Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 10/31/2018
-
(ACC Blog) Celebrating 30 Years of Responsible Care®
Oct 31, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
Today marks the 30th Anniversary of Responsible Care in the United States. Responsible Care is the backbone of the chemical industry’s sustainability commitment, helping chemical manufacturers operate with health, safety and environmental protection as a top priority. -
(ACC Mentioned) Time to Step Up
Oct 31, 2018 | Plastics Technology
By Jim Callari
I was at an association meeting recently when the conversation turned—as it inevitably does at these sorts of get-togethers—toward the numerous environmental challenges our industry faces. -
'We Obviously Are Suspicious' — Dems Prep for 2019
Oct 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
House Democrats can't wait to call President Trump's EPA chief to the witness stand. -
Groups Threaten to Sue EPA for Not Banning Paint Stripper Chemical
Oct 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of organizations is formally threatening to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for not banning a toxic chemical used in paint strippers. -
Trump’s EPA to Face Lawsuit over Delay in Banning Deadly Paint Strippers
Oct 31, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
Today, Latino workers, environmental and public health advocates, and the mothers of two young men who recently died from methylene chloride exposure notified the Trump administration of their intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency... -
In California, Trees Have A Prop 65 Cancer Warning
Oct 31, 2018 | American Council of Science and Health
By Hank Campbell
California loves to show "leadership" by putting warning labels on the things they are not yet allowed to ban. Claiming that is leadership is, of course, a dog whistle for the kind of social authoritarian mentality that is the enemy of science and progress. -
Brexit REACH Registration Uncertainty Sparks Coatings Sector Concern
Oct 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The British coatings industry has raised concerns about the lack of clarity on how a UK REACH Regulation would work alongside the EU's under a hard Brexit scenario. -
DOJ Steps up Scrutiny of Funds for Asbestos Exposure Victims
Oct 31, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Erick Tucker
The Trump administration has stepped up scrutiny of asbestos trust funds, concerned that the pots of money intended to help people exposed to the hazardous substance are being depleted by fraudulent claims, harming victims, businesses and the government. -
EU Committee Publishes Colloidal Silver (Nano) Opinion
Oct 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published an Opinion on colloidal silver (nano). -
Stand-In DOJ Environment Boss Reflects on Unplanned Tenure
Oct 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Named acting assistant attorney general in January 2017, Wood's job was to keep the Environment and Natural Resources Division on track while awaiting the confirmation of Jeffrey Bossert Clark, President Trump's long-term pick to lead the division. -
America's Grid Upgrades Should Include Fixing EMP Vulnerability
Oct 31, 2018 | The Hill (In Real Clear Energy)
By Paul Steidler
America’s electric grid is on the cusp of a much-needed overhaul. And that should include fixing one of the most potentially serious risks that the grid faces: long-term shutdowns from electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events. These could occur... -
Pelosi Vows to Revive Select Climate Committee
Oct 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
The top Democrat in the House is vowing to revive a select committee on climate change that she created the last time her party controlled the chamber more than a decade ago, a move that would seek to build the public case for efforts to curb greenhouse gases and address climate risks. -
Big Oil Outspends Billionaires in Washington State Carbon Tax Fight
Oct 31, 2018 | Reuters (In the New York Times)
By Nichola Groom
The U.S. oil industry has spent a record $30 million to fight a ballot measure in Washington state that would create the nation’s first carbon tax, double what an alliance of green groups and billionaire activists has spent to support it, according to state data reviewed by Reuters.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Celebrating 30 Years of Responsible Care®
Oct 31, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
Today marks the 30th Anniversary of Responsible Care in the United States. Responsible Care is the backbone of the chemical industry’s sustainability commitment, helping chemical manufacturers operate with health, safety and environmental protection as a top priority.
· Responsible Care implementation means the chemical manufacturing industry is committed to safe operations. In fact, Responsible Care companies are five times safer than the U.S. manufacturing sector as a whole, and almost three times safer than the chemical industry overall. Altogether, Responsible Care companies have reduced recordable injury and illness incidence rates by 79 percent since 1990.
· Responsible Care means we stand behind the safety of our products. We assess the health and environmental impacts of our chemical products, taking into account how consumers will use them, and sharing information with our customers and the public openly and transparently.
· Responsible Care means we make security enhancements to safeguard our facilities and communities. ACC member companies have invested more than $21 billion to further enhance facility security since September 11, 2001.
· And – perhaps most importantly – Responsible Care means we listen to our stakeholders – the people who live in plant communities and the people that use the products of chemistry. We face performance challenges head on and undertake initiatives to improve.
Responsible Care began in 1988 and has evolved over the past three decades to continually respond to stakeholder needs:
· Starting in 1994, Responsible Care required ACC members to report company performance on worker and process safety, transportation incidents and facility emissions. ACC members began publicly reporting individual performance in 2007, and over the years, increased the number of required reporting metrics to include a variety of environmental, energy impact, and worker and facility safety metrics. Today, ACC is working to further expand its reporting to incorporate a range of sustainability-related topics.
· In response to increasing demand for chemical safety information, ACC and its member companies launched the Responsible Care Product Safety Code in 2013 to drive continuous improvement in chemical product safety and stewardship. As part of this framework, ACC member companies make information about chemicals available so consumers can make informed decisions about the products they purchase.
· More recently, through Responsible Care, ACC members have undertaken a series of initiatives to enhance process safety and occupational safety performance across facilities, resulting in significant improvements. In fact, in 2016, ACC member companies reported an overall total recordable injury rate of less than 1 injury or illness per 100 full-time employees, an all-time low.
As the next natural progression, the chemical industry is building out a broad-reaching sustainability initiative. The chemical industry is at the forefront of sustainability – innovations made possible by the chemical industry are the force behind life-saving medical devices like blood bags and incubators, energy-efficient hybrid cars and solar panels, water treatment technologies that supply clean water to billions of people around the world, fertilizers that enhance crop yields, packaging that keeps food fresher longer, and more.
This past June, ACC unveiled a set of industry-wide Sustainability Principles, which articulate the industry’s contributions to sustainability and commitment to advancing safe, innovative, effective chemical products, materials and technologies that are essential to a sustainable future.
As we plan for our industry’s future for the next 30 years and beyond, ACC will continue to articulate and build its sustainability vision, one that encompasses and complements the elements of Responsible Care.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/10/celebrating-30-years-of-responsible-care/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Time to Step Up
Oct 31, 2018 | Plastics Technology
By Jim Callari
I was at an association meeting recently when the conversation turned—as it inevitably does at these sorts of get-togethers—toward the numerous environmental challenges our industry faces. You know the list: attacks on bags, foamed PS, bottles, and now straws, etc.; and of course, the “ocean plastics” dilemma. One-by-one, at the gathering I attended, plastics industry executives discussed these issues and talked about what they—as individuals and companies—could do to reverse this growing public anti-plastic sentiment.
As folks were talking, my mind wandered and I heard a mental voice repeating what I have believed for years: “People in our industry do a great job of talking among themselves but struggle to get the word out to the masses.” The Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS) has endeavored to change the conversation about our business with the launch of the website thisisplastics.com, which I wrote about in greater detail in the April 2018 issue. Both PLASTICS and the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council have done yeoman’s work—with lots more in the pipeline, I am sure—to “change the conversation,” but I think we need more input from you processors if we are really going to change how the public perceives plastics.
It’s estimated that our industry employs close to 1 million people. I’d guess that with roughly 20,000 plastics processing plants in the U.S., perhaps as many as half of those people are in facilities like yours, turning pellets into parts. So for you, there’s a lot at stake. These threats may focus directly on the products you make. If not, maybe yours will be next. Are you engaged at all in the efforts of change the conversation?
If not, I think you can take the first step my talking more to us. Full disclosure: It’s in the best interests of Plastics Technology Magazine to hear from processors. We feature plant-tour type stories that we call On-Site every issue that focus on processors. Our last editorial page every issue (Processor’s Edge) details specific strategies deployed by processors to solve a problem or gain a competitive edge. Information about processor activities is also peppered throughout this magazine (and on PTonline.com), in its Starting Up and Close-Up departments. And just this month, we have a first-hand account from a molder using thermal imaging technology.
All wonderful stuff, and we—not just our magazine, but our industry—need more of it. We need more processors using the resources available in thisisplastics.com to advocate for our industry. I’d like to see more processors (and OEMs) step up and join PLASTICS. We’d certainly like to see more processors engage with us as we attempt to shine a light on molders, extruders, and thermoformers who make remarkable and ingenious products and engage in best manufacturing processors.
But we sometimes run into stumbling blocks getting access to processing plants. On many occasions, when I’ve reached out to a company I know of or heard about, the response has been, “Where is the benefit for us to feature our company in a magazine that my competitors read? I don’t want them to know what I’m doing.”
The benefits are numerous. Some are warm and fuzzy … you can position yourself as a thought leader among your peers. But others are more tangible. You could reprint the article, for example, and figure out a way—by mail, in person, at an open house—to get it into the hands of local high-school students. Or perhaps you can put a call into the friendly editor of your local newspaper (maybe our youth does not read newspapers much anymore, but their parents do, and besides all newspapers have websites), tell them about the article, and encourage them to do one of their own.
I think efforts like this—over time—will begin to change the mindset people have about our industry. Who knows, it might even address the skills gap by getting younger people interested in pursuing careers in our business.
https://www.ptonline.com/columns/time-to-step-up
-
'We Obviously Are Suspicious' — Dems Prep for 2019
Oct 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
House Democrats can't wait to call President Trump's EPA chief to the witness stand.
The agency — long a source of controversy no matter which administration runs it — could soon be up against Democratic committee heads eager to hold hearings and subpoena documents. Trump's plans for EPA, including reshaping the workforce, overhauling the use of science and rolling back Obama-era regulations, will all get heavy scrutiny if the House flips to Democratic control next year.
It would be a new day for EPA — one where members of the opposition party shed new light on what the agency has been doing during the past two years as Republicans ran both houses of Congress.
"I would expect very aggressive oversight finally being asserted by our committee," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "The Republicans have just gone totally dark and quiet. They see and hear and speak no evil when it comes to the Trump administration."
Increased scrutiny from a Democrat-led House would come at a vulnerable time for the agency.
The clock is ticking on how long acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler can remain atop the agency. He could have to step down as early as next February, although Trump has signaled he'll nominate Wheeler to keep the job.
Nominees to lead the agency's chemicals, international affairs and solid waste programs are still waiting for confirmation. Other high-level EPA jobs might be tough to fill if Democratic-run committees in the House make life difficult at the agency.
Trump still hasn't nominated anyone to lead EPA's offices for environmental information, human resources and research. Vacancies might add up if other political officials at the already short-staffed EPA head for the exits.
Bob Sussman, who served as senior policy counsel to Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, said the midterm elections can serve as a time to leave for appointees at the agency.
"There are always some people that the two-year mark is a natural point to move on," said Sussman, now a consultant.
If Democrats wield gavels in January, they're expected to haul agency leaders before them frequently, just as Republicans did when the chamber flipped during the Obama administration in January 2011.
Wheeler can expect to spend plenty of time on Capitol Hill, said former Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who led the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power from 2011 until 2016.
"I think he'll be up there a lot," said Whitfield, who's now a lobbyist at Farragut Partners LLP. "Basically, all you can really do is try to hold their feet to the fire and try to make the public aware of what's going on."
Obama EPA chief Jackson was summoned to testify before Whitfield's subcommittee in early February 2011, a month after the GOP took control of the House. It was a heated hearing over Republican legislation to block EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (Greenwire, Feb. 9, 2011).
Those oversight hearings were effective, Whitfield said.
"You know how regulations are. It's so boring, and people pay so little attention to it." But "if you have hearings and you have people testifying and you get a little news coverage, then you use those hearings back in your district."
Republicans' efforts "contributed to the animosity by a lot of people about federal government as President Obama was leaving office," Whitfield added.
As for whether those tactics will work for Democrats, he said, "It's just how aggressive do they want to be and how astute are they in setting it up, and they're probably pretty astute."
Spotlight on science, workforce
Democrats want to scrutinize EPA's policies as well as its management.
Connolly, who's now ranking member on the Government Operations Subcommittee, said "a good road map" to understand what Democrats would do with the oversight panel is its members' subpoena requests that were rejected by Republicans over the past two years.
"I think that gives you a good strong basis to speculate where we'll head in the next two years as a committee if we're in the majority," Connolly said. "But our big challenge is going to be prioritizing, right? It just can't be sort of scattershot. We're going to have to take that list and prioritize."
Democrats on the committee requested 64 subpoenas since the start of the Trump administration. Several dealt with the White House, while others focused on the 2020 census, immigration and health care, among other scandals.
At least two of those subpoena requests were related to EPA. One asked for documents on the agency's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. The other sought Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. records on Albert "Kell" Kelly, an EPA senior adviser who was banned from the banking industry and has since resigned from the agency.
Under Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the House Science, Space and Technology Committee was also known for its aggressive oversight. Smith even used subpoena power to go after Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's text messages.
Democrats may take a different tack. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who sits on the Science panel, could not say whether the committee would use that authority if Democrats retake the House.
"Yeah, there could be, although I can't tell you right now what particular subpoena that we would issue," Beyer said. "Obviously, you start with the invitation. If they ignore the invitation, then you move to the subpoena."
Beyer, who serves as ranking member on the Oversight subcommittee for the House science panel, said he wants "to look at the many changes in the EPA since Trump took office, first with [former EPA Administrator Scott] Pruitt and now with Andrew Wheeler, that are really upsetting." He added, "The major theme is the de-emphasis of science and the emergence of what seems to be undue attention to industry concerns."
Beyer wants "a two- or three-hour hearing" on an EPA proposal to consolidate its science adviser's office into its larger research division. He also wants to look at the administration's moves on EPA's science advisory committees, including its disbanding of a review panel on particulate matter air pollution standards.
Connolly has questions about EPA's reorganization plans, which include realigning regional offices to headquarters' functions.
"What is the rhyme and rationale for that? And what would be the practical implications of that? We obviously are suspicious that all of this is designed to lower EPA's profile and to diminish its ability to protect the environment," he said.
Connolly also said if Democrats take the House, EPA will face oversight on climate change rules, enforcement of clean air and clean water rules, and its use of science. He also anticipates scrutiny of how Trump appointees have managed the agency.
"The enormous loss of talent, a lot of people going out the door because of disgust and dissatisfaction with the policies coming out of the administration. How rulemaking is arrived at with this crowd and how they are or not complying with the law," Connolly said.
'Oversight machinery'
Joe Goffman, then a top air adviser at EPA when Republicans gained power after the 2010 elections, remembered the scrutiny from the Oversight panel under then-Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
"You had a committee using its investigatory powers to interject itself in a rulemaking. They were not looking at management or practices. They were treating a rulemaking as a form of malfeasance or misfeasance," said Goffman, now executive director of the Harvard Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program. "They were treating the rulemaking process as if the agency was engaging in some sort of misconduct."
He added, "It required a lot of response."
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), ranking member on the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, said she expects EPA to be more responsive to her requests if she takes over the panel.
"Well, first we need some transparency so we can do the oversight," McCollum said. "My expectation will be if I send a letter of inquiry to acting Administrator Wheeler about how funds are being spent or something that I've heard isn't being done in the spirit of putting scientific evidence first, I'm going to expect an answer right away."
McCollum, who fought back against Trump's proposed budget cuts to EPA, said she doesn't believe the agency has enough money to fulfill its mission and she will be watching how those taxpayer dollars are used. She expressed concern over EPA's decision to place Ruth Etzel, the head of its children's health office, on administrative leave, which the agency says was due to allegations related to Etzel's leadership.
Scott Fulton, who was EPA's general counsel under Obama, said Democrats will need time to get "the oversight machinery" up and running again if they take the House. He said lawmakers' requests would add to the agency's workload.
"Most administrations feel like they have not been doing anything that — exposed to the public — would cause any great concern," said Fulton, now president of the Environmental Law Institute. "Instead, it's like, 'Gee, along with the million other things we have do, we have to respond to all of these hearing requests and document requests.'"
To deal with the GOP-led House, Fulton remembered reworking the general counsel's staff in 2011 to create a leadership group to respond to congressional oversight on behalf of EPA and assigning a top official as the agency's point of contact.
"The reason for that was to preserve our capacity to do the other work," Fulton said.
Joe Brazauskas, formerly staff director and senior counsel for the House science panel's Environment Subcommittee, has recently joined EPA's legal office. He is well-versed in oversight of the agency's programs, and as associate deputy general counsel, he has been designated at EPA to cover congressional oversight along with other issues, according to an internal email.
Pursuing Pruitt
Pruitt — who caused some of EPA's biggest headaches since Trump took office — has been out of the national spotlight for months.
Democrats bashed Pruitt almost daily over alleged heavy spending and mismanagement at EPA. He resigned this July as investigations began to pile up.
But Connolly thinks Democrats will revive those issues.
"I would also expect, frankly, to see some further hearings on the outstanding ethical issues involving the previous administrator, Mr. Pruitt, that have not been resolved and our committee has done almost nothing about it."
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the oversight panel, did open an investigation into Pruitt, asking for documents related to his travel and security as well as having staff interview senior EPA officials behind closed doors. That investigation is ongoing, a Republican committee aide told E&E News.
Connolly acknowledged a Democratic-controlled House could call the resigned EPA chief back to testify.
"I don't think that's impossible. I don't want what Pruitt did to be forgotten because he finally resigned," Connolly said. "I know there are lots of others who feel the same way, so I don't think we will let that go — in what form we do that remains to be seen."
The EPA inspector general still has several open reviews related to Pruitt, including focusing on travel, preservation of emails and text messages, and use of a special hiring authority at the agency, which are expected to be released later this year or early next year.
In addition, CNN reported yesterday that the Justice Department had opened up an investigation of Pruitt after receiving a referral from the EPA IG, which has seemingly stalled since he left the agency. EPA IG spokesman Jeff Lagda told E&E News he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of a criminal investigation.
Other Democrats are less eager to pursue Pruitt now that he is gone.
Beyer said, "We're not going to retroactively prosecute Pruitt for all the wacky things he did." He noted there were bigger concerns with Pruitt at EPA regarding staff morale, employee turnover and downplaying of science, all of which can affect public health.
"We also accomplished [our] goal, which is to get him either to clean up his act or go, and he left. I don't agree with everything that Andrew Wheeler's done, but I certainly haven't seen him with the incredible sort of megalomania, maniacal abuse of power that Pruitt had," Beyer said.
McCollum said she would move forward on overseeing EPA if she takes charge of the Appropriations subcommittee.
"I have a lot of work to do," she said, citing EPA rolling back regulations as well as sidelining Etzel. "I want to make sure that I'm doing everything I can to work with my colleagues in Congress to protect the public health."
Reporter Robin Bravender contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/31/stories/1060104813
-
Groups Threaten to Sue EPA for Not Banning Paint Stripper Chemical
Oct 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of organizations is formally threatening to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for not banning a toxic chemical used in paint strippers.
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement and Earthjustice said Wednesday that the EPA is obligated to ban the use of methylene chloride, but it has not yet taken action to do so.
The EPA proposed a ban in January 2017, under former President Barack Obama. And while former EPA head Scott Pruitt promised to move forward with the ban earlier this year, the agency has not released a final version of the regulation.
In the meantime, eight major home improvement and auto parts retailers have taken their own actions to stop selling products containing methylene chloride.
“Since EPA proposed its methylene chloride ban, four American families have lost loved ones. In light of the Trump EPA’s continued failure to act, retailers are stepping up and taking action to protect their customers from this dangerous chemical,” Liz Hitchcock, director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, said in a statement. “EPA must follow the home improvement industry’s lead and ban these deadly paint removers from store shelves and workplaces nationwide.”
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment on the claim.
After the EPA didn’t take any visible action on methylene chloride, Pruitt met in May with families of victims of the chemical.
Following that meeting, EPA released a statement saying it would move forward with the ban, and Pruitt confirmed his intent to do so at a congressional hearing later that month.
Methylene chloride can cause asphyxiation, heart failure and death, while long-term exposure to small amounts can increase cancer risks.
The parties threatening to sue include two women whose sons have recently died from exposure to the compound.
The groups are bringing their action under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The law requires them to submit notice 60 days before filing an actual lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/414027-groups-threaten-to-sue-epa-for-not-banning-paint-stripper-chemical
-
Trump’s EPA to Face Lawsuit over Delay in Banning Deadly Paint Strippers
Oct 31, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
Washington, D.C. — Today, Latino workers, environmental and public health advocates, and the mothers of two young men who recently died from methylene chloride exposure notified the Trump administration of their intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its failure to finalize a ban on the use of this lethal chemical in paint strippers. Methylene chloride is responsible for more than 60 reported deaths, including at least four since EPA proposed banning methylene chloride paint strippers in January 2017. However, the Trump EPA has violated its public commitments and legal obligations to finalize that ban.
“No parent should ever have to bury their child. No one else should have to go through what I’m going through because of a paint removal product. The EPA must get these products off store shelves,” said Lauren Atkins, whose 31-year-old son Joshua died from methylene chloride exposure on February 12, 2018.
“One life is one too many to have been lost to this deadly chemical. We have lost loved ones due to the chemical industry’s and the EPA’s inaction to ban methylene chloride. Retailers have stepped up to save lives. How many more people will the EPA allow to die before they ban methylene chloride?” said Wendy Hartley, whose 21-year-old son Kevin died from methylene chloride exposure on April 28, 2017.
EPA estimates that 1.3 million Americans are exposed to methylene chloride from paint strippers in their homes and workplaces each year. Acute exposure to methylene chloride is known to cause asphyxiation, heart failure, and sudden death, while long-term exposure presents an increased risk of cancer, liver disease, and other serious health effects.
“Latino workers are more likely to perform jobs that use paint strippers, placing them at greater risk of harm from methylene chloride,” said Hector Sanchez Barba, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement executive director. “Our communities should no longer be senselessly exposed to this toxic chemical. Methylene chloride paint strippers must be banned immediately.”
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the country’s principal chemical safety law, requires EPA to regulate chemicals that present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In January 2017, the Obama administration determined that methylene chloride places consumers, workers, and bystanders at unreasonable risk of injury and proposed to ban its use in paint strippers. In May 2018, EPA promised to finalize that ban “shortly,” but it has taken no action since then.
“EPA’s inaction on this admittedly deadly chemical is unsafe and unlawful. The law does not allow EPA to drag its feet while lives hang in the balance,” said Earthjustice attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, counsel for the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement.
In the absence of federal action, eight major U.S. home improvement and auto parts retailers have taken action this year to protect their customers from the chemical, announcing plans to ban methylene chloride-based paint strippers from thousands of store shelves nationwide.
“Since EPA proposed its methylene chloride ban, four American families have lost loved ones. In light of the Trump EPA’s continued failure to act, retailers are stepping up and taking action to protect their customers from this dangerous chemical. EPA must follow the home improvement industry’s lead and ban these deadly paint removers from store shelves and workplaces nationwide,” said Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Director Liz Hitchcock.
TSCA requires parties to provide to EPA at least 60 days’ notice prior to the commencement of most citizen suits. On October 31, 2018, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Lauren Atkins, and Wendy Hartley submitted notice of their intent to sue EPA over its delayed methylene chloride ban.
“Removing old paint is a chore that many Americans take on themselves. It can be difficult, but there’s no reason for it to be deadly,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. “The EPA needs to act now to protect consumers.”
https://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/trumps-epa-to-face-lawsuit-over-delay-in-banning-deadly-paint-strippers/
-
In California, Trees Have A Prop 65 Cancer Warning
Oct 31, 2018 | American Council of Science and Health
By Hank Campbell
California loves to show "leadership" by putting warning labels on the things they are not yet allowed to ban. Claiming that is leadership is, of course, a dog whistle for the kind of social authoritarian mentality that is the enemy of science and progress. Though California is run in both houses of the legislature and the Governor's Mansion by one party they can't get a majority vote for everything they want, so legislators often punt controversial decisions to the public.
In America's most populated state, the actual government does little legislation that isn't easily predictable along party lines. The hard decisions are by Proposition, directly decided by up to 19 million registered voters. (1)
Propositions have become popular for Political Action Committees in California because they can't be overruled by the legislature - they are a super-law. Everyone in California (and most of America) knows Prop 65, which requires warning labels on any product that has been statistically correlated to cancer, is ridiculous but the government cannot do anything about it.(2) So California cancer patients visiting oncology wards in California hospitals cannot walk around without some common useful product notifying them it will give them even more cancer. Coffee, toast, tea, you name it and a trial lawyer, along with a paid expert witness like Chris Portier of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) or Martyn Smith of Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), is trying to sue their way into a new yacht.
But it isn't just in cancer wards that everyone has to warn people about cancer lest they get a bill from a trial lawyer; even nature is under assault.The husband of Dr. Layla Katiraee went shopping for a tree to plant in California. Big mistake. He got told by government he is risking cancer by engaging in conservation.
You may be wondering if it is not the tree at all, perhaps it is the label, or the ink on the label, or the carbon dioxide in the air, which will be far higher in a greenhouse - well, no one knows or cares at this point, it's all the same risk fatigue in California. In the 16th century, every illiterate peasant knew the dose makes the poison - if they went to a tavern and the beer was diluted with a whole lot of water, they knew they were being ripped off - even before Paracelsus phrased it so succinctly. (3) Today, activists supporting homeopathy and endocrine disrupting chemicals basically don't even realize that if you put more or less lemon in lemonade it changes the final result - and a whole lot of wealthy people on the coasts of California believe it either helps or harms you even if you can't taste the lemon at all. (4)
Clearly most Americans are not wealthy elites on the coast, the 99% have more common sense and less money to spend on frivolous nonsense like supplements and food labels that make them feel like better human beings, but we are all overrun with scary chemical narratives, and there is comfort in the "precautionary principle" - better safe than sorry.
But how safe is really worthwhile? Are you willing to lower the speed limit to 5 miles per hour to prevent traffic deaths? Should we start screening for prostate cancer at embryogenesis?
That is an exaggeration but it is the same logic as throttling progress back to placate the lowest scared denominator in culture, those who know the least about science and medicine but yell loudly. It's fine to choose an intellectual placebo, like organic food or a "natural" chemical if you have the wealth, yay capitalism, but confusing or shaming poor people who can't afford it is not just bad ethics, it is being a terrible human being.
Yet intellectual placebos, and forcing poor people to pay more lest companies be sued, is exactly what the lawyers at Center for Food Safety are promoting with Proposition 12. In California, they want poor people to be forced to pay more money so that some food animals have slightly different living space. These are animals being raised for slaughter yet Center for Food Safety and its PAC friends are pretending that allowing slightly more space - with graphic images of abuse, as if that is the norm in agriculture - is going to be a better result for the animals. Center for Food Safety is a fan because they are in the "sue and settle" business and if Proposition 12 is passed they can shake down companies or prearrange a settlement with a politically sympathetic court in California whose costs would be borne by consumers.
They are wealthy lawyers, they know it will lead to higher costs for the poor. They even concede that businesses who do not comply with the tens of millions of dollars in increased costs will have an unfair competitive advantage, and that is why they want to add another layer of penalties on companies.
Even the Humane Society is against this ridiculous proposition, as are farmers and government groups that see higher food costs - and tens of millions of dollars per year in new state union employees for "enforcement" - as the only outcome.
How you can help
We want to get America back to first principles when it comes to chemicals, food, energy and health. To do that, we are supporting a documentary called Big Fears, Little Risks, which cuts through the lawyer-driven nonsense to give the public real answers to complex questions. More importantly, we want to instill some skepticism the next time you see a political ad about science or medicine that reads too good to be true.
And it could use your support!
NOTES:
(1) Just the eligible voters in California outnumber the total population of America's bottom 15 states so it seems strange that the legislature does little except find new ways to show how much they care about micromanaging the lives of citizens. Propositions have some second order benefit. Once California's ruling majority got voting laws changed so there need not even be two parties on a ballot, whoever gets the most primary votes will run in the election, meaning for Senate seats it will be Democrat versus Democrat, voter enthusiasm plummeted. Propositions are the only way that Republicans and Independents have any voice.
(2) It would require another proposition to get rid of it or change it to something meaningful and coastal Californians don't even accept vaccines, they sure are not going to accept a change to a law that protects them from warning labels on bacon.
(3) Sola dosis facit venenum - "Only the dose makes the poison"
(4) We like to think that science acceptance is a problem of people with less education but it's often just the opposite - less educated, poor, religious Mississippi has almost 100 percent vaccination while California had to use the force of government to mandate that supposedly educated people in Marin vaccinate their children - I wrote about one school there had almost 80 percent of children unvaccinated.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/29/california-trees-have-prop-65-cancer-warning-13550
-
Brexit REACH Registration Uncertainty Sparks Coatings Sector Concern
Oct 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The British coatings industry has raised concerns about the lack of clarity on how a UK REACH Regulation would work alongside the EU's under a hard Brexit scenario.
In particular doubt is the registration procedure, Ellen Daniels, head of public affairs and policy at the British Coatings Federation, told Chemical Watch.
Her comments come a month after the UK government publishedguidance on REACH in the event that Britain leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 without a trade deal.
To decide whether they fall under the thresholds for registration, coatings manufacturing companies in the UK are likely to have to obtain tonnage data from EU suppliers in order to supply products to UK customers, she said.
"But they will need separate tonnage data if they export paint or ink to EU customers." It will be "very complicated" to maintain a separate inventory of raw materials and finished products for UK customers and EU market, as well as sales to other countries, she added.
‘Full’ data package
At a recent Health and Safety Executive workshop, the UK’s Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said companies will need to submit a "full" data package in order to register their chemicals under a UK version of REACH in a no-deal Brexit scenario.
The BCF said it would question having a such a UK requirement, "bearing in mind the amount of time and resource" Echa has dedicated to establishing information required to do appropriate evaluation stages in the REACH process.
Ms Daniels pointed out that the UK may be approximately 10% of the EU’s economy, but the number of chemical substances used by UK companies "will in all likelihood" exceed 85-90% of the existing REACH-registered substances.
The majority of chemicals used in the UK coatings industry’s products come from outside the country, Ms Daniels said. It is not clear, she added, whether these suppliers will see it as a sound economic decision to register small volumes in the UK, as well as in the EU. "We are already hearing of companies delaying their investment in the UK until they are more aware of the future requirements."
One of the main issues, she continued, is identification of lead registrants and information access or provision. "It is such a complex supply chain that it will take more than just a few weeks or months for coating and ink manufacturers to go through their databases to ensure that all raw materials have been covered in the new UK REACH system.
"As virtually all of our materials are chemical intermediates or mixtures we are going to need full and prompt cooperation of our suppliers to do the checks and to ensure that the necessary data packages are in place."
The data package required by the UK must not differ from that required under REACH, she added. "Even if it is identical, it will still lead to duplicated effort with additional resource needed. We assume that there will be additional costs associated with UK registration. These all make the UK a less-desirable place to do business in."
Additionally, she said the BCF is keen to know if the government has considered the commercial viability of registering new substances for the UK market only.
"The 1-10 tonne category was a barrier for some registrations for the total of the EU market, so this may well mean smaller volume new raw materials may be viable in the EU, but not the UK." This, she said, will affect innovation and the competitiveness of UK formulators.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71505/brexit-reach-registration-uncertainty-sparks-coatings-sector-concern
-
DOJ Steps up Scrutiny of Funds for Asbestos Exposure Victims
Oct 31, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Erick Tucker
The Trump administration has stepped up scrutiny of asbestos trust funds, concerned that the pots of money intended to help people exposed to the hazardous substance are being depleted by fraudulent claims, harming victims, businesses and the government.
The Justice Department in the last two months has demanded trust documents as part of a civil investigation, opposed the creation of another trust it said lacked sufficient safeguards and argued against the appointment of a lawyer it said was too conflicted to represent victims.
The actions take aim at a system that over decades has paid out billions of dollars to the sick and cancer-stricken, but that critics say is opaque and prone to fraud and manipulation by well-connected lawyers. The government's intervention aligns it with business groups who have long complained about the process.
"We have an interest in fraud and consumer protection, so if there is fraud happening out there that is cognizable under federal law, that's the type of thing the Justice Department tends to get interested in," acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio said in an interview.
But plaintiffs' lawyers and asbestos victims' advocates say there's scant proof of widespread fraud, particularly for a system that has accommodated millions of claims. And University at Buffalo law professor S. Todd Brown said the additional government oversight, while not a bad idea, "could lead to money going to complying with this oversight rather than going to the victims."
The trusts started emerging in the 1980s, formed by makers of asbestos-containing products that sought bankruptcy protection in the face of lawsuits from people who feared they had been exposed. The maneuvering enabled the companies to shield themselves from lawsuits while setting aside money to pay pending and future claims for asbestos, an environmental hazard once found in everyday products that can lead to the deadly mesothelioma cancer and other illnesses.
The model flourished. A 2011 Government Accountability Office report identified 60 trusts formed between 1988 and 2010 that it said had paid about 3.3 million claims valued at more than $17 billion.
Lawyers for asbestos victims say the process enables people to obtain compensation for catastrophic illness without drawn-out lawsuits.
"There is incredible irony in the fact that an industry that covered up the dangers of a known carcinogen for decades, leading to the ongoing deaths of 15,000 Americans a year, is now claiming that its victims are committing systemic fraud against the trusts — even though no court has ever found evidence of such fraud," Peter Knudsen, spokesman for the plaintiffs' lawyers group American Association for Justice, said in a statement.
Business groups and defense lawyers contend otherwise.
They say weak oversight allows people to collect payments with minimal evidence they were harmed by a particular company's product, and for illnesses far less serious than mesothelioma and lung cancer. They argue trust overseers are often tied to well-connected plaintiffs' firms, raising concerns of favoritism and cronyism.
And they say the meager amount of publicly available information makes it hard to know how decisions on payments are made, how much a given individual is receiving or whether the exposure evidence submitted to one trust is consistent with what's submitted to others.
The Justice Department stepped up its oversight in the last few months.
In September, it challenged the creation of a new trust it said lacked details about how it would guard against fraud and abuse. The department said in a letter to state attorneys general that "it would object to plans for asbestos trusts that fail to include critical information on how asbestos claims will be evaluated, paid and reported" or that don't do enough to prevent fraud.
It later challenged a different trust, Duro Dyne, over the appointment of a lawyer it said was too conflicted to represent interests of people who may later become ill. A judge rejected that request, and Jeffrey Prol, an attorney for the trust, said he was taken aback by what he called the department's effort to make "this bankruptcy case a referendum on the asbestos trust system."
At least one trust, DII Industries, has disclosed receiving an administrative subpoena to produce records of settlements as part of an investigation into whether Medicare is being properly reimbursed for trust payments. A trust spokesman said it was complying.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/31/stories/1060104793
-
EU Committee Publishes Colloidal Silver (Nano) Opinion
Oct 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published an Opinion on colloidal silver (nano).
The SCCS was requested to determine the safety of the substance when used in cosmetics – including toothpastes and skin care products – with a maximum concentration limit of 1%, taking into account reasonably foreseeable exposure conditions.
However, the committee said in its report that it was not able to draw a conclusion, "due to a number of major gaps" in data provided by the applicants.
The Opinion highlights that only a limited amount of the data provided corresponded to the SCCS guidance on safety assessment of nanomaterials in cosmetics, and none were in line with its memorandum on relevance, adequacy and quality of data in nanomaterial safety dossiers.
Although other information is available in open literature relating to the toxicity of nano silver, the report said, "their relevance with respect to the materials of this submission has not been considered by the applicants".
The SCCS’s consultation on its draft opinion on colloidal silver (nano) closed in May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71510/eu-committee-publishes-colloidal-silver-nano-opinion
-
Stand-In DOJ Environment Boss Reflects on Unplanned Tenure
Oct 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Jeffrey Wood has been running the Justice Department's environmental practice for nearly two years but never moved into the big office reserved for its leader.
Named acting assistant attorney general in January 2017, Wood's job was to keep the Environment and Natural Resources Division on track while awaiting the confirmation of Jeffrey Bossert Clark, President Trump's long-term pick to lead the division.
He never expected the post to last 21 months, the longest tenure for a temporary leader in ENRD's history.
"I thought this was going to be, as acting AAG, probably a four- to six-month assignment," Wood, 39, said during an interview last week in his office, which adjoins the vacant one saved for Clark.
"Yeah, I never moved in there," he added, referring to Clark's future digs. "Maybe superstition, or respect for the office."
The Senate finally confirmed Clark to lead ENRD three weeks ago, and Wood will hand over the keys to the division tomorrow, along with his nearly two-year legacy of working with DOJ career staff and leaders at other agencies to carry out the Trump administration's environmental priorities.
"It's really remarkable how long he's been there," said former ENRD attorney Tom Lorenzen, now at Crowell & Moring LLP. "I think he came in with the anticipation that it would be a very short-time assignment, and he's had to grow into a job that he didn't think he'd have."
DOJ insiders describe Wood as an effective leader who is well-liked in agency circles. Critics of the administration see him as another foot soldier for Trump.
As a former private practice attorney and Senate staffer for now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Wood faced a steep learning curve when he started as the temporary leader of the division.
ENRD, with more than 600 attorneys and staff, is responsible for representing federal agencies in litigation over environmental policy, natural resources, public lands, American Indian tribes and more. It serves as the lead prosecutor of environmental crimes and the lead defender of the Trump administration's aggressive push to roll back regulations.
"You learn a lot, fast," Wood said. "We have so many cases. Of course you benefit from the great experience of all the career lawyers who are here — true professionals, up and down the line. And so a lot of it is just getting up to speed and managing the division the best way you can, and you can't do that alone."
Defending the Trump administration
Wood counts ENRD's "back to basics" environmental enforcement approach as a point of pride from his tenure, along with the agency's defense of the administration's deregulatory agenda.
The division has raked in civil penalties for environmental violations and injunctive relief for Superfund cleanups over the past two years (E&E News PM, Oct. 19).
But it hasn't all gone smoothly. Environmental rollbacks have faced several high-profile losses in the courtroom. Judges on several occasions have found EPA, the Interior Department and other agencies rushed to sideline rules or delay compliance requirements, violating the Administrative Procedure Act or environmental laws along the way.
Wood attributed many of those setbacks to unfavorable court venues; environmentalists routinely file suit in California federal courts, for example, which are considered more skeptical of the Trump administration's policies. But he acknowledged that agencies sometimes needed direction on how to develop clear records to explain their decisionmaking process and justify their choices.
"Sometimes the agencies get criticized based on the record they've developed, so we've been trying to work with our client agencies to help them improve their records because that's ultimately what matters," Wood said. "Do they have the record to justify the decision they've made?"
Wood issued guidance to federal agencies last year to improve their development of administrative records.
"Jeff, I think, refocused EPA on what really has to be the ultimate mission of EPA, which is to engage in substantive rulemaking and not continue to try those sorts of tactics," Lorenzen said, adding later: "With some ammunition under their belts — the first few court opinions — it became easier for ENRD to say to EPA, 'Think about other ways to do this.'"
Holland & Hart LLP attorney Kelly Johnson, a high-ranking ENRD official during the George W. Bush administration, called Wood a "good influence" on the other agencies. As for the early legal defeats? "They probably did not avail themselves of the expertise," she said.
Two years in, the Trump administration has now largely moved beyond the procedural rulemaking issues that dominated early litigation and into the substantive work of rewriting rules.
"I think that's going to be Jeff Clark's most significant opportunity going forward will be that next phase of defending the decisions that are being made by the agencies," Wood said.
Another high-profile issue dominating much of Wood's time is the "kids climate case," in which a group of young people is accusing the government of violating their right to a safe climate. DOJ has persistently worked to shut down the case, under both the Obama and Trump administrations. The agency's latest bid to stall a trial scheduled to start this week yielded a temporary stay of proceedings. A broader decision is still pending at the Supreme Court.
"Frankly, it's been a tremendous drain on our resources to have to engage in this level of litigation on this case for so long, and it's also been a significant burden on the agencies who have had to respond and be involved in the case," he said.
The government has argued that the case, Juliana v. United States, violates the separation of powers set out in the Constitution by asking the judiciary to legislate climate policy for the nation.
The government's response to climate change is a conversation happening where it belongs: in Congress and the executive branch, not the courts, Wood said. Novel interpretations of the Constitution's protections belong in law review articles and academia, he added.
"We think it's been going on for too long, and we are now awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on what happens next," he said.
Thoughtful leader or complicit partisan?
Wood is leading the division at a time of contraction for DOJ and the federal government.
"We've had a decline in the number of workers, lawyers and staff," he said. "But we've seen an increase in the number of cases, so we've had to be more cost-effective and efficient in our work, and I'm proud of the way we've managed through that process."
Wood recalled that he's made decisions that were popular with the staff and others that were "less so." He declined to go into detail on those. But critics of the administration are happy to fill in the details.
They're frustrated with many of ENRD's moves under Wood's leadership: settlements they consider too soft on polluters; DOJ's insistence that a federal appellate court keep litigation over the Obama-era Clean Power Plan on ice; an industry-friendly enforcement policy for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and other issues.
ENRD attorneys have generally remained professionals under Wood's leadership, but many big-picture issues have become overtly political, said Pat Gallagher, director of the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program.
"Where you see pretty partisan behavior is on important policy issues or high-profile or large-scale settlements or decisions whether to prosecute in the first place — those kinds of more policy-laden decisions," Gallagher said.
"I'm sorry, but Jeff Wood is complicit with Donald Trump," Gallagher said. "Their agenda is anti-climate, pro-oil and gas to the hilt."
Wood maintains a strong relationship with ENRD's career staff.
"He's really a very thoughtful and professional and nice guy," said Jean Williams, a career deputy assistant attorney general for ENRD. "It's been an interesting couple of years, and it's certainly been helpful to have someone as solid and unflappable and professional as he is."
Williams, who's been with the division 34 years, said Wood is deferential to her and other high-ranking career officials.
"I'm sure everybody has their own views about a lot of the issues that are at the forefront of our politics, but when it comes to running the division, he's just running the division," she said. "He's doing what's appropriate under the law and what we recommend to him 98 percent of the time."
Johnson said she's heard positive reviews of Wood's engagement with the career staff too, an effort that pays off when political appointees work to implement the White House's agenda.
"That's not the way it was in every agency, and I think Jeff did a really good job at that," she said.
He's also earned high praise from other top appointees within DOJ, including Sessions and the agency's third-highest-ranking official, Jesse Panuccio, who at an event last week celebrated Wood as "a first-rate lawyer, an expert in environmental law, and a leader of the highest caliber."
Clark is set to be sworn in as assistant attorney general in charge of ENRD tomorrow. Wood will stay on as principal deputy assistant attorney general for the division.
He said he's eager to focus more closely on legal issues and shed his big management responsibilities. Next week, Wood will flex his litigation muscle in Alaska, arguing the government's case in high-profile litigation over whether the Trump administration violated the law when it opened up Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and canyon areas in the Atlantic Ocean to oil and gas exploration.
"I think it's a good opportunity to sort of get engaged in the field work," Wood said, "so I'll be doing that and hopefully be able to do more of that."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/31/stories/1060104783
-
America's Grid Upgrades Should Include Fixing EMP Vulnerability
Oct 31, 2018 | The Hill (In Real Clear Energy)
By Paul Steidler
America’s electric grid is on the cusp of a much-needed overhaul. And that should include fixing one of the most potentially serious risks that the grid faces: long-term shutdowns from electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events. These could occur from solar storms or high-altitude nuclear bomb detonations.
EMP is a classic low-likelihood, high-impact crisis. But the fix can be made, particularly to the most important sections of the grid, at a reasonable price. Just as the U.S. Department of Defense has taken actions to address EMP to protect critical military assets, so too should the civilian electric grid be protected.
Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is among those calling for greater awareness – and action. At a
September 27 forum at The Heritage Foundation, Senator Johnson discussed more than two decades of prominent EMP studies and actual electrical disruptions during atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. He bluntly concluded, “We have been forewarned.”
Senator Johnson added that Congress should pony up and that it would cost “single digit billions” to address critical EMP vulnerabilities. NASA has warned that a major EMP solar storm like the 1859 Carrington Event has a 12 percent chance of occurring in the next decade. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated the damage could exceed $2 trillion, 20 times the cost of Hurricane Katrina.
In July, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that grid spending was at $51 billion annually, largely driven by capital investments. And higher investments seem likely, and are certainly needed, soon.
According to a 2015 U.S. Department of Energy report, 70% of power transformers are 25 years of age or older, 60% of circuit breakers are 30 years or older and 70% of transmission lines are 25 years or older. Large portions of America’s electric grid are more than 50 years old.
In addition to wear and tear, factors driving grid revitalization include: The rise of renewable energy and related expansion of bi-directional energy flows Smart meters and the related growth of the Internet of Things The advent of smart cities Changes in distribution models, with less need for bulk transfer The rise of microgrids Preventative steps against cyberattacks
Dr. George Baker makes a compelling case for addressing EMP now given the ongoing overhaul to the grid. A member of the Congressional EMP Commissionwho also addressed EMP threats at crucial defense installations during his years at the Department of Defense, Dr. Baker recommends the following.
Identify key locations that could be disabled and prioritize protecting them.Though it keeps the information highly confidential, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission knows where these locations are. Just as major substations in the bulk power system need to be fortified against cyber attacks and potential physical sabotage, so too should EMP preventative measures be implemented.
Name an EMP czar. While many different agencies in the federal government have studied and been concerned with EMP for decades, there is no central office or authority to address EMP matters. An executive should be appointed who will report to the National Security Council about EMP policy and prevention activities so that efforts are coordinated and effective.
Make changes while the grid is undergoing broad technological improvements.The civilian sector can adopt hardening standards for EMP based on what the U.S. Department of Defense has declassified. Doing this work amid ongoing grid overhaul, Dr. Baker points out, will cost about one-tenth what it otherwise would.
Dr. Baker also encourages looking at the option of microgrids for the most critical services infrastructure, such as water and waste treatment facilities, emergency services and hospitals. The broader growth of microgrids also presents an opportunity to address EMP at the front-end of construction, at far lower costs than would be the case with retro-fitting.
It is also essential to conduct more tests to protect large bulk transformers and generation stations. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratoryshould have the lead on this work, working closely with transformer manufacturers and other universities and research organizations.
Groups like the Edison Electric Institute have also pointed out that stockpiling equipment, including transformers, can address many reliability challenges. This includes those stemming from EMP.
The serious risks from EMP should no longer be ignored. And there is no time like the present to begin addressing them.
Paul Steidler is a Senior Fellow with the Lexington Institute, a public policy think tank based in Arlington, Virginia.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/10/31/grid_upgrades_should_include_fixing_emp_vulnerability_110358.html
-
Pelosi Vows to Revive Select Climate Committee
Oct 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
The top Democrat in the House is vowing to revive a select committee on climate change that she created the last time her party controlled the chamber more than a decade ago, a move that would seek to build the public case for efforts to curb greenhouse gases and address climate risks.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- who is in line to be House Speaker if her party fulfills expectations and regains control of the chamber after the Nov. 6 election -- discussed the idea with the New York Times as part of a broader conversation on the party's 2019 agenda.
She said the panel would “prepare the way with evidence” for energy conservation and other climate mitigation legislation.
Then-Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) chaired the select climate committee when it was created in 2007, shortly after Democrats won the House in the 2006 midterms. The panel was shuttered in 2011, after the GOP regained control of the chamber in the 2010 election.
The panel did not have specific jurisdiction over climate legislation -- the Energy & Commerce Committee will retain authority over most climate-related bills -- but Markey used the platform to put a public spotlight on a host of climate change threats and policies to cut GHGs.
Democrats hope such hearings next year will start to flesh out the party's platform as part of a bid to defeat President Donald Trump's re-election campaign in 2020.
“The template for 2020 is getting built in the House,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), who would take over as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, told the Times.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/pelosi-vows-revive-select-climate-committee
-
Big Oil Outspends Billionaires in Washington State Carbon Tax Fight
Oct 31, 2018 | Reuters (In the New York Times)
By Nichola Groom
The U.S. oil industry has spent a record $30 million to fight a ballot measure in Washington state that would create the nation’s first carbon tax, double what an alliance of green groups and billionaire activists has spent to support it, according to state data reviewed by Reuters.
The big-ticket battle reflects the stakes of climate regulation. The oil industry is worried that new curbs on carbon emissions will hobble business, while environmental advocates are concerned that a failure to act soon to halt global warming will spell devastating consequences for the planet.
Washington is the nation’s fifth biggest fuel-producing state, with five refineries, according to the Energy Information Administration. It is also among several Democrat-led states that have vowed to pursue climate action in defiance of President Donald Trump’s agenda to ease regulation on fossil fuel companies.
The state’s Carbon Emissions Fee and Revenue Allocation Initiative, known as Initiative 1631, would impose a $15 fee on each metric ton of carbon released to the atmosphere, rising $2 a year until the state's 2035 emissions target is met. It would generate $2.3 billion over five years for clean energy and air programs if it is passed by voters in next week’s election, according to a state analysis.
The measure is on the ballot for the Nov. 6 elections.
A Crosscut/Elway poll this month showed half of voters approve of the initiative, with 36 percent against and 14 percent undecided.
If the measure passes, the oil industry is likely to feel the most pain since transportation is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington at 43 percent, according to a state report from 2016.
The Western States Petroleum Association raised $31.2 million from oil companies and business groups to oppose the measure, the most ever spent in the state to defeat a ballot initiative, according to state campaign finance data. The previous record was set in 2013, when agriculture and food companies spent $24 million to defeat a measure to require labeling of genetically engineered foods.
The anti-carbon tax money has fueled a months-long public relations blitz involving television and digital ads, flyers and mailers that argued the fee would drive up energy costs for consumers, small businesses and farms, and which criticized proposed exemptions for industries like aluminum, pulp and paper, and soon-to-retire coal-fired power plants.
"The state's largest polluters would be exempt from 1631's new costs, so many big corporations would pay nothing. But families, small businesses and farms would pay billions in higher energy costs," farmer Rosella Mosby says in one ad while standing in a field on her family's vegetable farm.EDITORS’ PICKSChina’s King of Internet Fluff Wants to Conquer the WorldA Tragedy in the Tattoo ParlorThe Epicenter of the Housing Bust Is Booming Again. (That’s a Warning Sign.)
Many of the TV ads aired during this month's Major League Baseball's World Series, one of the most widely viewed events on television.
Dana Bieber, a spokeswoman for the “No on 1631” campaign, said the high spending was justified. "We're up against a very misleading campaign and we think it's important that voters have the facts," she said in an interview.
Top donors to the "No on 1631" campaign include BP America, which contributed more than $11.5 million, followed by Phillips 66 with $7.2 million and Andeavor with $4.4 million. All three own refineries in the state.
BP spokesman Jason Ryan said his company supports action to combat climate change, but strongly opposes the Washington ballot initiative because it believes it would disrupt the state’s economy without significantly reducing carbon emissions. “It is a poorly designed policy,” he said.
Out-of-state refining companies like Valero Energy Corp and HollyFrontier Corp also contributed, as did the national refining industry lobby group, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers - a sign the industry is concerned the measure could inspire other states to follow suit.
By contrast, environmental groups and climate activist billionaires including Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, put together $15.2 million to support the initiative, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
Top supporters included The Nature Conservancy, which donated $3.05 million, the League of Conservation Voters, which contributed $1.4 million, and Gates and Bloomberg, who each contributed $1 million. The campaign spent $1.8 million of the money on television advertising emphasizing the clean air benefits of a carbon tax, along with spending on mass-mailings, canvassing and voter research.Sign up for The Interpreter
Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.
"With Big Oil spending $30 million, that makes it a real fight," said Bill Holland, state policy director for the League of Conservation Voters. "It has been a frightening amount of money."
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/10/31/world/europe/31reuters-usa-election-carbon.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested