going into effect."
White, with the American Chemistry Council, said the council is supportive of the new rules regarding wood products.
"They basically mirror what has been in place in California for a number of years," she said. "The ACC is a proponent of getting those standards nationalized, and realistically, here in the United States, those standards have ben the de-facto standards."
White said the lack of quality assurances when FEMA trailers were constructed led to the changes, as formaldehyde is a nasal carcinogen at high doses. She said it's with new classifications of cancer that the ACC doesn't believe science supports changes.
She said there are new "systematic review" changes to how the EPA conducts assessments for chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which don't immediately apply to the formaldehyde assessment, and are a positive step forward for the EPA.
Those proposed changes in August were still out for public comment under the Federal Registry. However, the comment period was scheduled to be closed prior to publication of this article. White said the ACC was planning to submit comments before the deadline.
Meanwhile, Sass, with the NRDC, said the new review rules for TSCA chemicals are another effort to limit scientific evidence that can be considered in chemical reviews at the EPA. Specifically, she said the changes call for giving extra weight to good laboratory practices," or GLP standards, which she labels a code for industry-sponsored studies. At the same time, she said the proposed changes would solidify efforts to discount certain epidemioglocial studies, playing on an unformalized "Scientific Transparency Rule" that sought to limit certain studies from being included in reviews.
Reviews conducted under TSCA are chemical reviews used specifically by the EPA to regulate a variety of chemicals, including pesticides, PFAS and other toxic compounds.
"Beck has come up with her own systematic review, and it hasn't gone through any peer review. It's at odds with the updated IRIS systematic review process, but it has been praised," Sass said. "Every chemical under TSCA will go through the new process, if she gets her way. We will fight it.
"This is a systematic review that nobody has written about. It's really under the wire."
https://www.downtownpublications.com/single-post/2018/08/21/The-EPA-slowdown-on-dangers-of-formaldehyde
-
Aug 21, 2018 | The New York Times (Opinion)
By Laurel Firestone and Susana De Anda
In 2007, the small town of Lanare in California’s Central Valley finally got what it had desperately needed for years — a treatment plant to remove high levels of arsenic in the drinking water. But thevictory was short-lived. Just months after the $1.3 million federally funded plant began running, the town was forced to shut it down because it ran out of money to operate and maintain it.
More than a decade later, the plant remains closed and Lanare’s tap water is still contaminated — as is the drinking water piped to about a millionother Californians around the state. The common barrier to solving the problem is that communities lack access to government financing to run their water treatment systems.
Now, for the first time, a solution is within reach in California. State lawmakers are expected to vote this month to establish reliable funding sources to help ensure, for the first time, that all state residents have access to safe and affordable drinking water. It could be a model for other states.
Ensuring safe drinking water has become “a growing challenge in the face of aging infrastructure, impaired source water and strained community finances,” a study published in February in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found.
ADVERTISEMENT
In 2015, the same year that the water crisis in Flint, Mich., made headlines, more than 21 million people nationwide relied on drinking water systems that violated basic legal health standards, according to the study. Throughout the country, low-income communities disproportionately bear the brunt of this crisis. In California, drinking water contamination is most likely to afflict small, low-income communities of color, particularly Latino farmworker communities that have not benefited from the tremendous economic growth in the San Francisco Bay Area and other urban centers. However, nearly every county in the state has a system without safe drinking water.
In 2012, after a hard-fought grass-roots campaign, California became the first and only state to pass a right-to-water act. That bill enshrined “safe, clean, affordable and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking and sanitary purposes” as a basic human right. Yet more than five years later, legislators have yet to take the bold actions necessary to make that guarantee a reality.
Hundreds of communities in California still lack access to safe drinking water in their homes, schools, parks and businesses. Some families spend up to 10 percent of their income on clean water, having to pay for bottled water on top of their monthly water bills. At the same time, leaders of local water boards have been frustrated in their efforts to improve conditions because their financially stretched water systems are ineligible for grants and loans for treatment upgrades.
This is not just a problem in California. As the recent study in the National Academy of Sciences journal found, “regulatory compliance” with drinking water regulations “can be a challenge for rural systems due to limited financial resources and technical expertise.” The study also noted that small systems “face restricted access to loans and outside financing.”
Now a solution may be at hand in California. After more than a decade of intense community activism, negotiations and studies, a plan to help communities tackle drinking water problems has won the support not only of environmental justice and public health advocates but also of leaders from business, agriculture, labor and many local governments and water suppliers, though not all.EDITORS’ PICKSThe Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin’s Tree of LifeA Rockefeller Heir, G.O.P. Lawmakers: How a Suspected Russian Agent Tried to Make ContactsAnnoyed by Restaurant Playlists, a Master Musician Made His Own
ADVERTISEMENT
The bipartisan proposal would establish a Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund financed by fees assessed on dairy producers and fertilizer manufacturers, and by voluntary, 95-cent-per-month contributions by water customers through their water bills.
The agricultural fee revenues would be targeted to address nitrate contamination from fertilizers, a common problem in farming areas. Money raised by the voluntary contributions, which would be collected from water customers unless they opt out, would be directed to disadvantaged communities suffering from water contamination caused by a range of pollutants, such as arsenic and uranium. Together, these sources are expected to raise $100 million or more a year.
A recent survey found that nearly 70 percent of Californians would be willing to pay an additional dollar a month on their water bills to ensure safe drinking water for everyone. Now it is up to the California Legislature to pass this legislation and send it to the governor before the session ends on Aug. 31. This would help realize the promise lawmakers made in 2012 when they made safe drinking water a basic human right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/opinion/environment/safe-drinking-water-for-all.html
-
Mich. Health Chief will Face Flint Manslaughter Trial
Aug 21, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Ed White
A judge decided yesterday that Nick Lyon, Michigan's health director, will face an involuntary manslaughter trial over two deaths connected to Legionnaires' disease in Flint.
District Judge David Goggins said the deaths could probably have been avoided if Lyon had sent out a timely alert about the Legionnaires' outbreak, which some experts blame on Flint's tainted water scandal.
Lyon is the highest-ranking official to face criminal charges from the scandal.
Flint's water was not properly treated when the city switched its source to the Flint River in 2014.
Genesee County saw at least 90 cases of Legionnaires' disease, and 12 people died. More than half the people affected spent time at McLaren Flint hospital, which was connected to Flint's water system.
Lyon admitted that he knew about the cases months before the state announced the outbreak.
Goggins found probable cause for a trial, a legal standard lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/21/stories/1060094839
-
Science Review Supports N.C.'s Goal to Limit GenX
Aug 21, 2018 | AP/US News and World Report (In E&E Greenwire)
By Emery Dalesio
A North Carolina science panel said yesterday that it agrees with the state health officials who set a health target for GenX in drinking water at an amount 500 times lower than the industrial chemical's manufacturer suggested.
The panel announced its findings after 10 months of review.
The effects of GenX are not well known, but the panel said there is enough data to estimate how much people can be exposed to throughout their lives before their risk of health problems like cancer increases.
"It's a long journey with GenX. It was not necessarily all easy, and we've reached an end point of some sort," said Jamie Bartram, a University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, water researcher who chairs the panel.
North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services last year set its health target at 140 parts per trillion. The target is not legally enforceable.
The state has been trying to force Chemours Co. to cease emissions of GenX into the air and water from its plant near Fayetteville. Chemours representatives had no comment on the panel's report.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/21/stories/1060094851
-
Commission Could 'Build On' Industry Substances in Articles Work
Aug 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Cross-sector initiative, the Proactive Alliance, says its work could be a "foundation" for the European Commission and Echa's plans to track substances of concern throughout the supply chain.
The group of industry representatives is working to develop global standards for material data, which are interoperable with the IT systems used by different sectors.
In June, the EU’s Council of Ministers called on the Commission and Echa to develop harmonised tools to ensure that substances of concern in materials can be traced through the supply chain by 2030, including end-of-life operations.
One of the co-initiators of the Proactive Alliance, Hyundai environmental manager Timo Unger, told Chemical Watch that its discussions were "going in a similar direction" as those announced by the Council of Ministers and "may therefore serve as a foundation for the Commission's related activities".
Martin Führ, a professor at Darmstadt University, who is coordinating the alliance with his research group Sofia, said its goals aligned with the Commission’s plans because they are both looking at ways to to track substances throughout the supply chain. However, he said, it is looking at developing standards rather than tools.
At the alliance’s next meeting in September, they plan to define common criteria for possible standards and decide how many standards are needed.
The criteria could potentially include a combination of basic and more advanced requirements for ambitious companies, said Professor Führ. The alliance hopes to formally submit the standards in the first quarter of 2019.
"If the Proactive Alliance is successful in its efforts, I think the Commission would be well-advised to build upon this. It would be my hope that they are not reinventing the wheel," he said. Chemicals and waste
The alliance’s work would also assist with Echa’s forthcoming database on SVHCs in articles, which must be created by January 2020, Professor Führ said.
The requirement is part of an amendment to Article 9 of the waste framework Directive, which entered into force in July this year.
"We’re speaking to the people from Echa because they have the task of building this waste database. It’s a huge task and they only have 18 months," he said.
Companies will have until the end of 2020 to submit information on SVHCs if they produce, import or sell articles that contain REACH candidate list substances.
Professor Führ said the database would only work with effective supply chain communication, which the alliance can help with.
An EU spokesperson said the Commission was aware of the Proactive Alliance and would "make every effort to ensure an efficient cooperation and coordination between all lines of work initiated by the Commission and Echa under the REACH and the waste legislation".
They said this would be "in support of achieving effective supply chain communication about substances of concern all the way down to waste operators".
https://chemicalwatch.com/69810/commission-could-build-on-industry-substances-in-articles-work
-
Oil Prices Rise on Expectations of Tighter Iran Crude Exports
Aug 21, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Dan Molinski and Christopher Alessi
Oil prices moved higher Tuesday on expectations of tighter supplies as U.S. sanctions on Iran lower its crude exports—and as investors worry less about a US-China trade spat.
Light, sweet crude for September delivery rose 1.2% to $66.18 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent crude, the global benchmark, rose 0.8% to $72.73 a barrel. WTI has risen each of the past three sessions and is about $2-a-barrel higher after falling to a seven-week low near $64 last Wednesday.
“Risk continues to show signs of reinvigorated health,” said analysts at Baird Equity Research. “Traders now look for fundamental reinforcement of WTI’s regained momentum with this week’s inventory data.”
The government’s weekly crude oil inventory data from the Energy Information Administration is due to be released Wednesday morning. Most forecasters anticipate a rather hefty decline in stockpiles following last week’s report that showed a surprising, bearish increase of 6.8 million barrels.
The American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, is due to release its own, parallel report on last week’s oil inventories later Tuesday afternoon.
Much of oil’s support is coming from the outlook on Iran’s oil exports. President Donald Trump in May pulled the U.S. out of a 2015 international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, setting the stage for reimposing economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Some sanctions took effect this month, while measures specifically targeting the Islamic Republic’s oil industry are set to be implemented by November.President Hassan Rouhani of Iran welcomes Patrick Pouyanne, the chairman and CEO of Total, in 2017. PHOTO: /ASSOCIATED PRESS
“Prices are being supported by the prospect of lower oil supply from Iran,” analysts atCommerzbank wrote in a note Tuesday. The analysts noted that “one key actor has pulled out of its business with Iran—the French oil giant Total SA —in a bid to preserve its U.S. business [and] other European companies are likely to follow suit in the coming weeks.”
Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh confirmed Monday that Total has left a natural gas project in Iran’s South Pars field.
At the same time, a meeting this week between U.S. and Chinese officials has investors hopeful that a U.S.-China trade dispute over tariffs won’t lead to a protracted trade war that could hurt the global economy and reduce global demand for oil and other commodities.
Still, President Trump said in an interview Monday with Reuters that he doesn’t “anticipate much” from the midlevel talks with China this week in Washington, adding that the U.S., like China, has a “long horizon” on such issues.
Among refined products, gasoline futures for September delivery were mostly unchanged at $2.0145 a gallon. Diesel futures climbed 0.7%, to $2.1282 a gallon.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-prices-steady-as-demand-risks-balance-iran-supply-constraints-1534847799?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
U.S. Offers 11 Million Barrels of Oil As Iran Sanctions Kick In
Aug 21, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Stephen Cunningham
The U.S. plans to release 11 million barrels of oil from its 660-million-barrel emergency stockpile, just as American sanctions on Iranian oil exports kick in.
The sour, high-sulfur crude will hit the market in October and November, according to a notice of sale from the Energy Department.
That timing may reflect the White House’s concern over a tight oil market amid the renewal of U.S. sanctions on Iran, according to analysts at ClearView Energy Partners LLC. The Trump administration has asked allies to halt all imports of Iranian oil by Nov. 4, stoking global supply fears. Analysts have also speculated about whether President Donald Trump will announce an emergency release from the crude stockpile to lower U.S. pump prices in the run-up to November’s mid-term elections.
RELATED: Iran oil minister: French oil giant Total pulls out of Iran
Yet an 11-million-barrel sale over two months likely won’t do much to offset the impact of sanctions, which the administration estimates will remove 700,000 to 1 million barrels a day of Iranian crude from the global market by early November.
The October sale is part of a regular draw-down schedule to raise money for government programs. The Energy Department will draw crude from three sites that are part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Bryan Mound and Big Hill in Texas, and West Hackberry in Louisiana.
Any further action by the president, who can release up to 30 million barrels in an emergency, is unlikely before the Nov. 4 deadline, ClearView said.
MILESTONE: Oil exports exceed imports for first time on Texas Gulf Coast
Trump has proposed the sale of half of the stockpile -- which currently totals 660 million barrels -- to cut the budget deficit. Congress has so far authorized the sale of around 240 million barrels between 2017 and 2027.
Bids must be submitted no later than 2 p.m. Central Time on Aug. 28, with contracts awarded within 7 business days. Deliveries will take place in October and November, according to the notice.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/U-S-Offers-11-Million-Barrels-of-Oil-as-Iran-13170791.php
-
LyondellBasell Closes A. Schulman Acquisition
Aug 21, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
LyondellBasell on Tuesday finalized its acquisition of Ohio plastics maker A. Schulman for $2.25 billion, doubling the size of of its plastics compounding business as part of a multiyear growth strategy to capitalize on low-cost natural gas liquids from West Texas shale fields.
The acquisition, announced earlier this year, will enable the Houston petrochemicals company to produce a wider range of plastic compounds for use in consumer and industrial products, including automobiles, packaging, electronics and construction materials. Compounding blends melted plastics with additives to achieve certain properties.
"This was a way to move up the value chain," said Matthew Blair, a chemicals analyst with Houston investment bank Tudor, Pickering & Holt Co.
LyondellBasell's existing compounding segment uses polypropylene, a common plastic, to create products such as lighter-weight bumpers and door panels for use automotive manufacturing. In an interview, CEO Bob Patel said the business was "quite successful, but very narrow."
With the acquisition, that segment will grow to include polyethylene compounding, using the world's most common plastic to expand its slate of products tailored to customer specifications. The combined operations will create the largest compounding company in the world with some 6,600 employees and annual revenue expected to top $4.6 billion.
"A. Schulman is a full-service provider to the compounding markets," Patel said. "They reach far more segments than we reach today."
The deal is relatively small for LyondellBasell, which which reported $34.5 billion in revenue last year. But it's the company's first major acquisition since Lyondell Chemical of Houston merged with Basell of the Netherlands in 2007 in a debt-laden deal that resulted in bankruptcy, layoffs and plant closures.
The company emerged in 2010 and began a restructuring plan to reduce operating costs and expand production capacity at its existing facilities. It wasn't until 2015, when Patel took over as CEO, that the company shifted its strategy to include building new plants and growing through acquisitions.
"When I became CEO, the question on the minds of our board and our shareholders was, 'What's next?" he said.
RELATED: Global petrochemicals growth shifts from Middle East to Gulf Coast
The A. Schulman acquisition could prelude a much bigger deal that would give LyondellBasell a substantial footprint in Latin America. The company said earlier this year that it's engaged in exclusive talks to acquire Brazilian petrochemical giant Braskem, a deal that would make the Houston company the world's largest producer of two common plastics.
Braskem is co-owned by Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht and Petrobras, Brazil's state-controlled oil producer.
LyondellBasell is negotiating with Odrebecht regarding a potential merger, and Petrobras has said it would consider a purchase offer should the negotiations conclude successfully.
Patel declined to comment on the status of negotiations. But the deal, he said, has the potential to make both LyondellBasell and Braskem stronger and more competitive.
Already, Patel said, Braskem deploys a significant amount of LyondellBasell's process technology in most of its polypropylene plants in Latin America, which is expected to drive considerable demand growth for petrochemical products in the coming decades.
"We know them quite well," Patel said. "I think it's a unique opportunity for a company like ours to gain a meaningful position in Latin America in a growing market."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/LyondellBasell-closes-A-Schulman-acquisition-13170295.php
-
The EPA’s Proposed Chemical Disaster Rule is a Disaster in the Making
Aug 21, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Charise Johnson
It isn’t new news or another hot take: communities of color are disproportionately exposed to and impacted by toxic chemical releases. The impacts of these incidents are severe, including death and serious injury, and often the children and families affected also have the fewest resources to protect themselves. They are also more immediately impacted by the decisions the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes on chemical risk management.
UCS released a white paper today – The Impact of Chemical Facilities on Environmental Justice Communities: Review of Selected Communities Affected by Chemical Facility Incidents – that addresses the EPA’s proposed rule to reverse improvements to the Risk Management Program (RMP), a regulatory mechanism intended to ensure the safety and security of over 12,000 facilities that use or store hazardous chemicals nationwide, as made under the Obama administration and finalized in January 2017. Specifically, it highlights the potential health impacts of past catastrophic incidents at chemical facilities on nearby communities.
Initially, the EPA delayed enforcement of the 2017 RMP changes, but just last week the delay was ruled as “arbitrary and capricious” (read: an abuse of power; illegal) by the DC Circuit Court. The court win means EPA must implement the changes at once – but the proposed rule is still on the table. The white paper highlights examples of the impacts of industrial chemical facilities incidents on the people in surrounding areas, which are most often workers and environmental justice communities (majority people of color, often low-income or living at or below the poverty line), thereby demonstrating the need for the 2017 rule.
Key provisions of the 2017 rule that would increase information for first responders, fenceline communities, and the broader public are eliminated in the proposed rule, along with the move toward safer technologies and practices. Despite the EPA’s acknowledgment over the past several years that chemical facility incidents occur frequently and can affect nearby local communities as well as facility employees themselves, the EPA’s 2018 proposed rule and supporting documentation ignores these findings – and the communities and workers who fought hard for common-sense protections. As the white paper details, the 2018 proposed rule not only increases the likelihood that incidents will occur by removing essentially all preventive measures, but it also increases the impact on communities when these incidents happen. The findings in the report underscore an important need to honor the safeguards from the 2017 rule and to investigate the long-term and cumulative health impacts from chemical facility incidents, including the regular release of toxics into surrounding communities.
Without a doubt, the EPA’s proposed chemical disaster rule would leave the public without greater protection from life-threatening industrial incidents. There is still time to let them know that removing safeguards for communities and workers is unconscionable and we will not stand for it. We have fought hard for improvements in the past and won, and we can do it again. There is still time to submit a public comment to the record, but the comment period for the proposed rule ends in two days. UCS has created an RMP public comment guide for tips on writing a strong comment for the proposed rule, which can be found here.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/charise-johnson/the-epas-chemical-disaster-rule-is-a-disaster
-
E.P.A. Unveils New Coal Pollution Rules. In the Fine Print: More Deaths.
Aug 21, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Trump administration on Tuesday made public the details of its new pollution rules governing coal-burning power plants, and the fine print includes an acknowledgment that the plan would increase carbon emissions and lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths annually.
The proposal, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, is a replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was an aggressive effort to speed up the closures of coal-burning plants, one of the main producers of greenhouse gases, by setting national targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and encouraging utilities to use cleaner energy sources like wind and solar.
The new proposal, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, instead seeks to make minor on-site efficiency improvements at individual plants and would also let states relax pollution rules for power plants that need upgrades, keeping them active longer.
Trump administration officials say the Clean Power Plan, in its effort to reduce carbon emissions, illegally tried to force electric utilities to use greener energy sources. The new plan, they said, would achieve many of the benefits sought by the Obama administration but in a way that is legal and allows states greater flexibility.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Today’s proposal provides the states and regulated community the certainty they need to continue environmental progress while fulfilling President Trump’s goal of energy dominance,” Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the E.P.A., said in a statement Tuesday.How Will the Clean Power Plan Repeal Change Carbon Emissions for Your State?
It all depends on where you live.Oct. 10, 2017
However, the hundreds of pages of technical analysis that accompany the new proposal indicate that emissions would grow under the plan.
Compared to the Obama-era plan, the analysis says, “implementing the proposed rule is expected to increase emissions of carbon dioxide and the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health.”
The analysis also includes a section called “foregone” climate and human health benefits. That is, instead of listing the health gains of the Trump plan — preventing premature deaths, for example, or avoiding a certain number of increased emergency room visits from asthma attacks — it is instead describing the effect of the Trump plan as benefits lost.
ADVERTISEMENT
The proposal lays out several possible pathways that individual states might use for regulating coal-fired power plants, and what the consequences would be for pollution and human health in each case. In the scenario the E.P.A. has pegged as the most likely to occur, the health effects would be significant.
In that scenario, the Trump E.P.A. predicts its plan will see between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 because of increased rates of microscopic airborne particulates known as PM 2.5, which are dangerous because of their link to heart and lung disease as well as their ability to trigger chronic problems like asthma and bronchitis.76 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump
The list shows dozens of environmental policies that the Trump administration has targeted, often in an effort to ease burdens on the fossil fuel industry.Oct. 5, 2017
By contrast, the Obama administration’s central argument for its Clean Power Plan was that the measure protected human health as well as the climate. Specifically, it said, the plan would help avoid between 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths annually by 2030.
The Clean Power Plan aimed to curb planet-warming greenhouse gases by steering the energy sector away from coal and toward cleaner energy sources like wind and solar. According to its calculations, the decreased coal burning also would reduce other pollutants like sulfur dioxide, which poses respiratory risk, and nitrogen oxides that create ozone, which, in the form of smog, can damage lung tissue.
Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. also estimated that, by 2030, the Clean Power Plan would result in 180,000 fewer missed school days per year by children because of ozone-related illnesses. Asthma instances would also drop significantly, according to the analysis.
By contrast, the Trump administration analysis finds that own its plan would see 48,000 new cases of exacerbated asthma and at least 21,000 new missed days of school annually by 2030 because those pollutants would increase in the atmosphere rather than decrease.EDITORS’ PICKSA Rockefeller Heir, G.O.P. Lawmakers: How a Suspected Russian Agent Tried to Make ContactsThe Flourishing Business of Fake YouTube ViewsChina Seeks Influence in Europe, One Business Deal at a Time
ADVERTISEMENT
“With the Trump dirty power plan we see again that the Trump administration cares more about extending the lives of coal plants than the American people,” said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental nonprofit group.Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions.
We know. Global warming is daunting. So here’s a place to start: 17 often-asked questions with some straightforward answers.Sept. 19, 2017
William L. Wehrum, acting administrator of the E.P.A.’s office of air and radiation, acknowledged Tuesday that there would be “collateral effects” on traditional pollutants compared to what the Clean Power Plan might have achieved. But, he said, “We have abundant legal authority to deal with those other pollutants directly, and we have aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants.”
The numbers in both the analysis for the Clean Power Plan as well as the Trump plan are derived from an intricate three-part modeling system reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences that the E.P.A. has used for decades to calculate the benefits and drawbacks of pollution regulation.
The premature mortality numbers also draw from a landmark Harvard University study that definitively linked polluted air to premature deaths. The study, known as Six Cities, tracked thousands of people for nearly two decades and ultimately formed the backbone of federal air pollution regulations.
That study itself is now under attack at E.P.A. The agency is considering a separate rule to restrict the use of any study for which raw data cannot be published, as is the case with Six Cities, which is based on the confidential health records of its participants. Scientists overwhelmingly oppose the move, pointing out that participants in long-term health studies typically agree to take part only if their personal health information won’t be made public.
If the E.P.A. finalizes that restriction rule, Mr. Schneider said, it would be able to claim in future studies a far lower premature death rate for the Clean Power Plan replacement because the Harvard study would no longer be taken into account.
The analysis of the new Trump administration plan does include premature death scenarios based on studies that are considered less comprehensive than the Harvard study. Those analyses start at the possibility of an extra eight to 25 deaths a year under Mr. Trump’s climate plan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html
-
Trump Proposes Unwinding Obama's Coal-Plant Pollution Curbs
Aug 21, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Jason A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday unveiled its plan to dramatically weaken carbon dioxide limits on coal-fired power plants by shifting most of the regulatory burden to states in a further assault on the Obama climate legacy.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s "Affordable Clean Energy" proposal would replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan’s sweeping changes in the U.S. electricity mix with more modest emissions curbs at individual power plants. It would set pollution guidelines based on assumptions about what improvements could be eked out through efficiency upgrades at the facilities, then give states the latitude to design their own plans for paring carbon dioxide emissions at the sites.
EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the proposal “would restore the rule of law and empower states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” while providing “modern, reliable, and affordable energy for all Americans.”
“Today’s proposal provides the states and regulated community the certainty they need to continue environmental progress while fulfilling President Trump’s goal of energy dominance,” Wheeler said in a news release.
The EPA estimates its proposal could pare carbon dioxide emissions as much as 1.5 percent from projected levels without the Obama plan in place.
The Latest: Trump Promised to Bring Back Coal -- It’s Declining Again
The move represents the latest bid by Trump to fulfill campaign promises to revive the coal industry and restore mining jobs. Although it is unlikely to dramatically alter the U.S. power mix -- or give a big boost to domestic coal demand, which has flagged amid competition from cheap natural gas and renewables -- industry advocates hailed the effort as curbing federal government overreach and leveling the playing field.
“The policy put forward by the previous administration was an illegal attempt to impose a political agenda on the country’s power system,” Hal Quinn, president of the National Mining Association said in an emailed statement. “The replacement rule respects the infrastructure and economic realities that are unique to each state, allowing for state-driven solutions, as intended by the Clean Air Act, rather than top down mandates.”
Trump is set to hold back-to-back campaign events Tuesday in West Virginia, the No. 2 coal-producing state, where in 2016 he pledged to “get those mines open” and told miners to “get ready, because you’re going to be working your asses off.”
Read: Trump’s Power-Plant Proposal May Increase U.S. Carbon Pollution
Shares of U.S. coal miners rose modestly Tuesday. Peabody Energy Corp. rose almost 2 percent and Arch Coal Inc. climbed 1.3 percent at 11:18 a.m. in New York.
Environmental advocates and the architects of former President Barack Obama’s ambitious plan derided the Trump administration’s proposed replacement as political pandering and said it represented a U.S. retreat from the global fight against climate change. The move dovetails with a separate administration proposal to relax Obama-era greenhouse gas emission limits on vehicles and coming efforts to ease restrictions on the amount of methane that can escape from oil wells.
“The world’s on fire and the Trump administration wants to make it worse,” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This dirty power plan is riddled with gimmicks and giveaways. It would mean more climate-changing pollution from power plants.”
The Trump proposal may open a small window for a revival of coal even as it prolongs uncertainty over the U.S. electricity mix and casts doubt on investments by utilities making decades-long choices about new plants and upgrades.
Climate Change Pact That Made History Busted by U.S.: QuickTake
Administration officials are on track to finalize the new regulation next year, following a 60-day public comment period on Tuesday’s proposal, but critics have already vowed to battle the effort in federal court and the legal disputes could take years to resolve. As it stands, Obama’s Clean Power Plan never went into effect; amid legal challenges from opponents who said it overstepped the EPA’s authority under federal law, the U.S. Supreme Courtput the initiative on hold in February 2016.
Critics are already vowing to fight Trump’s replacement.
“If the Trump administration’s proposal to dismantle the Clean Power Plan is adopted, we will work with our state and local partners to file suit to block it, in order to protect New Yorkers, and all Americans, from the increasingly devastating impacts of climate change,” said New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood.
According to the EPA, once the plan is fully implemented, power sector emissions could fall 33 to 34 percent below 2005 levels -- roughly mirroring the same target as Obama’s initiative, which sought to cut those greenhouse gas emissions 32 percent relative to 2005.
Trump’s EPA says its replacement would be cheaper too, costing some $400 million less each year than Obama’s carbon dioxide curbs. The agency also forecasts a modest, potentially 0.5 percent reduction in retail electricity prices.‘Best System’
The approach shows the Trump administration abandoning Obama’s expansive view of what constitutes the “best system of emission reductions” for a more narrow, facility-focused interpretation that conservatives say is within the bounds of the Clean Air Act that provides the framework for air pollution regulations.
“The announcement of a replacement rule may largely represent a political milestone for a president who promised to end his predecessor’s ‘war on coal,’ but we also view it as a significant policy action that could to make it difficult for a differently oriented successor to establish greenhouse gas limits on any stationary sector via executive discretion,” ClearView Energy Partners managing director Kevin Book said in a research note to clients.
Under the Trump plan, the EPA would establish broad guidelines on the technologies that can be used to pare carbon dioxide emissions and then give states three years to develop their own plans for paring that pollution.Permit Reviews
It also would overhaul the triggers that prompt new permit reviews -- and potentially expensive new pollution controls -- that have been criticized as onerous by owners of power plants, refineries and other industrial sites. The changes, aimed at power plants, would better enable the kind of efficiency upgrades envisioned under the Trump proposal, EPA Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum told reporters on a conference call.
It might not be enough to dramatically alter the landscape for U.S. coal, which is losing U.S. customers as utilities increasingly turn to natural gas and renewable power to generate electricity. Although the Trump administration forecasts a 4.5 percent to 5.8 percent increase in the production of coal for generating electricity under its proposal, analysts say the shift is unlikely to reverse a spate of already announced closures of coal-fired power plants.
“We won’t see any new coal plants but it could help some units for a few years,” said Kit Konolige, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. “Coal plants keep closing even though we knew something like this was coming from the Trump administration.”
The proposal might have the most impact in the Midwest and Southeast, where aging coal power plants continue to be profitable for utilities, and state regulations are less likely to punish emissions, Konolige said.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement that the replacement rule would reverse “years of havoc on coal mining in the Mountain State.”
Since 2010, power plant owners have either retired or announced plans to retire 630 coal-fired facilities in 43 states -- nearly 40 percent of the U.S. coal fleet, according to data by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a trade group representing utilities such as Southern Co. and producers such as Peabody Energy.
The EPA is not altering its landmark 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases threaten health and human welfare -- a finding underpinning the power plant regulation and compelling the Trump’s move Tuesday. Conservatives have filed a half dozen petitions challenging the endangerment finding, though Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has signaled he is not eager to reconsider the issue.Efficiency Improvements
Trump’s proposal for modest efficiency improvements at power plants falls far short of what’s needed to combat climate change, environmentalists said. Such changes “will barely make a dent in cutting heat-trapping emissions from the electricity sector, and could even, under some circumstances, lead to increased emissions depending on how much the plants are run,” Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an emailed statement. “The law could not be more clear: It requires EPA to adopt the ‘best system of emissions reduction,’ but the EPA has instead opted for the ‘lamest system of emissions reduction.”’
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, said the Trump proposal “guts a solid and sensible plan” to fight climate change and aims to replace it “with a fossil fuel handout.”
“This craven obedience to polluting interests will lead to serious consequences for American communities and our economy, as well as for the planet we call home,” Whitehouse said by email. “Economists, scientists, central bankers, and real estate insurance and finance professionals are all warning of dire consequences of climate change, and we get this?”
The Trump administration proposal was cheered by business leaders and conservatives who said the Obama initiative illegally sought to compel more renewable power and quash coal. The proposed replacement rightly restores regulatory power to states, they said.
“Today’s announcement is an important step toward a more collaborative process that fits within EPA’s statutory authority and will result in achievable progress through more practical, state-driven programs,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute. “This revised approach will help continue the trend of lower electric power sector emissions while preserving America’s energy edge and respecting environmental law.”
Jim Matheson, head of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said the Trump proposal is more workable. “The Clean Power Plan would have resulted in stranded assets and stranded debt, significantly increasing electricity costs for many consumers,” Matheson said by email.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/trump-eases-coal-pollution-curbs-in-unwinding-more-obama-rules
-
This Is The Day That the Climate Change Fight Was Obviously Lost
Aug 21, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Philip Bump
A particular challenge of the fight over climate change, if not a unique one, is that the shifts accrue subtly. The climate has changed stunningly quickly in global terms but slowly in human terms, allowing us to rationalize, wave away and downplay.
It’s that slowness, the ability to adjust to slight changes, that’s led to the political fight over how to address climate change. The effects of the warming planet are only intermittently tangible and there are still winters and there’s a robust vested interest by major corporations that sell coal and natural gas and oil in continuing to sell coal and natural gas and oil.
The issue of climate change rose to the national consciousness as polarization in U.S. politics spiked. That national attention was spurred in part by Al Gore’s 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth,” meaning that Gore and his politics became part of the association many Americans made with the issue. Climate change is now one of the most politically polarizing issues in the country. Gallup polling shows that there’s a nearly 50-point gap between the parties in belief in the effects of a warming planet having already begun. More than 8 in 10 Democrats think global warming has been demonstrated; only a third of Republicans agree.
Nearly all scientists who study the issue agree with the Democratic and independent majorities, but scientists haven’t convinced Washington.
In fact, to the extent that action on addressing climate change is still a viable fight in the capital, on Tuesday we could declare a winner: Climate change is here and the United States has accepted it. President Trump’s decision to roll back even measured efforts to curtail carbon-dioxide emissions and news about Arctic sea ice combine to paint a picture of a country that’s living through climate change and deciding not to do anything about it.
It’s been a ferocious summer for global weather. The Washington Post’s health and science team outlinedall of the extremes seen in the Northern Hemisphere last month: spiking temperatures, rampant wildfires, deadly heat waves.
That map excludes other significant incidents, like that California saw several of the largest wildfires in its recorded history over the past month.
One of the more effective refrains of those skeptical of addressing climate change is that weather and climate are not the same, an argument that’s effective because it’s true. Pointing to specific weather incidents as proof of climate change is like pointing to a fever and chills as proof of the flu: Maybe there’s some other cause. But these are certainly symptoms of what we expect from a warming world: more temperature extremes, more severe droughts, more extreme precipitation events as in Japan last month or Houston last year.
Those extremes are happening alongside longer-term trends that also reinforce how the climate is warming. On Monday, The Post reported on the pocketbook effects of rising sea levels, with residents of Charleston, S.C., facing repeated flooding incidents. Southern Florida now floods so much that it barely makes the news, a function of the slow transition from higher sea levels being exceptional to their being the norm.
A new study also reveals that some areas in the Arctic are no longer freezing, suggesting that areas that have been frozen for centuries are at risk of thawing. When they do so, plant material that has been frozen could begin to decompose, releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is much better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
Elsewhere in the Arctic, the annual minimum in sea ice coverage has been steadily dropping, meaning that less and less of the Arctic Ocean is covered by ice. This year is well below the norm in terms of August coverage.
But then came a new report Tuesday with worse news: For the first time on record, the thickest Arctic sea ice began to break apart this year.
“The thinning is reaching even the coldest part of the Arctic with the thickest ice,” National Snow and Ice Data Center senior research scientist Walt Meier told the Guardian. “So it’s a pretty dramatic indication of the transformation of the Arctic sea ice and Arctic climate.”
A long-term trend that has a sudden new indication of its severity.
Those opposed to taking action on climate change, though, will often point to the existence of sea ice as evidence that climate change as a problem is overblown. Gore’s frequent assertions that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2014 (though it could perhaps take longer) are cited as evidence that his claims about the changing climate were suspect. Politics and climate change are intermingled. Even Mitt Romney, during his 2012 bid for the presidency, was prompted to take a shot at Barack Obama’s climate-change advocacy despite Romney, like many Republican officials, embracing the need to address climate change during the spike in public interest a decade ago.
Trump made rejecting the need to address climate change central to his candidacy for the White House. Sure, he once signed an open letter calling on Congress and Obama to address climate change, but he renounced that position in short order. Before he announced his candidacy, his Twitter feed was litteredwith tweets of skepticism about global warming; afterward, he made an embrace of the fossil-fuel industry central to his pitch to voters.
On Tuesday, the administration announced a long-expected move: The Environmental Protection Agency was replacing Obama’s plan to limit pollution from coal-burning power plants with a plan of its own, which would allow more pollutants to escape into the atmosphere. That includes greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, which get trapped in the atmosphere and keep heat from escaping into space. It also includes particulate matter, microscopic particles that can be inhaled and lead to health complications. As the New York Times notes, the EPA’s announcement itself estimates that 1,400 more Americans may die annually thanks to the increased number of particulates allowed to be emitted from power plants.
At its heart, though, this is a decision about whether to make the decisions necessary to try to limit the long-term effects of climate change. Again, there’s little question in the scientific community that the climate is changing as a result of human activity, something that most Americans accept. The question is whether the country and planet decide to make the changes needed to reduce how severe the changes to the climate will get. Trump, true to his campaign promises, said no in the abstract last year when he pulled out of the global Paris climate accord. The decision on power plants, though, is more significant because it’s more concrete. Power-plant emissions are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and the Trump administration has decided to set aside a significant effort to curtail them.
That’s coupled with the administration’s decision this month to freeze fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles rather than allow mandated improvements to those standards to move forward. Vehicular emissions are the other biggest source of greenhouse gas in the United States.
It’s just coincidence that the Trump plan on power plant emissions should be announced the same day as the news about Arctic ice is reported. Any number of other things could have combined in a similar way to make obvious the split between what’s happening in the world and what’s happening in Washington. Both of the developments Tuesday, though, are very significant and very telling. For those eager to have bolder action from political leaders on slowing changes to the climate over the long term, a key frustration is how humans perceive time itself.
The capital is a place where political effects are measured in the scale of days, if not minutes. The global climate shift is measured in years, if not decades. And, slowly, this is the point we’ve gotten to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/21/this-is-the-day-that-the-climate-change-fight-was-obviously-lost/?utm_term=.ad525cad2e5c
-
Trump Kicks Off Next Big Climate Battle
Aug 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen and Nick Sobczyk
The Trump administration took a decisive step today to eviscerate President Obama's signature climate change rule by releasing an industry-friendly proposal to control power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, rule would set guidelines for states to curb emissions by focusing strictly on efficiency improvements. The new rule — if finalized — would be a significant departure from the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which took a systemwide approach to cutting greenhouse gases.
Today's proposal marks a major victory for critics of the Obama administration's approach, who waged an epic legal battle that kept the Clean Power Plan from taking effect. It also sets the stage for another protracted fight over a rule that President Trump's critics argue won't bolster U.S. efforts to combat climate change and will lead to more deaths and other public health problems.
EPA's acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler today touted the proposal as a "re-balancing" of power between the states and the federal government.
"[ACE] respects the rule of law and enables states to build affordable, clean and reliable energy portfolios. ACE operates within the four corners of the Clean Air Act. The error of top-down, one-size-fits-all federal mandates is over," Wheeler said in a call with reporters this morning.
The Trump administration maintained the proposed rule would lead to significant reductions in emissions but would do so by following their interpretation of agency authority under the Clean Air Act. The new plan would provide guidelines for slashing greenhouse gas emissions but does not include a minimum requirement for carbon emission reductions. The proposal more closely resembles the way the agency regulates some other types of air pollutants.
EPA's air chief Bill Wehrum said the proposal gives states primary authority to determine the types of emissions controls needed to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants within their borders.
Meanwhile, EPA's role would be to create a framework for regulation based on the "best system of emissions reductions." This would include recommendations and a list of technologies that can be applied at the source of emissions at the power plant. This is in contrast to the Clean Power Plan, which considered reducing emissions across the power grid, a move the Trump team has called an illegal overreach.
If the rule is finalized, states will have three years to draft state plans, which would then have to be approved by EPA. The agency would have a year to review state plans. The proposal follows a similar approach to how EPA already regulates other pollutants, like ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter.
Wehrum said the rule would cut carbon emissions at a level similar to the Clean Power Plan.
"We believe there will be very little difference in how this rule would play out. That's because things have changed a lot since the Clean Power Plan was put in place. There have been big shifts in the types of plants people are operating," said Wehrum. "There will be very little difference that we'll see in emissions reductions."
The agency estimated the rule would cut CO2 emissions by between 13 million to 30 million short tons compared to a business-as-usual approach with no Clean Power Plan. EPA compared the annual emissions reductions to the equivalent of 5 million cars taken off the roads. The rule would also cut other power plant pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particles by up to 2 percent.
At the same time, Wehrum cautioned that it was challenging for EPA to provide precise estimates of how much carbon emissions would go down from the rule because states will craft plans they deem most appropriate based on the power plants within their states.
"There is no lower limit, there is no number below which states can't go. That's not how this program works," he said. "What states are required to do is take the guidance we issue as part of this regulation, and in particular our guidance on the best system of emissions reduction ... and then make a rational fact-based decision about what control measures and emissions limits should be applied."
This flexibility would allow states to consider the unique qualities of the plants within their fleet, Wehrum said. "At the end of the day, there is no floor, there is no maximum," he said of the emissions reductions requirements.
While emissions trading is not a part of the current proposal as it was with the Clean Power Plan, the agency is taking comments on whether or not such an approach would fit within the rule.
The agency said it will also look at ways to more closely align the permitting requirements for power plants under the New Source Review program with the new rule's focus on efficiency so that the two programs do not conflict with each other (see related story).Battle lines drawn
Trump's foes were quick to assail the proposal today, and it's sure to be at the center of prolonged legal and political battles.
Congressional Democrats sold the replacement as a handout to the fossil fuel industry and highlighted the potentially devastating effects of unchecked emissions.
"The wildfires, droughts, flash floods and more frequent coastal flooding we are experiencing again this year are all consistent with climate change," House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said in a statement. "Yet, the Trump Administration continues to deny the problem, and doubles down on policies that will increase climate-damaging emissions."
Environmental groups pointed to EPA estimates that suggest the plan could increase emissions and potentially cause over 1,000 premature deaths by 2030.
"This proposal would eliminate almost all the life-saving climate and health benefits that the Clean Power Plan provides," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp said in a statement. "The Trump-Wheeler plan will mean millions of tons more air pollution endangering our kids' health, lives and future."
Despite EPA's insistence that the new rule is, in fact, a plan to regulate greenhouse gases, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said it's another demonstration of President Trump's rejection of climate science.
"President Trump's proposal is full-fledged climate denial," he said in a statement. "It gives coal companies the green light to pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink. This proposal flies in the face of scientific fact, morality, and America's leadership."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) added in a statement that the new plan "shows not much has changed from [former Administrator] Scott Pruitt's EPA."
"This craven obedience to polluting interests will lead to serious consequences for American communities and our economy, as well as for the planet we call home," Whitehouse said. "Economists, scientists, central bankers, and real estate insurance and finance professionals are all warning of dire consequences of climate change, and we get this?"
The replacement plan also has at least one Republican critic: Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo. In a statement last week before the rollout, the co-chairman of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus called the plan "wholly unacceptable," despite his own criticisms of Obama's rule.
Despite the barrage of criticism, Wehrum said he's confident the rule will withstand the scrutiny that's sure to follow.
"We think we are on firm legal ground. In fact, I think we are on firmer ground than the Clean Power Plan was," he said.GOP, industry mostly happy
Many Republicans, meanwhile, were thrilled with the plan.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to the Senate floor to praise the replacement rule, calling the Clean Power Plan "an intrusive regulatory regime" built on "far-left ideology."
He touted Republican efforts over the past several years to nix the Obama rule, including letters to governors and legislation aimed at canceling the regulation. "My colleagues and I have been at this for some time," McConnell said. "That's why the president's actions today are so encouraging."
Republicans also sought to highlight the potential benefits for coal-reliant states under the Trump administration's plan, which would give states more authority to set their own rules and regulate power plants using an "inside the fence line" approach.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee, hailed the plan as a return to "the principles of cooperative federalism."
"Rather than dictate burdensome, top-down mandates on the states, the Affordable Clean Energy rule seeks to empower states to continue reducing emissions in ways that best fit their various energy portfolios," Shimkus said in a statement.
That mirrors the rhetoric coming out of industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which this morning reaffirmed its belief in climate science but said the new rule would be "a more collaborative process."
Some conservatives, however, said the proposal does not quite go far enough, since it stays silent on the endangerment finding, EPA's 2009 determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla,), the Senate's pre-eminent climate skeptic, praised the plan but said he would continue to work with EPA toward that end.
"I maintain that the best course of action remains to completely overturn the endangerment finding so that there is neither statutory nor legal need for any greenhouse gas regulations," Inhofe said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/21/stories/1060094871
-
EPA Tucks Major Permitting Change Into Climate Proposal
Aug 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Trump administration's proposed replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan would greenlight a landmark change to EPA's New Source Review permitting program while allowing more emissions of pollutants linked to premature deaths, according to the plan's supporting documents released today.
The proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule would give states the option of letting power companies adopt a new yardstick for deciding whether a power plant upgrade or expansion requires a pre-construction permit under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program.
Currently, companies must forecast the potential impact on overall annual air emissions. The draft rule would substitute an approach tied to whether the project would lead to a higher hourly emissions rate.
If the distinction seems arcane, both backers and foes of the proposed change view the potential consequences as far-reaching.
The status quo may discourage utilities "from investing in beneficial efficiency improvements," EPA said in a summary today of the proposed change. That's because such improvements let a power plant produce electricity more effectively — leading to heavier use and higher annual emissions that could trigger the need for a New Source Review permit, the summary indicated.
But to environmental and public health groups, who say that New Source Review is crucial to ensuring that upgraded plants have up-to-date pollution controls, the upshot would be dirtier air.
"What this is really about is more air pollution from dirty coal plants and more people downwind suffering from those plants," Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association, said in an interview.
A spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which is still reviewing the draft rule, had no specific comment this morning on the proposed change to the New Source Review program. A spokesman for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association could not immediately be reached.
Utilities, however, aren't the only industrial sector seeking the change. In July, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment approved legislation by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) that would incorporate the use of an hourly emissions test throughout the New Source Review program.
In a statement this morning, Griffith called EPA's proposal a positive step but added that NSR "currently applies to a myriad of manufacturing and industrial facilities as well as electric power generation."
Those facilities "also need the clarity in the regulatory process that my reforms would provide," Griffith said. His legislation is awaiting action by the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
Should the proposed NSR change make it into the final rule, Keri Powell, a former EPA attorney now in private practice, agreed it could be extended to other types of polluting businesses.
"There is precedent for things to start with the power industry and then move on to others," she said in an interview.
As EPA acknowledged in its regulatory impact analysis, the broader changes in the proposed rule could lead to more emissions that contribute to formation of fine particulates and ozone, variously tied to an array of heart and lung problems.
By EPA's projections, the result could be up to 1,400 more premature deaths each year by 2030, Billings said in a Twitter post.
Asked about that potential outcome during a conference call with reporters this morning, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum said the agency also has "very aggressive" programs that directly target pollutants stemming from coal-fired power plants.
"Our view is, if we want to regulate PM [particulate matter], we regulate PM straight up," Wehrum said.
This year, however, EPA has overhauled its framework for reviewing air quality standards for particulate matter, ozone and four other pollutants to incorporate consideration of the possible economic consequences.
EPA is also pursuing a separate proposal that would limit its use of science in developing new regulations to studies for which the underlying data "are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation," according to the text.
If implemented, critics say, that change could block the agency from relying on major studies by Harvard University and the American Cancer Society researchers that in 1997 led to the first-ever standards for fine particulates.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/21/stories/1060094875
-
Agency Promotes States' Rights — Sometimes
Aug 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Maxine Joselow
The Trump EPA is doing a delicate dance when it comes to states' rights and climate change rules.
On one hand, the agency is proposing to weaken federal clean car standards and pre-empt states from setting their own, tougher tailpipe pollution rules.
On the other, the agency is proposing to replace President Obama's signature climate rule and let states set their own guidelines for cutting carbon emissions from power plants.
The first move is a snub to California and other blue states that want to act more aggressively on climate than the federal government. The second is a gift to Texas and other red states with high dependencies on coal-fired power plants.
Trump's critics find those two moves tough to reconcile.
"There is a deep hypocrisy in providing states with significant power to decide whether to regulate greenhouse cases in the context of power plants while eliminating the right of states to do so for automobiles," said Ann Carlson, co-director of UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
"The bottom line is that the motivation is consistent — to limit the regulation of carbon pollution," she added. "The rhetoric about states' rights is just a smokescreen for a deregulatory agenda."
Jody Freeman, director of the environmental and energy law program at Harvard Law School, said it appears that EPA only cares about states' rights when the states in question are on board with President Trump's deregulatory agenda.
"It's hard to reconcile those positions unless you look at the fact that in the vehicle context, states are trying to regulate," said Freeman, who was an energy and climate adviser in the Obama White House. "And in the power plant context, they're trying to avoid regulation."
But supporters of the agency's direction under the Trump administration say comparing the clean cars rollback and the Clean Power Plan replacement is like comparing apples and oranges.
"You're really talking about two very, very different areas of authority," said H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow on environmental policy at the conservative Heartland Institute.
"I don't think you can call it consistent or inconsistent," Burnett said of EPA's approach to states' rights. "In fact, I think it's consistent because it's going by what the law says. With the [corporate average fuel economy] standards, it's very clear that states don't have the authority to regulate fuel economy."Cooperative federalism
Scott Pruitt, who resigned as EPA administrator July 5 amid a hailstorm of ethics allegations, made cooperative federalism a focus of his tenure. He talked up the idea of state and federal regulators working collaboratively without "one-size-fits-all" mandates from Washington, D.C.
"In just one year, we have made tremendous progress implementing President Trump's agenda by refocusing the Agency to its core mission, restoring power to the states through cooperative federalism and adhering to the rule of law," Pruitt said in a statement about his first year at EPA.
But his professed regard for cooperative federalism didn't stop Pruitt from posturing in a regulatory war with California (Climatewire, March 23).
In announcing his decision to rewrite the Obama-era clean car rules, Pruitt signaled his revised program would force California to buckle to federal standards. "Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country," he said in a statement.
When Andrew Wheeler became acting EPA administrator last month, he also promised a federal-state partnership. "No. 1, we need to provide certainty to the states," he said in his first speech at the agency's helm (E&E News PM, July 11).
But earlier this month, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed rescinding California's Clean Air Act waiver, which gives the state special authority to set tougher greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. The proposal set the stage for a protracted legal battle with California and the 12 other states that have adopted its more stringent standards (Greenwire, Aug. 2).
To justify the proposal, EPA pointed to Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. The provision stipulates that EPA can deny California's request for a waiver if the state cannot demonstrate "compelling and extraordinary conditions."
EPA also argued that states are pre-empted from regulating fuel economy by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which gave that power solely to the Transportation Department.
"It's not about states' rights — it's about how they're pre-empted by the EPCA," Burnett said.
Trump is expected to unveil his administration's replacement for the Clean Power Plan today in West Virginia, a major coal-producing state.
While elements of the proposal have been leaked to E&E News and other news outlets, it remains to be seen how EPA will seek to justify the replacement with regard to the Clean Air Act, Freeman said.
"They'll have a legal analysis of EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act," Freeman said. "They will probably say something about why it makes sense to let states take the lead on power plant rules. So we'll have to wait and see what their legal argument is."
EPA didn't respond to a request for comment for this story.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/08/21/stories/1060094807
-
The Plastic Waste Crisis Is an Opportunity to Get Serious About Recycling
Aug 21, 2018 | The Conversation (In EcoWatch)
By Kate O'Neill
A global plastic waste crisis is building, with major implications for health and the environment. Under its so-called "National Sword" policy, China has sharply reduced imports of foreign scrap materials. As a result, piles of plastic waste are building up in ports and recycling facilities across the U.S.
In response, support is growing nationally and worldwide for banning or restricting single-use consumer plastics, such as straws and grocery bags. These efforts are also spurred by chilling findings about how microplastics travel through oceans and waterways and up the food chain.
I have studied global trade in hazardous wastes for many years and am currently completing a book on the global politics of waste. In my view, today's unprecedented level of public concern is an opportunity to innovate. There is growing interest in improving plastic recycling in the U.S. This means getting consumers to clean and sort recyclables, investing in better technologies for sorting and reusing waste plastics, and creating incentives for producers to buy and use recycled plastic.
Critiques of recycling are not new, and critiques of recycling plastic are many, but I still believe it makes sense to expand, not abandon, the system. This will require large-scale investment and, in the long term, implementing upstream policies, including product bans.
Easy to Use, Hard to Destroy
Plastics make products lighter, cheaper, easier to assemble and more disposable. They also generate waste, both at the start of their life cycles—the petrochemicals industry is a major source of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions—and after disposal.
The biggest domestic use by far for plastic resin is packaging (34 percent in 2017), followed by consumer and institutional goods (20 percent) and construction (17 percent). Many products' useful lives can be measured in minutes. Others, especially engineered and industrial plastics, have a longer life—up to 35 years for building and construction products.
After disposal, plastic products take anywhere from five to 600 years to break down. Many degrade into micro-plastic fragments that effectively last forever. Rather like J.R.R. Tolkien's One Ring, plastics can be permanently destroyed only through incineration at extremely high temperatures.
Why the U.S. Recycles So Little Plastic
Less than 10 percent of discarded plastics entered the recycling stream in the U.S. in 2015, compared with 39.1 percent in the European Union and 22 percent in China. Another 15 percent of U.S. plastic waste is burned in waste-to-energy facilities. The remaining 75 percent goes to landfills. These figures do not include any dumping or illegal disposal.
Even the most easily recyclable plastics have a lengthy journey from the recycling bin to their final destinations. Many barriers have become painfully apparent since China, which until recently accepted half of all U.S. plastic scrap, implemented its crackdown on March 1.
First, there are many different types of plastics. Of the seven resin identification codes stamped on the bottom of plastic containers, only 1's and 2's are easily recyclable. Public education campaigns have lagged, particularly with respect to cleaning and preparing plastics for recycling. Getting consumers to commit to more stringent systems is critical. But scolding can backfire, as experience with food waste shows.
Another factor is U.S. reliance on single-stream recycling systems, in which all recyclables are placed in the same receptacle. This approach is easier for consumers but produces a mixed stream of materials that is difficult and expensive to sort and clean at recycling facilities.
The U.S. currently has 633 materials recycling facilities, which can clean, sort and bale a total of 100,000 tons of recyclables per day. Today they are under growing pressure as scrap piles up. Even before China's restrictions went into effect, materials recycling facilities operators threw out around half of what they received because of contamination. Most are not equipped to meet China's stringent new contamination standards, and their processing rates have slowed—but garbage production rates have not.
Finally, since China was the U.S. plastic scrap market's main buyer, its ban has eliminated a key revenue stream for municipal governments. As a result, some waste collection agencies are suspending curbside pickup, while others are raising prices. All 50 states have been affected to some extent.
Over 70 percent of U.S. plastic waste goes to landfills.USEPA
No Silver Bullets
Numerous public and private entities are working to find a more viable solution for plastics recycling. They include plastics producers and recyclers, corporations such as Coca-Cola, colleges and universities, foundations, international organizations, advocacy groups and state governments.
Upgrading materials recycling facilities and expanding domestic markets for plastic scrap is an obvious priority but will require large-scale investments. Increasing waste-to-energy incineration is another option. Swedenrelies on this approach to maintain its zero waste model.
But incineration is deeply controversial in the U.S., where it has declined since 2001, partly due to strong opposition from host communities. Zero-waste and anti-incineration advocates have heavily criticized initiatives such as the Hefty EnergyBag Program, a recent pilot initiative in Omaha, Nebraska to divert plastics to energy production. But small companies like Salt Lake City-based Renewlogy are working to develop newer, cleaner ways to convert plastics to energy.
Efforts to cut plastic use in the U.S. and other wealthy countries are focusing on single-use products. Initiatives such as plastic straw and bag bans build awareness, but may not significantly reduce the problem of plastic trash by themselves. For example, plastic straws account for only 0.03 percent of the plastic that is likely to enter the oceans in any given year.
Industry is starting to push back, with corporations like McDonald's resisting straw bans. Some U.S. states have passed measures forbidding plastic bag restrictions.
To stem ocean plastic pollution, better waste management on land is critical, including steps to combat illegal dumping and manage hard-to-recycle plastics. Examples include preventing BPA leaching from discarded products, dechlorinating polyvinyl chloride products, on-site recycling of 3D printer waste, and making virgin-quality plastic out of used polypropylene.
The European Union is developing a circular economy platform that contains a multi-part strategy to increase plastics recycling and control waste. It includes making all plastic packaging recyclable by 2030 and reducing leakage of plastic products into the environment. The U.S. is unlikely to adopt such sweeping policies at the national level. But for cities and states, especially those where support for environmental protection is strong, it could be a more attainable vision.
Reposted with permission from our media associate The Conversation.
https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-waste-crisis-recycling-2597495368.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested