Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips 10/24/2018
-
(ACC Blog) Holey Mole-y: It’s #NationalChemistryWeek! Help Us Celebrate the ‘Central Science’
Oct 23, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
There’s a lot to celebrate and enjoy around this time of year – vibrant fall foliage, harvest ales, Halloween, and countless other holiday and seasonal activities. And if you work at the American Chemical Society (ACS) or the American Chemistry Council (ACC)... -
5 Possible Snags If Wheeler's Nominated
Oct 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Robin Bravender
President Trump suggested yesterday he will nominate his acting EPA chief to keep the job. -
(ACC Mentioned) European Parliament Calls for Single-Use Plastics Ban by 2021
Oct 24, 2018 | UPI
By Clyde Hughes
It is the last straw for single-use plastic items in Europe as European Parliament officials adopted a plan Wednesday to ban such items in participating countries by 2021. -
EU Lawmakers Vote to Ban Single-Use Plastics Across Europe
Oct 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
The European Parliament on Wednesday backed a wide-ranging proposal to ban the use of single-use plastics across the European Union. -
EU States Report Hazardous Chemicals Import/Export Infringements
Oct 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has called efforts to implement the regulation on the import/export of hazardous chemicals with third countries a success. According to its just released report, there have only been a "low number" of infringements reported in the first three years of operation. -
Business Guide to Safer Chemicals 2018: Keeping EDCs Out of the Store
Oct 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
This article was first published in the Business Guide to Safer Chemicals 2018. Download your free copy of the guide for more in-depth, practical case studies that examine how companies are addressing the various chemical safety challenges they face. -
Monsanto Weedkiller Ruling Is 1st Step in Long Legal Battle
Oct 24, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Paul Elias
With its stock dropping and more lawsuits expected, Monsanto Co. vowed yesterday to press on with a nationwide legal defense of its best-selling weedkiller Roundup after a San Francisco judge upheld a verdict alleging it causes cancer. -
Dozens More Breakfast Foods Test Positive for Trace Amounts of Weed Killer, Report Says
Oct 24, 2018 | CNN
By Arman Azad
Dozens of common breakfast cereals and snack bars have trace amounts of a controversial herbicide found in the weed killer Roundup, according to a report released today by an environmental advocacy group. -
In Colorado, a Bitter Battle Over Oil, Gas and the Environment Comes to a Head
Oct 24, 2018 | New York Times
By Julie Turkewitz and Clifford Krauss
On stage at the Adams County fairgrounds, the M.C. wore cowgirl boots and a pink T-shirt that read “Mothers in Love With Fracking.” -
Judge's Order Could Remove 1m Acres from BLM Lease Sales
Oct 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management is pulling hundreds of thousands of acres of greater sage grouse habitat from several planned oil and gas lease sales in December as it works to comply with a federal judge's order temporarily blocking it from streamlining leasing in grouse habitat. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Disputes EPA Air Study on Chemical Risk
Oct 22, 2018 | St. Charles Herald Guide
By Anna Thibodeaux
Although a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report identifies Dow and Union Carbide as major producers of the carcinogen ethylene oxide in St. Charles Parish, the company disputes its findings. -
First Responders’ Hazmat Training Is Critical
Oct 24, 2018 | The Herald-News
By William E. Offerman
From house fires to spills, Chicago’s first responders need to be ready for anything. Accidents involving the release of hazardous materials are rare, but for the first responders who put their lives on the line every day to protect their communities... -
Incoming Railroad Regulators Should Protect Consumer Benefits
Oct 24, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Liam Sigaud
President Trump’s three nominees to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) – whose nominations have been in limbo for months – may soon be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. -
New ACI Study Calls on STB to Reject Burdensome Freight Rail Regulations
Oct 24, 2018 | American Journal of Transportation
The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (ACI) released today its latest report, which calls on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) – the economic regulator for freight railroads – to reject a proposed regulation that would have negative consequences... -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Air Pollution Adviser: Clean Air Saves No Lives
Oct 24, 2018 | Reveal
By Jason Plautz
Last spring, air pollution researchers from around the world gathered to discuss their latest findings. Among them were scientists who led landmark studies linking smog and soot to deadly health problems. -
New York Sues Exxon Mobil, Saying It Deceived Shareholders on Climate Change
Oct 24, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil on Wednesday that claims the company defrauded shareholders by downplaying the expected risk of climate change to its business. -
EPA, Drilling Firm Fault EAB Petition Testing UIC Permit Equity Reviews
Oct 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA and a Michigan oil drilling firm are urging the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to reject a case that tests how permit writers consider environmental justice (EJ) concerns and drinking water impacts when they set limits on underground injections of drilling wastewater... -
Court Freezes Litigation over EPA Cement Regs
Oct 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal court has frozen proceedings in litigation over updated EPA air toxics regulations for portland cement plants. -
Why Conservatives Keep Gaslighting the Nation About Climate Change
Oct 24, 2018 | Vox (In Real Clear Energy)
By David Roberts
In recent years, leaders of the Republican Party have become aware that denying the existence of global warming makes them look like idiots.
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
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Holey Mole-y: It’s #NationalChemistryWeek! Help Us Celebrate the ‘Central Science’
Oct 23, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
There’s a lot to celebrate and enjoy around this time of year – vibrant fall foliage, harvest ales, Halloween, and countless other holiday and seasonal activities. And if you work at the American Chemical Society (ACS) or the American Chemistry Council (ACC), you already know that a celebration of each of those things is really a celebration of the incredible science of chemistry. Click above to see why!
ACC is a proud supporter again this year of the American Chemical Society’s #NationalChemistryWeekcelebration. The annual program unites ACS local sections, student chapters, technical divisions, businesses, schools, and individuals in communicating the importance of chemistry to our quality of life. We especially love the fact that the celebration occurs annually during the week of Mole Day, which happens to be today, October 23.
For us, you might say that chemistry is constantly on our minds, not just this week, but every day of the year. From the countless innovations that chemistry helps make possible, to the economic growth and hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs that depend on chemistry, to the essential role chemistry plays in helping our country and our world achieve ambitious sustainability goals – there’s a lot to think about and a lot to celebrate when it comes to chem.
If there’s one message we want to convey for this year’s National Chemistry Week, it’s that chemistry is both a central science and an essential driver of our economy. In fact, ACC just finished updating our annual “Business of Chemistry” fact sheet, which helps give a snapshot of just how important chemistry to keeping innovation, jobs, exports and our entire economy growing.
We hope you’ll take the time to “mole” it over and share!
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/10/holey-mole-y-its-nationalchemistryweek-help-us-celebrate-the-central-science/
-
5 Possible Snags If Wheeler's Nominated
Oct 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Robin Bravender
President Trump suggested yesterday he will nominate his acting EPA chief to keep the job.
In his remarks at the White House, Trump said acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler was "doing well" at the agency.
"He's acting, but he's doing well, right?" Trump said. "So maybe he won't be so acting so long" (E&E News PM, Oct. 23).
Wheeler, who took over from Scott Pruitt after the former administrator resigned in July under a crush of ethics allegations, has been welcomed by Republicans and EPA staff who believe he is an improvement over his predecessor, whom they had little interaction with.
If he is nominated, however, Wheeler's confirmation won't be easy. The battle to confirm him as EPA's deputy chief took more than six months and ended on a mostly party-line vote, with only three Democrats voting in support of Wheeler.
Environmental groups would again gear up for a fight over Wheeler and push their Democratic allies to oppose him. Soon after Trump's comments yesterday, the Sierra Club blasted out to reporters criticism of Wheeler, calling him a "public health threat."
"Wheeler has no business being confirmed to a full-time role at EPA, and any senator who supports him has made clear they are prioritizing polluter profits over the public," Michael Brune, the group's executive director, said in a statement.
If nominated for the top EPA job, Wheeler would likely have a much tougher confirmation hearing too. At his hearing for the deputy position, he appeared alongside Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump's failed nominee to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who attracted more scrutiny from senators.
Still, as long as Republicans keep the Senate after the upcoming midterm elections, Wheeler is expected to be confirmed. Things could get more complicated if Democrats win the Senate, although that looks unlikely.
"He's done a remarkable job of calming the waters at EPA," said Matt Dempsey, who worked with Wheeler on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"I think he's gotten strong praise from members of both sides of the aisle to date," Dempsey added. "Any time you've got a nominee up before the U.S. Senate at this current time, it's going to be contentious, of course."
Democrats will push back on a Trump EPA nominee.
"They're going to drag him, through, they've all got to take their shots at him for their favorite stuff," said Stephen Brown, an energy consultant at RBJ Strategies and a former House Democratic staffer. "I don't see anything fatal. I see a long day of hearings for the guy."
Even if Democrats take the Senate, "Could he get through that? Of all the guys that they would put in there, I don't know who else they would rather deal with than Andy," Brown said.
Under the Vacancies Act, Wheeler can serve as acting EPA chief for 210 days, which would end in February next year, although some exceptions could extend his service at the top of the agency. If Wheeler is nominated for the administrator job, he could not serve in the position on an acting basis.
Here are some of the issues Wheeler's critics are likely to push during a potential confirmation hearing:
Lobbying past
Wheeler's opponents focused on his work as a lobbyist for energy interests during his confirmation fight to be EPA's second in command. His lobbying record would again be mined if he were nominated for the top job.
Wheeler's lobbying on behalf of coal giant Murray Energy Corp. was a frequent point of attack, something the acting administrator joked about during his first address to EPA employees. The company's CEO, Bob Murray, is considered close to Trump and was a vocal critic of EPA under the Obama administration.
Wheeler has sought to distance himself from his lobbying while at EPA, but records shown he has met with former clients. EPA officials have said those meetings were in line with his ethics commitments, given his past work for those specific clients was more than two years ago or those meetings were in group settings (Greenwire, Sept. 12).
Racist meme
Wheeler's use of social media has come under fire since he took over as acting chief and could be fodder at a confirmation hearing.
He has engaged with questionable posts on Twitter and Facebook, including "liking" a racist anti-Obama meme in 2013.
Wheeler has said he doesn't remember liking the post and he finds it offensive. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee that would oversee a Wheeler nomination for the top EPA job, has called for his resignation over the incident (Greenwire, Oct. 11).
"If Andy is guilty of anything, he's always been rather prolific on social media," Brown said. "If anything, he should just take it down a couple of notches on social media while he's in the administration."
Ethanol problems
Pruitt ran into trouble with Republican lawmakers over biofuels, and those woes could burden Wheeler, as well.
Several farm-state Republicans sit on the EPW panel and last year held up the nomination of EPA air chief Bill Wehrum due to their concerns over Pruitt giving waivers to oil refiners from the renewable fuel standard. They became some of Pruitt's most prominent critics as his ethics problems mounted.
"Joni Ernst will have a real good shot at him on EPW on the E15 thing," Brown said. Ernst, an Iowa Republican, is a member of the EPW committee.
Wheeler said last week that he believes EPA can allow year-round sales of the 15 percent ethanol fuel, or E15, without congressional action. But that could put him in a bind with oil and gas companies.
"I hope that the oil industry will join us in helping to make the RFS program function better for the American public instead of taking it to court," Wheeler said (Greenwire, Oct. 19).
Kids' health
Wheeler also has faced a number of questions over EPA's actions on children's health during his tenure so far.
Ruth Etzel, the head of the agency's children's health office, was placed on administrative leave last month. EPA has said that was because of allegations related to her management, but she contends the Trump administration moved her out over disagreements over the Federal Lead Strategy that was due in June but has yet to be released.
EPA press officials have pushed back hard, saying children's health and combating lead remain top priorities for the agency. Nevertheless, Democratic lawmakers have questioned Wheeler over his commitment on the issue.
Pruitt's baggage
Allegations of Pruitt's heavy spending and mismanagement still linger at EPA and could get another airing at a possible Wheeler confirmation hearing.
The EPA inspector general is continuing to review Pruitt's actions at EPA, including his travel and use of special hiring authority at the agency. Those reports are expected to be released this fall.
Wheeler, however, could create a contrast with Pruitt, considering his running of the agency has taken a different tack. He has shunned a 24/7 security detail and has opened up events to the press, taking questions from reporters. Wheeler even reopened a door to the hallway leading to the administrator's office, which was noticed by career employees.
"I think given their complaints against Pruitt versus the complaints against Wheeler, it's night and day," Dempsey said.
"Given his work so far and the respect he's earned from the folks I've talked to, I think he's got strong support if that's the decision that Trump makes."
Reporter Ariel Wittenberg contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/24/stories/1060104229
-
(ACC Mentioned) European Parliament Calls for Single-Use Plastics Ban by 2021
Oct 24, 2018 | UPI
By Clyde Hughes
It is the last straw for single-use plastic items in Europe as European Parliament officials adopted a plan Wednesday to ban such items in participating countries by 2021.
The European Parliament said in a statement that plastic items like plates, cutlery, straws, cotton swabs, etc. make up more than 70 percent of the marine trash in oceans and other waterways. The parliament's new measure would also go after products made of oxo-degradable plastics, which include bags, packaging and fast food containers made from polystyrene.
"We have adopted the most ambitious legislation against single-use plastics," Frédérique Ries, a Belgian politician and European Parliament member who drafted the proposal, said in a statement. "It is up to us now to stay the course in the upcoming negotiations with the council, due to start as early as November.
"Today's vote paves the way to a forthcoming and ambitious directive. It is essential in order to protect the marine environment and reduce the costs of environmental damage attributed to plastic pollution in Europe, estimated at 22 billion euros by 2030," she added.
The parliament statement said member nations will create plans to reduce other single-use items not made of plastic by at least 25 percent by 2025, including sandwich boxes, as well as food containers for fruits, vegetables, desserts, and ice cream.
According to the Ocean Conservancy, 8 million metric tons of plastics enter the world's oceans each year and more than 150 million metric tons have already been deposited in the marine environment.
The organization says plastic can now be found in 60 percent of all seabirds and virtually all sea turtles because they mistake the plastic for food.
There has been opposition to such "ban plastics" movements, particularly in the United States. In July, the Hawaii Food Industry Association, the Hawaii Restaurant Association, the Retail Merchants Association and the American Chemistry Council, came together to fight a measure in the state to ban plastic straws.
"Recycling, source reduction, recovery, and conservation are all tools to help reduce litter/disposal," American Chemical Council senior director Tim Shestek told Pew's Stateline.org about that measure. "In this particular instance, we think an 'on demand' approach makes the most sense."Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for more UPI news and photos
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/10/24/European-Parliament-calls-for-single-use-plastics-ban-by-2021/5501540389478/
-
EU Lawmakers Vote to Ban Single-Use Plastics Across Europe
Oct 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
The European Parliament on Wednesday backed a wide-ranging proposal to ban the use of single-use plastics across the European Union.
The ban includes a full prohibition of plastic plates and utensils, cotton swabs, straws and drink stirrers and calls for reduced use of plastic cups and other similar food packaging products, according to the BBC.
The move is an effort to combat plastic pollution that threatens oceans and marine life. One member of the European Parliament who backed the ban said that "by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans" if the body did not act, according to the BBC.
The bill was introduced in May by Frédérique Ries, who called Wednesday's vote "a victory for our oceans, for the environment and for future generations."
The EU hopes the ban, which was approved 571-53, will go through the necessary procedural steps and take effect by 2021.
The ban targets pollution from cigarette filters, ordering manufacturers to reduce their plastic inclusion by 80 percent by 2030. And EU member states will be required to recycle 90 percent of plastic bottles by 2025.
Bans on plastic straws and other single-use plastic products have gained traction in the U.S. and other cities worldwide, as well as among individual companies.
Supporters have said the bans are an easy way for individuals to reduce their plastic use and cut down on pollution. But critics have cited studies showing that the majority of ocean pollution is due to fishing equipment and that bans on plastic straws could create obstacles for people with disabilities.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/412912-eu-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-single-use-plastics-across-europe
-
EU States Report Hazardous Chemicals Import/Export Infringements
Oct 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission has called efforts to implement the regulation on the import/export of hazardous chemicals with third countries a success. According to its just released report, there have only been a "low number" of infringements reported in the first three years of operation.
The first report on the prior informed consent (Pic) Regulation looks at the period 2014-2016 and says during that time 11 member states flagged a total of 66 infringements. About half of these related to non-conformity of the chemical with the export notification. Others were breaches of safety data sheets and labelling requirements, the report says.
The Pic Regulation, which implements the Rotterdam Convention in the EU, entered into force in 2014. It requires the Commission to publish its activities every three years, including information on enforcement provided by member states.
Infringements
Among the 11 countries customs checks led to the detection of infringements in Germany, France and Italy. In nine countries – including Germany – they were detected by specially trained inspectors, the report says. The remaining 17 EU countries did not find any breaches during the period.
Most of the infringements – 53 in total – were discovered by trained inspectors, it says.
The number of customs controls and the breaches found varied greatly among the member states. The highest number of controls in place was in the Netherlands, but this led to only two infringement cases. Germany found 21 infringements, followed by Belgium with ten.
Finland carried out the highest number of customs controls on exports – 3,633 during the period – but found no infringements through this route.
One reason for the variation might be that different types of controls were performed, the report says. For example 'reactive controls' in the UK meant a single control was performed that led to the detection of one infringement case.
In general, member states met their obligations, the report concludes, "although the high workload at the end of each year, caused by the large number of export notifications, presented a challenge for some".
Last month, the Commission said it was looking for feedback on its draft delegated Regulation amending Annexes I and V to set new export and import restrictions. The deadline for comments was 10 October.
The latest additions to the Pic list became effective in April, when four brominated flame retardants and three other substances were added to Part 1 of Annex V.
Obligations on exporters
The Pic legislation adopted in the EU goes beyond the requirements of the Rotterdam Convention, offering a higher protection to importing countries, in particular to developing economies.
The Regulation applies to chemicals subject to the Pic procedure under the convention and to industrial chemicals and pesticides that are banned or severely restricted by EU legislation.
Exporters have different obligations under Pic, according to the annex the chemical is listed in.
Chemicals in Part 1 of Annex I are subject to the export notification procedure, while chemicals listed in Part 2 of Annex I also qualify for the Pic notification procedure. Currently there are 196 chemicals in Part 1 and 95 in Part 2 of Annex I, according to Echa figures.
Annex V, which has 26 substances, lists chemicals subject to export ban. All of them are in Part 1 and are categorised as persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
The first report on Pic demonstrates that the procedures put in place "operated well and contributed to achieving its objectives", the Commission said. The export notification procedure "functioned well" with almost 8,000 notifications in 2016 and continuing an upward trend.
There were more than 3,300 requests for 'explicit consent procedure' that applies to chemicals in Part 2 and 3 of Annex I. These presented "a challenge" for many importing countries, the Commission said, "largely because the procedure is rarely used under the convention and many parties may not be aware of its existence."
This may have resulted in a high number of exports not being allowed to proceed due to unanswered requests for consent, it added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71236/eu-states-report-hazardous-chemicals-importexport-infringements
-
Business Guide to Safer Chemicals 2018: Keeping EDCs Out of the Store
Oct 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
This article was first published in the Business Guide to Safer Chemicals 2018. Download your free copy of the guide for more in-depth, practical case studies that examine how companies are addressing the various chemical safety challenges they face.
Denmark’s largest retailer, Coop Denmark, has committed to banning suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the products it sells, but the road to elimination has not always been easy. Malene Teller Blume, quality manager, says that suppliers do not always understand the store’s requirements, which go beyond compliance with EU chemical regulations.
Coop, which has 1,200 outlets throughout Denmark, is owned by its 1.7m members and has a strong focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR). This includes a progressive attitude to substituting hazardous chemicals in its products, according to Ms Teller Blume. To date, it has taken action on 12 substance groups that it calls the ‘dirty dozen’. These are:
· bisphenol A (BPA);
· fluorinated compounds;
· polluting washing detergents;
· pesticides;
· suspected EDCs;
· PVC and phthalates;
· chemicals in textiles;
· substances identified as SVHCs;
· allergenic scented substances and preservatives;
· triclosan;
· cleaning products with chlorine and cationic surfactants; and
· the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MI)
"We have more than 4,000 private labels in our shops, so that gives us the opportunity to set up chemical requirements that go beyond legislation," says Ms Teller Blume. As well as banning the substances in its own products, Coop also puts pressure on suppliers of branded products to phase them out.
‘Very high concern’
Suspected EDCs have been and still are "a very high concern for Coop", she adds. The company first eliminated all chemicals that were suspected EDCs from its own brand cosmetics and toys in 2004. "At that time there was no direct evidence that chemicals present in very small amounts in products could have potential issues with EDC effects," Ms Teller Blume says.
This was followed by bans on suspected EDCs: triclosan, bisphenols and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). When deciding on substitutions, the Coop works on a case-by-case basis, in cooperation with NGOs, authorities, ecolabels, universities and experts, including the Danish Consumer Council.
The retailer decided to ban all PFASs in the products it sells in 2014, a task which Ms Teller Blume calls "a very tough job". It decided to focus on PFASs, not only because they are suspected EDCs, but because of their carcinogenicity and their persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties.
Ms Teller Blume says she is shocked that PFASs are still used in everyday items like textiles and children’s products. "We think the cost to health and the environment is too high because we’re talking about very persistent chemicals which will stay out there forever and affect the environment and humans," she says.
PFASs were substituted in waterproof textiles, such as ski wear and rain jackets. Coop now sells items using an alternative called Bionis Finish. However, phasing out those used in convenience food wrapping turned out to be harder than anticipated. "When we adopted the ban in 2014, we didn’t know what a big problem we had, because we hadn’t had this as a requirement before. But we started to map our assortment and substitute one by one," says Ms Teller Blume.
Coop faced a particular difficulty in finding an alternative for PFASs in microwave popcorn bags. In the end, it was forced to withdraw the products from its shelves and throw away the stock. This decision was taken by a sales manager, after research was published that found the risk of miscarriage was 16 times higher in pregnant women who had PFASs in their blood. "He said he just couldn’t take responsibility for selling this products to families. We think it is fair not to sell these harmful chemicals in food," says Ms Teller Blume.
Action on bisphenols
Coop aims to phase out the use of bisphenols in its products by the end of the year. So far, they have been eliminated from 100 of 115 canned products containing them. The retailer is also working on phasing out thermal paper containing bisphenols in its till receipts. Currently BPA is the only bisphenol on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs. Both bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF) can still be used.
However, says Ms Teller Blume: "It’s not a good solution to ban just one chemical, because it’s easy to use a similar chemical which has more or less the same effects." Coop is moving towards using Tetra Pak branded can linings, which use paper and do not require bisphenol coatings.
Consumer pressure
Coop’s ‘dirty dozen’ list goes beyond regulatory requirements, because the store does not believe that current European legislation covers all the concerns of its members, according to Ms Teller Blume.
One of the reasons for this forward-thinking attitude towards chemicals, is that Danish consumers tend to be very aware of the issues. The country has very active NGOs and its authorities are "front runners for addressing chemicals", she says. In addition, there is an EDC research centre in Denmark.
"That is why Danish consumers are very concerned. They can read in the newspaper nearly every day that a small amount of chemicals may affect your health over the years, or the environment, or your children when you’re pregnant," she says.
Coop carried out a consumer survey into its CSR in 2016, which revealed that 70% of consumers wanted the store to address harmful chemicals in its products. "This is an area our consumers find it very difficult to navigate. You cannot read on the label if there are EDCs in your packaging," says Ms Teller Blume.
As well as working to eliminate suspected EDCs in its own stores, the retailer is campaigning for the Danish government to take action on their use. Last year, it started a campaign for a total ban on bisphenols and PFCs in food contact materials (FCMs), launching a video on social media to raise awareness of the issue among consumers and inviting them to sign a petition.
"We did this because these chemicals are very high risk and we need our political system to take care of them as soon as possible," she says.
How are companies in the chemicals industry addressing the complex and practical challenges of making safer chemicals?
The Business Guide to Safer Chemicals, now in its fourth year, brings together a series of in-depth, practical case studies that examine how companies are addressing the various chemical safety challenges they face.
In this year’s edition, we take a look at companies across a diverse range of sectors, including textiles, aerospace and defence, paints and coatings and organic pigments, among others.
If you’re a brand, material or component manufacturer, the guide will provide you with ideas and practical examples of how businesses are delivering all the good things that chemicals bring to modern life with fewer of the downsides.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71247/business-guide-to-safer-chemicals-2018-keeping-edcs-out-of-the-store
-
Monsanto Weedkiller Ruling Is 1st Step in Long Legal Battle
Oct 24, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Paul Elias
With its stock dropping and more lawsuits expected, Monsanto Co. vowed yesterday to press on with a nationwide legal defense of its best-selling weedkiller Roundup after a San Francisco judge upheld a verdict alleging it causes cancer.
Legal experts said the decision will have little value in courtrooms across the country where similar cases are pending, but it will likely lead to more lawsuits. Similar lawsuits doubled from 4,000 to 8,000 after a San Francisco jury awarded groundskeeper DeWayne Johnson $389 million in August.
Monsanto's lawyers said they will fight Johnson and every other lawsuit in the country alleging that the active ingredient in the world's most popular herbicide — glyphosate — causes cancer. Johnson's lawsuit was the first lawsuit to go to trial, and several more appear ready to start early next year.
Judge Suzanne Bolanos cut the jury's award for Johnson to $78 million on Monday but upheld its verdict against St. Louis-based Monsanto (Greenwire, Oct. 23).
She reduced punitive damages from $250 million to $39 million in a brief decision that stood in sharp contrast to an earlier tentative ruling saying she doubted Johnson should receive any such award.
Bolanos previously said Johnson's attorneys failed to show Monsanto executives acted with malice, which is required for punitive damages. She didn't explain her change of mind. Several jurors wrote to the judge asking her to respect their verdict, but legal experts said that should not have influenced the judge.
Monsanto's lawyer said it would appeal the decision if Johnson accepts the award rather than asking for a new trial. He has until Dec. 7 to decide.
Monsanto argues that numerous scientific studies and EPA have found glyphosate to be safe.
"Because of this, we will continue to vigorously defend our glyphosate-based products," company spokesman Daniel Childs said.
Johnson's attorney argued that the World Health Organization in 2015 concluded otherwise.
Legal experts say the San Francisco decision will have no immediate legal effect on the other lawsuits, especially since they predict months — if not years — of appeals.
A San Francisco trial court decision is also not binding in any other court. California appeals court decisions are binding in California courts but not on state court actions elsewhere.
"It's just one early piece in a large, legal puzzle," said University of California, Hastings law professor David Levine.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/24/stories/1060104185
-
Dozens More Breakfast Foods Test Positive for Trace Amounts of Weed Killer, Report Says
Oct 24, 2018 | CNN
By Arman Azad
Dozens of common breakfast cereals and snack bars have trace amounts of a controversial herbicide found in the weed killer Roundup, according to a report released today by an environmental advocacy group.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that 26 of the 28 products it tested had levels of Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, that were "higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children's health." An earlier report found similar results in over thirty oat-based foods.
Manufacturers say their products are safe, but the EWG report argues that the vast majority of foods tested -- such as Honey Nut Cheerios and Quaker Simply Granola Oats -- have glyphosate levels that might pose a cancer risk with long-term consumption.
None of the foods violated EPA limits on the herbicide, but the EWG uses a far more conservative health benchmark. California's proposed glyphosate limit, which would be the most restrictive in the country, still allows for glyphosate levels that are over a hundred times higher than the EWG's threshold.
The environmental group says its lower threshold includes an added buffer for children, as "exposure during early life can have more significant effects on development later in life," according to Dr. Alexis Temkin, the lead scientist on EWG report.
But manufacturers dispute that threshold. Quaker said in a statement that the "EWG report artificially creates a 'safe level' for glyphosate that is detached from those that have been established by responsible regulatory bodies in an effort to grab headlines."
General Mills, whose products were also cited in the report, maintained that glyphosate levels in its foods do not pose any health risks. "The extremely low levels of pesticide residue cited in recent news reports is a tiny fraction of the amount the government allows," the company said in statement to CNN.
"Consumers are regularly bombarded with alarming headlines, but rarely have the time to weigh the information for themselves," the company said. "We feel this is important context that consumers should be aware of when considering this topic."
Herbicide manufacturer ordered to pay $78 million to cancer victim
In August, a jury in San Francisco ordered Roundup's manufacturer, Monsanto, to pay $289 million in damages to a school groundskeeper who argued that the glyphosate-based weed killer caused his cancer. A judge on Monday upheld that decision but slashed Monsanto's payout to $78 million.
Pharmaceutical giant Bayer recently purchased Monsanto and said in a statement that the company plans to appeal the court's decision. "Glyphosate-based herbicides have been used safely and successfully for over four decades worldwide," the company said in a statement to CNN.
"There is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, including more than 800 rigorous registration studies required by EPA, European and other regulators, that confirms that these products are safe when used as directed."
The EPA concluded in 2017 that glyphosate "is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans," but a World Health Organization agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), determined in 2015 that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans."
Dr. Chensheng Lu, an associate professor of environmental exposure biology at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, defended the WHO group, calling it "a world renowned and reputable academic and research institute in cancer epidemiology."
The EPA, in contrast, "is a regulatory agency, and in many ways a political agency," he said. "In 2018, I would not hold EPA's view on glyphosate as a fact."
Confusion abounds over glyphosate cancer risk
The IARC has vigorously defended its finding, but a separate WHO panel assessing pesticide residues determined in 2016 that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet," adding to a dizzying array of contradictory findings.
Puzzling conclusions like those are not uncommon in cancer research, according to Dr. Otis W. Brawley, the American Cancer Society's chief medical and scientific officer.
"IARC, I think, is very, very reasonable in their assessments," he said, "but IARC will sometimes make an assessment that is not satisfying to many of us."
Brawley noted that the other commonly-consumed substances are also classified as potentially carcinogenic by the IARC. Based on limited evidence, for example, the IARC says that "drinking very hot beverages probably causes cancer of the esophagus in humans," yet hundreds of millions of people drink coffee every day.
"There are some groups that really want to alarm people and advocate for what's called the precautionary principle," Brawley said. "The precautionary principle, taken to its extreme, means you literally wouldn't get up in the morning."
Brawley said that parents should instead make sure their kids are eating fruits, vegetables, and getting the nutrition they need. More children "are definitely going to be harmed by inappropriate diets," he said, "than by a small amount of glyphosate in their oatmeal."
How much glyphosate is too much?
Glyphosate can make its way into processed foods after being used on farms that grow oats. "Most crops grown in fields use some form of pesticides and trace amounts are found in the majority of food we all eat," said General Mills in a statement.
"We continue to work closely with farmers, our suppliers and conservation organizations to minimize the use of pesticides on the ingredients we use in our foods," the company said.
Still, some experts are urging parents to be vigilant. "I think it's very important for people to realize how widespread exposure to glyphosate is," said Dr. Sarah Evans, an assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
"There are things in the foods that they purchase that aren't listed on the label and that they probably don't want to be giving to their children," said Evans, who also works at Mount Sinai's Children's Environmental Health Center.
"I don't think that people should become hysterical," she said, "but people need to be really aware of where their food is coming from and what's getting into their foods."
And when dealing with children, Harvard's Lu believes that parents should err on the side of caution. "What is more scary?" he asked. "Choosing cereals between organic and conventional, or being told by your doctor that you or your children have cancer?"
The EWG's earlier report found glyphosate in 5 of the 16 organic breakfast samples they tested, but none of those levels exceeded the group's health benchmark. Temkin, who was also lead author on that report, said that parents don't need to "throw out their half-eaten box of cheerios" just yet.
"We are talking about lifetime cumulative exposure," she said. "But if you do want to reduce your risk, we do know that organic oats and organic cereals are a better option."
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/24/health/breakfast-cereal-food-weed-killer-roundup/index.html
-
In Colorado, a Bitter Battle Over Oil, Gas and the Environment Comes to a Head
Oct 24, 2018 | New York Times
By Julie Turkewitz and Clifford Krauss
On stage at the Adams County fairgrounds, the M.C. wore cowgirl boots and a pink T-shirt that read “Mothers in Love With Fracking.”
In the audience, more than a thousand oil and gas workers looked on as local leaders issued dire warnings about the effects of a Colorado ballot measure that, if passed, could drastically reduce oil and gas drilling in the state.
Thousands of jobs: gone. Millions of dollars: lost. Conservative families: driven out.
“The wolves are at the front door,” insisted one speaker.
After years of bitter fights over oil and gas development, Colorado voters have managed to get a statewide anti-fracking measure on the November ballot. The initiative is unprecedented in its scope — potentially barring new wells on 95 percent of land in top-producing counties — and industry executives are watching with concern, fearful that it could encourage similar measures across the nation.
So far, only New York, Maryland and Vermont have banned fracking altogether. But none of those states have anything close to the reserves of Colorado, which is among the top six states in both oil and gas production.
Not surprisingly, the initiative has deepened political fissures in a purple state whose economy counts on oil, but whose lifestyle hinges on access to pristine wilderness. As Colorado’s population has climbed, driven by the cost of living, a growing technology sector and the appeal of the outdoors, the state’s new and old industries have collided. At the same time, environmentally-oriented companies like Patagonia are pressing to become bigger political players in the region, often putting them at odds with the oil and gas lobby.
If passed, the measure — Proposition 112 — would require companies to place new wells at least 2,500 feet from homes, schools, waterways and other areas designated as “vulnerable,” two-and-a-half to five times the current state regulation. Even as the measure faces fierce resistance, industry leaders and environmentalists alike acknowledge that it could succeed. One recent industry poll obtained by The New York Times showed 43 percent of voters in favor, with 41 percent opposed.
In recent years, Colorado oil and gas well operations have come so close to homes, schools and playgrounds that drill rigs, holding tanks, diesel trucks and floodlights are now common neiEfforts to pass less extreme restrictions have failed, and in some neighborhoods, frustration has reached a fever pitch.
ghborhood features. In places like Weld County, the center of the state’s boom, residents increasingly fear they are exposing their children to chemicals. A series of deadly industry incidents has only heightened concerns.
“It’s really community members against Goliath,” said Russell Mendell, 33, a volunteer with Colorado Rising, the main group supporting the measure.
Laurie Anderson, 45, a mechanical engineer and mother of five who has been fighting a large well project in her community, called the proposition “our only option.”
“It has to be a grass-roots, citizen-led effort,” she said.
In the last decade, fracking has become an increasingly important part of Colorado’s diverse economy, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
In a high-stakes election year, the proposition is likely to bring out voters on both sides of the political aisle, intensifying races for the governor’s office and several contested congressional seats.
Proponents of the measure say it is a common-sense regulation meant to protect people forced to breathe fracking-related fumes and live near explosion-prone sites. Opponents say it would cripple some Colorado communities, stripping the state of 43,000 jobs and more than $200 million in tax revenue in the first year alone. By 2030, lost tax revenue could hit $1.1 billion.
The real goal, they contend, is to halt drilling in Colorado altogether, before moving on to places like California and New Mexico.
“This is not a reasonable measure for health and safety,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group. “This is a measure to shut down the entire industry.”
At a time of deep political division, the measure has also emerged as a proxy battle over the direction of the state with national implications — putting to the test a tug of war between economic development and environmental protections that has reached critical levels of tension in the Trump era.
Colorado is split in thirds among Republicans, Democrats and independents, and many who support the measure say it is a chance to put a progressive stamp on a purple state.
Those who oppose it say it is a liberal effort to drive a working-class industry — and its conservative employees — out of the state for good. Industry jobs pay an average of $117,000 a year, twice the typical state salary, according to federal data.
At the Brighton rally just north of Denver, many said that they never went to college, but that industry jobs had allowed them to stay in Colorado, raise a family, and buy a home. If the measure passed, they said, they would likely move to oil fields in Texas or North Dakota.
“The people that oppose this industry, they treat us as if we’re really evil,” said Cody Doane, 45, a service specialist who stood with his twins, Everleigh Halli and Adler Burton — named for the company that had given their family everything: Halliburton.
“They want to ban oil and gas and chase us out of this state,” he said.
Big producers like Anadarko, Noble and Extraction are so concerned about the initiative that industry players have donated more than $30 million to the principal group organizing the opposition.
Supporters of the anti-fracking measure, who are being outspent roughly 40-1, according to the secretary of state, see a steep road ahead.
Their main organizing group has raised just $800,000. And their effort is opposed not only by oil and gas companies and Republican politicians, but also by much of the Democratic establishment, with officials like Gov. John Hickenlooper expressing deep concern about the economic fallout.
Colorado residents have argued for years over how to balance drilling with the protection of human and environmental health. But tension has hit a high in the last decade with the increased use of hydraulic fracturing.
Just as thousands of people moved here, the state’s crude production more than tripled. Today, the top-producing county, Weld, is home to 22,000 active wells.
In the Denver suburbs, residents have tried repeatedly to move fracking operations farther from their homes, only to be stymied by their own representatives, the State Supreme Court and a regulatory agency they see as preferential to industry.
Supporters of the setback measure believe this anger will carry them to victory.
In Erie, Colo., Beth Ewaskowitz, 48, a pharmacologist who lives near dozens of wells, became a symbol of the oil and gas fight this year when she sent her 6-year-old son’s blood to be tested for chemicals associated with fracking operations. A local doctor found her son in the 79th to 85th percentile for three of them — benzene, ethylbenzene and o-xylene — and her story was picked up by local news media.
“I understand it isn’t, ‘I have high blood levels, therefore the villain is fracking,’” Ms. Ewaskowitz said. “However, if it’s not the fracking, then what? What? And if you can’t tell, what am I supposed to do with that?”
The state’s top toxicologist cast doubt on the test’s validity, and said it showed no clear link to the industry.
But part of activists’ concern is that there is no conclusive information about what effect living near oil and gas operations has on long-term health. A 2017 state study found “no substantial or moderate evidence for any health effects.” But a year later, researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health concluded that the air quality around oil and gas wells puts people nearby at an increased risk of developing cancer.
But the oil and gas rally brought out plenty of workers who called Colorado’s fracking industry the safest in the nation.
At the front by the stage, Matt Smith, 42, stood with his children, Parker, Pepper, Peyton and Preston, ages 3 through 12. Parker slept in his arms, her ponytail drooped over one arm, her blue boots hanging over another.
The older children had missed school for this event.
“This affects their lives,” said Mr. Smith, a Halliburton employee. “What happens in November will in turn affect their lives. Whether I have a job or not, whether we get to stay, to keep living where all my children were born.”
He went on: “The sooner they are in touch with what goes on in the real world, the better.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/colorado-fracking-proposition-112.html
-
Judge's Order Could Remove 1m Acres from BLM Lease Sales
Oct 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management is pulling hundreds of thousands of acres of greater sage grouse habitat from several planned oil and gas lease sales in December as it works to comply with a federal judge's order temporarily blocking it from streamlining leasing in grouse habitat.
The latest example is in Montana, where BLM revealed yesterday in a formal lease sale document that it will pull 76 parcels covering 54,200 acres of designated sage grouse habitat from a planned December lease sale. BLM intends to offer the deferred parcels at a planned March lease sale, an agency spokesman in Montana said.
The move follows the agency's decision Friday to remove nearly 150,000 acres of sage grouse habitat from a planned December lease sale in Colorado (Greenwire, Oct. 22).
And it comes as BLM considers yanking an additional 578 parcels that are within, or partially within, 778,312 acres of designated grouse habitat from a planned December lease sales in Wyoming.
It could also remove parcels covering more than 300,000 acres in Utah and Nevada, sources said.
In total, 1 million acres or more could be removed from planned December lease sales in the five states.
BLM says it pulled the grouse habitat from the Montana lease sale — and, at least in part, in Colorado — to comply with a preliminary injunction issued last month by Chief Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush in Idaho, temporarily blocking the agency from implementing elements of a January instruction memorandum that, among other things, shortened public review and protest periods for proposed lease sale parcels.
Bush's preliminary injunction requires BLM to return to previous standards for public participation — such as 30-day public comment and protest periods that had been shortened — specifically when proposed lease sale parcels intersect with sage grouse planning areas or habitat management areas (Energywire, Sept. 24).
The preliminary injunction was sparked by a lawsuit from environmental groups challenging, in part, BLM's efforts to streamline oil and gas leasing (Greenwire, April 30).
Now it may remove hundreds of thousands of acres when formal lease sale notices are unveiled as expected this week in Wyoming, Utah and Nevada.
In addition to the 200,000 acres of grouse habitat removed from December lease sales in Colorado and Montana, if BLM pulls the 778,000 acres in Wyoming, the total acreage of grouse habitat yanked by the agency from December lease sales in the three states would be approaching 1 million acres.
Brad Purdy, a BLM spokesman in Wyoming, said the agency "is still determining the best way" to comply with the court order in the Cowboy State.
Purdy acknowledged that pulling the 578 parcels that have been identified as being inside, or at least partly within, designated priority or general grouse habitat management areas "is one of the options that is being considered."
But he added that a decision "has not been finalized at this point. Once we have a path forward we will be getting a press release out as soon as possible."
It's likely, sources say, that BLM will simply pull the parcels in Wyoming, as it did in Colorado and Montana, and then open them up next year for the full 30-day public comment and protest periods referenced in the court order.
"The ruling from the judge enables leasing in sage grouse habitat to go forward after additional time for public comments," Kathleen Sgamma, president of Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, said in an emailed statement to E&E News.
"However, bureaucracies don't turn on a dime, and the ruling threw some confusion into the process," she added. "BLM should have plenty of time to receive additional public comment and bring those deferred parcels back up for the first-quarter lease sales in 2019."
Smaller lease sales
But the subtraction of 200,000 acres in Montana and Colorado, and the possible removal of 778,000 acres in Wyoming, would appear to be a major disruption of the Trump administration's efforts to increase oil and gas development on federal lands — even if the injunction is eventually lifted and BLM prevails in court.
"We are very glad that BLM has removed greater sage grouse habitat from the December Montana-North Dakota lease sale," said Kelly Fuller, energy and mining campaign director for the Western Watersheds Project.
"Oil and gas drilling and fracking harms sage grouse and other wildlife like mule deer," she added. "Removing sage grouse habitat from the December lease sale will help grouse and other wildlife get through the hardest part of this coming winter safely."
The formal notice on the planned December lease sale in Colorado is also expected Friday. But BLM already announced last week that the 142 parcels of grouse habitat were being pulled in response to the court ruling, as well as pressure from Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), who feared developing the grouse habitat would be bad for the bird.
The planned lease sale is still on track to take place and will involve 81 parcels covering 82,863 acres, mostly in northwest Colorado, according to BLM.
Likewise, the Montana sale, although greatly reduced in size, is still scheduled and will feature 23 parcels covering 12,500 acres.
BLM originally considered 101 parcels, and a portion of one other parcel, covering 69,270 acres.
In the unsigned "finding of no significant impact" for the Montana lease parcels, BLM says it developed a new alternative removing the grouse habitat from the lease sale "in response to public comment and a recent Order and Preliminary Injunction" issued by Bush last month.
It's not clear how many acres of sage grouse habitat are included in the planned December lease sales in Nevada and Utah.
The total acreage of federal lands being evaluated in both planned lease sales is large.
The total acreage under evaluation in the planned Nevada sale is 426,000 acres; the total acreage being considered in Utah is 329,000 acres, according to BLM.
The Center for Biological Diversity, using BLM data, estimates that the Nevada parcels include 272,000 acres of designated grouse habitat, and 86,000 in Utah.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/24/stories/1060104215
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Disputes EPA Air Study on Chemical Risk
Oct 22, 2018 | St. Charles Herald Guide
By Anna Thibodeaux
Although a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report identifies Dow and Union Carbide as major producers of the carcinogen ethylene oxide in St. Charles Parish, the company disputes its findings.
“Dow will continue to work with our partners and the American Chemistry Council to offer scientific data to support a correction of the EPA’s assessment,” said Dow spokeswoman Ashley Mendoza. “We believe this is the right thing for consumers and for public health in general.”
The findings are based on EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), released in 2016 while based on latest available results dated 2014, stating the chemical exposure puts residents at greater risk of lymphoid or breast cancers.
Dow Chemical and Union Carbide, which Dow has owned since 2001, were listed among 10 companies in the “chemical corridor” operating in the River Parishes as ranking among the highest producers of ethylene oxide in this area, as well as the world.
The companies, which merged into a 2,000-acre complex in Hahnville renamed St. Charles Operations, has made the chemical since the late 1960s. It’s a component of antifreeze and polyester, as well as is used to sterilize medical equipment.
Despite the EPA maintaining a cancer threat with longtime air exposure, Dow maintains it’s compliant with EPA regulations.
According to Johnny Chavez, Dow’s St. Charles Operations site leader, Dow, along with its subsidiaries and partners, is one of the largest producers of ethylene oxide (EO).
“We have over 70 years experience with the product,” Chavez said. “Dow is compliant with the current EPA regulations, and we continue to improve our EO emission reduction as part of our own internal sustainability goals.”
Chavez said Dow is committed to properly handling, using and storing the chemical.
“We are always striving to improve performance, and we continue to do so,” he said. “While we are certainly working with our industry partners and all appropriate agencies and associations on the latest information set forth by the EPA, we would be continually assessing our own performance and striving to improve regardless.”
Mendoza added, “As the site has grown over time, our EO emissions have increased. We are by far the largest producer in the area. While they remain below the current EPA threshold, we are proactively investing in the site to significantly reduce emissions. This project was in the works long before the EPA report – not a reactionary measure.”
Additionally, she further maintains the EPA’s 2014 NATA update is incorrect on EO.
“The published assessment utilizes a significantly flawed risk value for EO,” Mendoza said. “In fact, the EO risk value is far below levels found in nature – 19,000 times lower than the normal, naturally-created levels of EO in the human body.”
The American Chemistry Council has filed a petition under the Information Quality Act seeking a correction to EO risk information in the NATA, she said. The petition outlines numerous problems with the methodology and substance of the EO IRIS risk value and presents reliable scientific evidence in support of correction. The ACC offers as an alternative a range of risk values that is both scientifically sound and protective of public health for use in the NATA and any EPA regulatory actions.
https://www.heraldguide.com/news/dow-disputes-epa-air-study-on-chemical-risk/
-
First Responders’ Hazmat Training Is Critical
Oct 24, 2018 | The Herald-News
By William E. Offerman
From house fires to spills, Chicago’s first responders need to be ready for anything. Accidents involving the release of hazardous materials are rare, but for the first responders who put their lives on the line every day to protect their communities, the right training ahead of time can make a big difference.
Because of limited resources and tightening budgets, many cities are faced with tough decisions when it comes to picking the right training. Thankfully, that decision was made easier for first responders in the Chicago area when it comes to getting the training they need to prepare for incidents involving hazardous materials. That’s because a national training tour recently came through town to provide local first responders with hands-on safety training to help them mitigate and stop a hazmat incident. A first responder needs to know what is in a railcar or tanker truck involved in a crash and how to contain the damage to minimize any effect to the surrounding community. That’s where the Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response training program can help.
This program has been providing important training and potentially life-saving information to first responders, emergency management teams and communities across the country since 1986. Nothing is more effective than hands-on training and knowledge sharing, which TRANSCAER provides by tapping the knowledge of experts in the chemical and transportation industries. Through this invaluable program and others like it, more than three million emergency responders have learned how to help prevent, plan for and respond to a hazmat accident. The training gave our local first responders the knowledge to contain hazmat incidents from large to small, including accidents with large shipments involving rail tank cars and smaller shipments of individual cylinders on trucks.
Thanks to the cooperation of many industries involved in moving hazardous materials – including railroads, chemical producers and distributors, trade associations and those of us first responders who likely will be the first to assess an accident – this training program is free. Although the training is best taught in person, for those that can’t attend, free accident response training videos are available online for anhydrous ammonia, chlorine and ethanol.
This type of training will go a long way in helping make sure Chicago’s first responders and the communities they serve are prepared in the rare event that something goes wrong.
https://www.theherald-news.com/2018/10/04/first-responders-hazmat-training-is-critical/a86u0bp/
-
Incoming Railroad Regulators Should Protect Consumer Benefits
Oct 24, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Liam Sigaud
President Trump’s three nominees to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) – whose nominations have been in limbo for months – may soon be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. If confirmed, these nominees will be responsible for overseeing the nation’s railroads, an industry that supports about 1.5 million jobs and generates nearly $274 billion in annual economic activity.
They’ll have their work cut out for them. A new report by the organization I work for, the American Consumer Institute, details how a proposal by the STB threatens to harm the rail industry and erode billions of dollars in consumer benefits.
The STB’s plan – known as “forced access” or “forced reciprocal switching” – would make it easier for regulators to require freight railroads to open their lines to competitors, regulate prices, and give preferential treatment to certain shippers. In effect, forced access compels railroad operators to subsidize would-be rivals and shippers through below-cost wholesale rates regardless of expected costs, revenues, and cash flows.
The rule changes contemplated by the STB would make forecasting revenues and costs more challenging for rail operators. Additional uncertainty would chill critical investment, leading to a decrease in economic output and service quality. Safety would suffer, too, as infrastructural improvements are delayed or abandoned.
In pushing for looser “forced access” rules, the STB is ignoring the lessons of history.
For much of the 20th century, federal regulators tightly controlled rail routes, use of investment, and prices. By the 1970s, several major carriers were on the verge of bankruptcy, and Congress faced the prospect of costly bailouts or a federal takeover of the U.S. rail system. Lawmakers acted boldly, repealing onerous regulations and allowing market forces to re-energize the industry.
In the 40 years since, industry productivity has more than doubled, investment has surged, and inflation-adjusted rail rates have decreased by 45 percent. Economists estimate that consumers reap about $10 billion in annual benefits from these reforms.
Some access rules were originally adopted in 1985 in order to prevent isolated anticompetitive behavior by rail operators. In practice, voluntary arrangements between rail operators have deterred anti-competitive actions and few complaints have been filed with regulators – none of which were found to justify forced access.
Despite the lack of evidence that regulators need greater authority to invoke forced access, the STB – at the urging of a lobbying group, the National Industrial Transportation League – released an order in 2016 making it significantly easier for forced access to be mandated. Amazingly, the STB cited the lack of forced access by regulators as an indication of a problem, even though that fact suggests the absence of a problem.
There is no reason to think that a market failure exists in the railroad industry that merits regulatory intervention. Competition in the industry is significant. In addition to competing with one another, rail operators face intermodal competitors as well, including trucks, pipelines and ships. As a result, rail rates are low and prices have increased at a slower pace than for other forms of transportation.
An independent report commissioned by the STB came to the same conclusions. Analysts found that rail operators do “not appear to be earning above normal profit” and warned that plans to force competition would likely “threaten railroad financial viability.” If that comes to pass, the $10 billion in annual consumer benefits resulting from decades-old regulatory reforms will vanish.Forced access is costly and unnecessary.
If confirmed by the Senate in the next few weeks, the incoming members of the STB should recognize the lessons of history and oppose any effort to expand the use of forced access in the railroad industry.
Liam Sigaud works on economic policy and research for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit educational and research organization.
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/412692-incoming-railroad-regulators-should-protect-consumer-benefits
-
New ACI Study Calls on STB to Reject Burdensome Freight Rail Regulations
Oct 24, 2018 | American Journal of Transportation
The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (ACI) released today its latest report, which calls on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) – the economic regulator for freight railroads – to reject a proposed regulation that would have negative consequences for the nation’s freight railroads and American consumers.
The measure under consideration by the STB – which awaits Senate confirmation for three nominees – is known as “forced switching” or “forced access.” As the report notes, the measure would mandate that railroad operators allow traffic from competing railroads onto their privately owned and maintained rails at a rate dictated by the STB. ACI argues that this would limit negotiation between the parties and potentially set prices at an artificially low rate, forcing railroads to take significant losses and affecting their ability to reinvest in their private rail network.
“From our analysis, the proposed STB regulations fall well outside mainstream economy theory and fall well short of demonstrating benefits to consumers,” the report found. “Without economic evidence and based solely on complaints from lobbyists, the STB would be ill-advised to impose far reaching remedies, such as regulations that would expedite the use of forced access policies.”
The regulatory proposal, along with continued analysis by the STB on a current constraint known as “revenue adequacy,” come despite the successful efforts by Congress to partially deregulate the nation’s freight railroads in 1980, following decades of burdensome regulations from the now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Those regulations nearly required the government to pay for costly bailouts for the U.S. railroad system. By relinquishing greater control to the private market and allowing railroads to compete for business, Congress’ reforms decreased both railroads’ operating costs and the price of consumer goods.
Partial deregulation of freight rail also further resulted in industry productivity and business volumes doubling along with a significantly reduction in rail rates. This has led to an estimated $10 billion in annual consumer economic benefits.
The report found that railroads invest almost $25 billion each year in U.S. infrastructure, but ambiguity and unnecessary regulation risk future cash flows and cause rail operators to raise capital costs. Thus, consumers will pay more for less.
https://www.ajot.com/news/new-aci-study-calls-on-stb-to-reject-burdensome-freight-rail-regulations
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Air Pollution Adviser: Clean Air Saves No Lives
Oct 24, 2018 | Reveal
By Jason Plautz
Last spring, air pollution researchers from around the world gathered to discuss their latest findings. Among them were scientists who led landmark studies linking smog and soot to deadly health problems.
So it was shocking when one speaker essentially told everyone in the room that they were wrong.
In his half-hour presentation, Tony Cox, a risk analyst from Denver, claimed that researchers are overstating the dangers of air pollution. He explained how his own statistical modeling of health data found no connection between dirty air and respiratory problems or heart attacks.
Scientists and others at the Health Effects Institute annual conference were appalled. Some added to their speeches what they had thought was obvious: Yes, air pollution really is dangerous.
Cox might have been just shrugged off as a provocateur, a denier of established science. But he leads the Trump administration’s panel of scientists that offers advice on how to protect the health of about 126 million Americans who live in smoggy and sooty places.
In that role, he’s in a prime position to spread his skepticism of the science of air pollution: The Environmental Protection Agency is poisedthis year to review its health standards for fine particles known as PM2.5 and ozone, the main component of smog.
These decisions, scientists say, literally could mean life and death for people in cities across the United States.
The EPA’s seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which has been completely remade under President Donald Trump, is responsible for reviewing the science and advising the EPA on what level of pollution is unhealthy. Cox was appointed a year ago, and earlier this month, all remaining holdovers from the Obama administration were replaced with new appointees, including two who also downplay the threats of breathing polluted air.
Powerful industries – such as power companies, vehicle manufacturers and oil companies – oppose tighter health standards because they would force states to adopt costly rules that cut emissions.
According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Cox was nominated for the science board’s top position by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has sued the EPA multiple times in an effort to loosen air pollution standards. The nomination came from Dan Byers of the chamber’s Global Energy Institute, who leads “efforts to promote and maintain coal’s vital role in America’s energy system.”
Cox has made his living challenging established science on behalf of industry. He has worked as a consultant for more than a dozen companies or industry groups that lobby against clean air or worker safety rules and are major sources of pollution, according to his website. He consulted for the American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas companies, and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, which represents makers of diesel and gasoline engines. He also consulted for the mining industry and tobacco giant Philip Morris.
“Industries hire Cox to sow doubt about the scientific evidence, to make the case that agencies don’t have any proof,” said Celeste Monforton, a worker safety advocate who worked at the Department of Labor in the 1990s. “Already, there’s some reticence around regulation. If you can introduce more doubt, it can be very effective.”
In an interview, Cox said there is no proof that cleaning air saves lives. He also has written that there’s no link between fine particle pollution and human health and that the health benefits from reducing ozone are “exaggerated.”
“Folks talk a good game and maybe fool themselves and others for a decade or so with feel-good projections and estimates, while all the time, the public gets zero actual measurable health benefits in terms of reduced death rates caused by the intervention,” Cox said.
Numerous scientific studies around the world have reported the same results for two decades: Fine particles and ozone raise the risk of people dying from asthma, heart attacks, pneumonia and other serious lung and heart ailments, and cleaning the air reduces deaths and hospitalizations.
Cox is “clearly outside the mainstream,” said Chris Zarba, who led the EPA staff overseeing the science boards for six years until he retired in February. “He is not someone I would have picked. You want some diversity (on the board), you want some outsiders, but only up to a point.”
Air pollution experts also have raised concerns about the expertise of the rest of the panel, with only one member with a medical or health background. None is an epidemiologist, the primary discipline that investigates human health effects of pollution. Five of the seven are engineers or toxicologists.
George Thurston, who served on a subcommittee of the clean air board under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, is worried that the changes under Trump will skew the panel’s nonpartisan science advisory work.
“Special interests get ahold of it and misrepresent the results,” said Thurston, who directs a program studying human health effects of air pollution at New York University’s School of Medicine. “And all the time, you’re delaying the public health benefits of regulation. That’s the goal.”
No medical or health training
Cox’s background as a statistician – with degrees in risk analysis, mathematical economics and operations research – makes him an unconventional fit compared with the doctors and scientists who traditionally have led the air pollution panel. His focus is risk analysis, a mathematical field designed to bring order to uncertain situations in which data is scarce or messy. He has no medical or health training.
Cox is the editor-in-chief of Risk Analysis: An International Journal and was inducted into the National Academy of Engineering for “applications of operations research and risk analysis to significant national problems.” He designed a toolkit for analyzing cause and effect that he described as a “totally dispassionate and honest mechanical” means of clearing away statistical noise.
Cox relies on a strategy that’s commonly applied by major corporations seeking to limit regulation: He plays on the uncertainty inherent in all scientific analyses.
Take particulate matter, tiny pieces of soot a fraction of the diameter of a human hair, which come from burning fuel in smokestacks and vehicles. The particles can lodge in the lungs and enter the bloodstream, inflaming lung diseases such as asthma and raising the risk of a heart attack.
Long-term studies of multiple cities by Harvard University, the University of Southern California and other schools have linked reduced particulate levels to improved lung development and respiratory health in children and more deaths from heart attacks and lung diseases on days when fine particles increase.
But when Cox applies his statistical model to the same data, he reaches a different conclusion. That’s because he is searching for factors other than pollution that may drive deaths. For instance, when he analyzed data on 100 cities, he reported “no evidence that reductions in PM2.5 concentrations cause reductions in mortality rates.” Instead, his analysisconcluded that it was temperature driving deaths. (Colder air can trap particles close to the ground, so the two factors often come together.) In other analyses, Cox pointed to income as a bigger factor than pollution.
Most of the evidence of health benefits “when looked at carefully turns out to consist of a mix of bad statistics, wishful thinking and irresponsible claims,” Cox said.
Epidemiologists say there’s a role for causal analysis like Cox’s. But they say it can’t replace the large studies that show what happens to people’s health when real-world pollutant levels rise and fall, combined with controlled experiments exposing people and animals. Cause and effect is extremely difficult to prove in public health; instead, scientists search for repeated associations between sickness and pollution levels.
For instance, when a Utah steel mill that was releasing soot into the air shut down for 13 months, the number of children admitted to hospitals for asthma attacks and bronchitis dropped, according to one study. Once the mill reopened and the emissions returned, admissions nearly doubled.
The researchers couldn’t declare without a doubt that closing the mill improved children’s health. But C. Arden Pope, a Brigham Young University professor and the study’s author, said the evidence leaves no other conclusion. He said no one has found a “magical confounder” that could explain why twice as many children are hospitalized with asthma attacks when the steel mill operates.
“A lot of what (Cox) says is manufactured uncertainty,” said Gretchen Goldman, research director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If there’s a science-based rule, opponents will try to emphasize the uncertainty in the science to obscure its benefits.”
Industry ties on science boards
The air pollution board isn’t the only one the Trump administration has overhauled. Cox’s appointment came after then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt booted scientists from all advisory panels if they had received EPA research grants. That means most academics no longer qualify, while people with ties to polluting industries swamp the panels.
An investigation by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting found that 16 of the Trump administration’s 18 replacements for the EPA’s larger, broader Science Advisory Board last year had industry ties. The board’s new chairman, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality toxicology director Michael Honeycutt, has cast doubt on the effectiveness of EPA clean air rules. Another member, Robert Phalen, once said modern air is “a little too clean for optimum health.”
Cox’s work for industry often has disputed science supporting regulations. In 2014, Cox spoke at a public hearing on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical companies, arguing against a proposed federal rule tightening limits on worker exposure to silica dust. He called the government’s assessment, which linked low levels to lung disease, “not ready for prime time.”
His testimony prompted a fiery retort from a nationally known scientist: Robert Park of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Healthtold the hearing audience that it was “ludicrous” for Cox to question “100 years of research” showing silica’s health effects.
“We aren’t stupid,” Park told him.
For diesel engine manufacturers, Cox criticized science that links diesel exhaust to lung cancer. Diesels are a major source of the fine particles that his panel will review.
A 2012 study by Cox, partially funded by Philip Morris, found that smoking 10 or fewer cigarettes per day didn’t raise the risk of heart disease. According to his website, he also consulted for the tobacco company multiple times between 2004 and 2009, including questioning whether smoking causes lung cancer and other lung diseases.
The National Mining Association retained him in 2011 to testify against a rule that would limit miners’ exposure to coal dust to combat black lung disease. In addition, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association funded a 2013 paper he wrote questioning the links between cancers and proximity to California rock mines.
Industry representatives often have served on EPA panels. George Wolff, a scientist for General Motors, led the clean air panel for three years in the 1990s. But under previous administrations, they were in the minority, outweighed by voices from academia.
EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler earlier this month disbanded a large subcommittee of scientists that reviewed health effects of particulates and scrapped plans to create one for ozone. That means the EPA will rely on the seven panelists rather than two dozen or more specialized experts when it decides whether to loosen or tighten air standards.
“You can’t say you are serious about the views of the scientific community and then limit the expertise at the table,” said John Bachmann, a former EPA director for science policy on air quality under the George W. Bush administration. “It is a travesty.”
One new air pollution board member is Timothy Lewis, an aquatic ecology engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers whose work focuses on controlling invasive species in waterways. He has no apparent expertise in human effects of air pollution.
Another new member is Sabine Lange, a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality toxicologist who has publicly questioned theimpact of ozone pollution on health and collaborated with Honeycutt on astudy criticizing the EPA’s benefits analysis for the standard.
Joining them is Steven Packham, a Utah Division of Air Quality toxicologist. Even though Salt Lake City has some of the nation’s worst particulate pollution, Packham said in 2016, “We don’t have enough data to say PM2.5 is causing the health effects that we’re attributing to it.”
The sole medical voice on the panel is Dr. Mark Frampton, a pulmonologist with the University of Rochester Medical Center who has studied the health effects of air pollutants, including leading the largest systematic study exposing patients to ozone. In a 2011 editorial in a medical journal, Frampton said that as health effects emerge at lower levels of ozone, the economic costs could become untenable, so “we need to consider new regulatory approaches in achieving the cleanest air possible and minimizing harm.”
Stakes are high in many cities
There’s a lot at stake for the public: More than 124 million people in 201 U.S. counties live in places where the air is considered unhealthy for ozone, and more than 23 million people breathe air with unhealthful levels of fine particles. Included are the Los Angeles region, Houston, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Sacramento, California. The elderly, children and people with cardiovascular or lung diseases are most at risk.
The clean air panel is the scientific filter for EPA policymakers who set the health standards. First, the panelists review a massive collection of studies assembled by EPA staff to say where the science is strongest and where uncertainty exists. That’s followed by an assessment of what the potential health effects are at various pollution levels.
Finally, the panel produces a recommendation for a safe air quality level. The federal Clean Air Act mandates that the standards be bounded strictly by science, not costs. The EPA does not have to adopt the recommendation, but a definitive scientific review from the panel is hard for the agency to ignore.
“Cox is someone who can go out and put in all kinds of weasel words,” said Bachmann, the former EPA official. “He can weaken all the evidence we have.”
Cox said he isn’t trying to stop the EPA from reducing pollution, but wants to offer “a more accurate and nuanced understanding of what we can control.” He said he hopes he can “help clarify and communicate clearly and precisely about what is known and what remains uncertain.”
But the new makeup of the science panel comes with other changes to the EPA’s review process for clean air standards. Pruitt in May outlined a streamlined review – removing some opportunities to challenge faulty assumptions – and asked the science panel for the first time to advise the EPA on adverse “social, economic or energy effects” of attaining standards.
Zarba, the former EPA official, worries that those changes could give air pollution skeptics such as Cox more power to bake in their conclusions from the start.
“If you cherry-pick the science a certain way,” Zarba said, “you can get whatever answer you want.”
https://www.revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-clean-air-saves-no-lives/
-
New York Sues Exxon Mobil, Saying It Deceived Shareholders on Climate Change
Oct 24, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil on Wednesday that claims the company defrauded shareholders by downplaying the expected risk of climate change to its business.
The litigation, which follows more than three years of investigation, poses a financial risk to Exxon, as well as a potential reputational blow to a company that has worked to build an image of being concerned about climate change. It could also expose the company to other litigation.
The suit does not charge Exxon with playing a role in creating climate change, though the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to human-driven global warming. Rather, it says the company engaged in a “longstanding fraudulent scheme” to deceive investors, analysts and underwriters “concerning the company’s management of the risks posed to its business by climate change regulation.”
Exxon told the world that it was prepared for the more stringent regulations that would inevitably be required to combat climate change, the attorney general’s office said. But in reality, according to the complaint, the company “employed internal practices that were inconsistent with its representations, were undisclosed to investors, and exposed the company to greater risk from climate change regulation than investors were led to believe.”
The investigation has spanned the tenures of two New York attorneys general and has also involved attorneys general from other states. Exxon has attempted to block the investigation in courts in three states, and has painted it as an attempt by bullies to restrict the company’s First Amendment rights and as part of an anti-fossil-fuel conspiracy backed by, among others, the Rockefeller family.
Exxon Mobil did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The investigation first came to light in November 2015, about a year after it was begun by former Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. Before long, other state attorneys general announced their support for Mr. Schneiderman’s efforts; some, notably Maura Healey of Massachusetts, started investigations of their own.
Barbara D. Underwood, the current New York attorney general, brought the lawsuit under the Martin Act, a state law that gives her sweeping powers to investigate and prosecute securities fraud. The suit demands that Exxon turn over all the money it made through the alleged fraud and make restitution to investors. The suit does not name a sum to be paid, but if the case is successful, the amounts could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more.
Exxon Mobil has long conducted research into climate change, much of it published in the scientific literature. In 2015, Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times reported that the company was well aware of the risks of climate change and used that research in its long-term planning for activities like drilling in the Arctic, even as it funded groups from the 1990s to the mid-2000s that denied serious climate risks.
Exxon Mobil stopped funding groups that directly challenged the science of climate change in the mid-2000s, and says today that it accepts the science of climate change and the need for action to blunt its worst effects. The company supported the Paris climate deal and opposed the decision by President Trump to withdraw from the agreement.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Clifford Krauss contributed reporting from Houston.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/climate/exxon-lawsuit-climate-change.html
-
EPA, Drilling Firm Fault EAB Petition Testing UIC Permit Equity Reviews
Oct 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA and a Michigan oil drilling firm are urging the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to reject a case that tests how permit writers consider environmental justice (EJ) concerns and drinking water impacts when they set limits on underground injections of drilling wastewater, claiming the petition merely restates public comments on the permit.
Both the agency and the permit-holder in the EAB case In re: Muskegon Development Company filed briefs last week opposing review of the firm's Safe Drinking Water Act underground injection control (UIC) permit, where they called on the appeals board to deny the petition.
“The Board has consistently denied review of petitions that merely cite, attach, incorporate, or reiterate comments previously submitted on the draft permit,” EPA says in its Oct. 18 filing.
The petition under review was filed by Emerson Joseph Addison III, a resident of the area close to Muskegon's planned well near Clare County, MI. He says EPA failed to consider the impacts of the well on vulnerable populations, especially poor residents, and says its response to public comments on potential harms to drinking water quality from a new injection well was inadequate.
If EAB or a federal appeals court agree with those claims, it would set a new standard for regulators to consider both EJ and drinking water effects more generally when they craft and approve UIC permits. But EPA and Muskegon say in their new briefs that Addison has failed to point to any permit limit or provision that is allegedly inadequate.
“As an initial matter, not one of the issues raised by the Petitioner identifies, references, or lists a specific permit condition. Rather, Petitioner has taken exception to the EPA's responses to comments proffered during the public comment period,” Muskegon says in its Oct. 19 brief.
Moreover, EPA says in its response that it addressed commenters' concerns about EJ and drinking water quality, and the petition fails to grapple with those counterarguments.
“[T]he Region's response to comment indicates that the Region specifically considered low-income population analysis in its EJ screening, and the Petition fails to cite to such response, let alone de
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-drilling-firm-fault-eab-petition-testing-uic-permit-equity-reviews-0
-
Court Freezes Litigation over EPA Cement Regs
Oct 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal court has frozen proceedings in litigation over updated EPA air toxics regulations for portland cement plants.
The lawsuit was brought last month by Downwinders at Risk, a Texas-based environmental group, and the Sierra Club after EPA published the new rule in July. Around the same time, the two groups also petitioned the agency to administratively reconsider the rule.
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to put the litigation on hold to give EPA time to consider that petition.
If EPA grants the administrative reconsideration request, that "may obviate the need for the court's further involvement," the two sides said last week in jointly seeking the freeze.
Under the court's unsigned order, EPA must file a status report by Feb. 19, 2019.
Portland cement is the main ingredient in concrete. The update to the original 1999 regulations limiting emissions of mercury, acid gases and other hazardous pollutants at about 95 cement plants followed a statutorily required review. The updated rule left the actual emission standards unchanged but tweaked other provisions to improve monitoring and compliance, according to EPA (Greenwire, July 30).
As the agency was working up the updated regulations, however, environmental groups had argued that tighter emissions limits were warranted to incorporate advances in pollution control technology. Also Monday, the states of California and Illinois waded into the case.
In an unopposed intervention motion, the two states said that EPA has weakened pollution control requirements by introducing "a six-month grace period" for cement kilns to show compliance with the air toxics standards when restarting after a shutdown.
Similarly seeking to intervene is the Portland Cement Association (PCA), an Illinois-based trade group. The "more stringent requirements" sought by the environmental groups "would have a direct economic impact on PCA's members," the association's lawyers wrote in their motion.
EPA isn't opposed to the group's intervention, the motion said, while the Sierra Club and Downwinders at Risk wanted to first review the request before taking a position.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/24/stories/1060104213
-
Why Conservatives Keep Gaslighting the Nation About Climate Change
Oct 24, 2018 | Vox (In Real Clear Energy)
By David Roberts
In recent years, leaders of the Republican Party have become aware that denying the existence of global warming makes them look like idiots. Changes in climate have become obvious, not just to scientists, but to ordinary people — they can be directly measured, with such exotic instruments as a “thermometer.” Majorities of every group except the most conservative Republicans (who will trust their media over their lying eyes) believe it is happening.
Denying visible, tangible reality is a dicey business, even for the modern US right. It makes the party look like a death cult. So Republican climate-communication strategy has undergone something of an adjustment.
Not a large adjustment, mind you. The GOP remains dead set against doing anything about climate change, against any policy that would threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies. That is the non-negotiable baseline, despite a few fringe figures who signal otherwise (until the time comes for votes).
But front-line, hardcore denialism of the “it’s a hoax” variety has largely receded to the base. Republican leaders and spokespeople have moved back to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.
Professional double-talker Marco Rubio, senator from the climate-battered state of Florida, ran a version of this on CNN’s Jake Tapper show about a week ago.
As you can see, most put the human contribution at or above 100 percent. Natural forcings are small and possibly negative, i.e., cooling.
So: Yes, humans are causing global warming and the only thing that can slow it is a rapid reduction in human greenhouse gas emissions. That is a fact, at least insofar as anything counts as a fact in these ridiculous post-truth times. There is simply no other plausible story.None of it is in good faith
Having just made that basic argument for the 12 billionth time in my career, let me follow up by pointing out that making that argument is almost certainly futile. There is no interlocutor on the other side interested in arguments of facts. There’s no one to talk to.
To see the true nature of right-wing climate denialism, it’s better to look past people like Rubio, who have trained their whole lives to pass as moderate on Sunday talk shows. Instead, the real truth of right-wing tribalism works on climate change is embodied by none other than President Donald Trump.
Consider Trump’s responses to the questioning of Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes on the subject of climate change. Historians will marvel over this document:
There’s no argument here. Trump does not make arguments. There are just ... phrases, unconnected to the phrases that precede and follow them. It’s just bits of rhetoric Trump has heard — his impression of what his people say about these things — jumbled up in his brain.
Note that someone clearly told him before the interview that the “hoax” thing is a trap and he should not outright deny climate change. You can tell, because he just blurts it out: “I don’t think it’s a hoax.” And then, “I’m not denying climate change.”
But if you rewind or fast forward through the phrases, you can find plenty that do exactly those things. He says “something’s changing and it’ll change back again.” That’s denying climate change. He says “I don’t know that it’s manmade.” That’s denying climate change (see above). He says there’s no way to know if Greenland glaciers would be melting without human activity. That’s denying climate change.
She protests: “But that’s denying it.” She asks, “What about all the scientists?”
“Scientists also have a political agenda,” he says. That sounds like he’s calling it a hoax!
The point here is not to catch Trump in a contradiction. Trump contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth. He does not have beliefs as such, not like we ordinarily understand them, and so he can’t really contradict himself. Nothing divided by nothing is nothing.
Rather, the point is that Trump, in this as in so many other areas, is a rawer, truer reflection of right-wing thinking on this subject.
Listening to him talk, it’s clear that everything is geared around defending the right’s tribal position. He just says whatever comes to mind in that pursuit, grabs whatever talking point bubbles up from his Fox-informed subconscious. It doesn’t matter — I’m sure it never occurs to him — that half the things he says don’t fit with the other half. He’s not offering good-faith arguments, statements of fact or reasoning meant to be subject to critical scrutiny.
Persuasion is not any part of this, in either direction. The goal is only to deflect, confuse, and mislead, in defense of the status quo.Conservatives have been gaslighting the nation about climate change for years
That is obviously true when it comes to Trump, because he scarcely tries, indeed doesn’t know how, to pretend otherwise. But it’s just as true of the entire conservative movement, for decades now.
All the denialist talking points — nefarious scientists, sunspots, natural cycles — have their true believers in the base, among the chumps who drink the Kool-Aid and fill up the comment sections.
But the motive force is not any assessment of science. It’s the tight alliance between the cultural politics of white resentment and the power of fossil fuel and related industries. To acknowledge anthropogenic climate change is to empower liberals, open the door to additional taxes and regulations, and threaten the power of the fossil fuel industry.
The Republican Party as currently constituted will simply never do those things. Ever. The arguments are secondary.
It’s difficult for people who care about climate change to accept this. It implies that all those hours spent earnestly arguing about climate science have been, to a first approximation, wasted. And it’s been a lot of hours — thousands and thousands of hours, spent by people of good faith in hopes that evidence and reason can change minds.
But it always should have been obvious that those with power connected to fossil fuels will not give up that power without a fight. They certainly will not give it up based on scientific or humanistic considerations. They will defend their prerogatives and privileges, as those with power always have, throughout history.
And they will always find people who will defend their interests, using whatever language serves the purpose. The arguments offered to the public may be scientific, political, or economic, or some jumble thereof, as with Trump. They may make occasional rhetorical concessions, if the tide of public opinion threatens them. They will perform substantive engagement, to the extent circumstances demand it.
But defense of the status quo is the point, not the arguments. And the only way it can be overcome is through power and money, i.e., organized political opposition. Focusing on the words — scrutinizing the exact mathematical degree of denial displayed in a particular Republican’s comments, as though it reflects anything deeper — is just getting played.
They are gaslighting, not persuading, and it will end when they are beaten and removed from office, not when climate scientists find just the right argument.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/10/22/18007922/climate-change-republicans-denial-marco-rubio-trump
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested