Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 05/11/18

Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Are on the Ballot as New Money Tries to Shake Up D.C.
Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report, Financial Express
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner

Climate change, offshore drilling, the regulation of toxic substances—several science-related policy issues are at stake in the mid-term elections, and a new political action committee wants more scientists voting on them.
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Contributing Heavily to Frasier in Bid to Unseat Walsh in the 19th
Nov 2, 2018 | The Daily World
By Dan Hammock

A highly contested House race in the 19th Legislative District has the Democratic Party pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into challenger Erin Frasier’s campaign as she seeks to unseat incumbent Republican Jim Walsh.
(ACC Mentioned) ‘The Final Straw’
Nov 3, 2018 | Telluride News
By Leslie Vreeland

In 2010, Telluride resident Suzan Beraza released her documentary, “Bag It: Is Your Life Too Plastic?” to critical acclaim (and an Audience Choice Award) at Mountainfilm.
(ACC Mentioned) Toss Computers, Cell Phones, iPods Properly
Nov 2, 2018 | Suffolk News Herald
By Alex Perry

Keep Suffolk Beautiful is partnering with the Suffolk Public Library to host an electronic recycling drive on Nov. 10 in recognition of America Recycles Day.
How to Fight Bad Science Infiltrating the EPA
Nov 2, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Mike Mikulka

Scientific integrity is under attack by the U.S. EPA.
Trump's EPA May Have Shut Down Its Climate Change Website for Good
Nov 5, 2018 | Newsweek
By Alexandra Hutzler

The Environmental Protection Agency has stopped updating its websites with climate change information, instead leaving site visitors with error messages and blank pages.

LCSA News

Environmentalists Urge EPA to Delay TSCA Studies to Bolster Analyses
Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmentalists are urging EPA to take steps to strengthen the scientific underpinnings of the first 10 risk evaluations the agency is conducting under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including urging officials to use authority in the new law to delay the reviews so the agency has more time to ensure their quality.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) Letter to the Editor – Food Additives and Child Health
Nov 2, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters

The technical report published by Trasande et al., has suggested that phthalates may be present in the diet and could have potentially adverse effects on children’s health.
FDA-Approved PFAS: A Serious Breakdown in Assessing Food Additive Safety
Nov 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner

This blog is the fourth in a series describing information we discovered in reviewing thousands of pages from the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of the agency’s approval of 31 Food Contact Substance Notifications (FCNs) from 2002 to 2016 submitted by six companies for 19 distinct chemical mixtures of per- and poly-fluorinated substances (PFAS).
New Jersey Should Draft Better Radon Regulations, Court Says
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas

A court has urged New Jersey regulators to flesh out rules on radon measurement and mitigation in response to a dispute with the state’s largest radon testing company.
Dr Pepper, Mott’s Sued Over Pesticide in Apple Sauce
Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Julie Steinberg

Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. got hit with a new suit challenging the marketing of some Mott’s “all natural” applesauce and apple juice that allegedly contain traces of a synthetic insecticide.
Duckworth Seeks More Data, Monitoring at Controversial Plant
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar

Sen. Tammy Duckworth this afternoon called on EPA to provide the public with additional information about cancer-causing emissions from a politically toxic medical instrument cleaning facility outside Chicago.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Solving the Capacity Crunch in Today's Petrochemical Supply Chain
Nov 3, 2018 | Oilman Magazine
By Aaron Kline

It has become extremely difficult to optimize product movements across an increasingly complex petrochemical supply chain.
Colorado Measure Could Force State to Pay Frackers
Nov 4, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Rebecca Elliott and Dan Frosch

Colorado voters on Tuesday will decide whether to sharply curtail oil-and-gas drilling in an election that has divided the state.
Bill Gates, Pearl Jam Back Carbon Fee in Washington State Vote
Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Oil companies fighting a Washington state ballot measure that would impose the nation’s first fee on carbon dioxide are squaring off against some formidable foes—from rock band Pearl Jam to Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates.
Americans Need a Balance: Cleaner Environment, Affordable Energy
Nov 2, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By David Holt

Very soon, many of us – all, I hope – will close the voting booth curtain and cast votes on how to best expand critical public services, trim household costs and increase our state and nation’s economies.
Chevron’s U.S. Natural Gas Volumes Surge 14%, Liquids Jump 25%
Nov 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

Supermajor Chevron Corp. produced a record 2.96 million boe/d net in 3Q2018, 9% higher than a year ago, as the Wheatstone natural gas export project in Australia ramped up and Permian Basin volumes continued to climb...
Ethane Infrastructure Squeeze to Loosen in 2019: ExxonMobil Executive
Nov 2, 2018 | Platts
By Kristen Hayes and Richard Rubin

An infrastructure squeeze that has escalated US ethane prices while compressing ethylene margins should be resolved by the end of 2019, a top ExxonMobil executive said on Friday.
Settlement with Gas Processor to Boost Clean Air in 6 States
Nov 2, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

A Marathon Petroleum Corp. affiliate will pay a $925,000 fine and tighten pollution controls at 20 natural gas processing plants in six states under a tentative court settlement with state and federal regulators.
Energy, Environment Initiatives Prominent Nationwide
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

From salmon in Alaska to a carbon tax in Washington, voters will take state environment and energy issues into their own hands this week.
Scrutiny Could Imperil Entergy's New Orleans Project
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump

A proposed $210 million natural-gas-fired power station in New Orleans is looking less certain after two City Council members said they're willing to consider a new vote on the project.

Chemical Security News

2 Lake County Polluters Emit Same Cancer-Causing Gas as Sterigenics, But Authorities Haven't Warned the Public
Nov 2, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne

Communities facing abnormally high cancer risks from toxic air pollution stand out on a color-coded map created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Capitol Corridor Nears PTC Completion
Nov 5, 2018 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono

In coordination with Amtrak and Union Pacific, initial testing of the PTC system started in July 2018 by enabling PTC on a limited number of trains that were rotated throughout the shared fleets of the Capitol Corridor, as well as the San Joaquins, which serve California’s Central Valley.
Prognosis for Bill Improves if House Changes Hands
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow

It's a perennial joke in Washington: "Every week is infrastructure week."

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) A Look Back at the Trading of Favors That Drives Trump’s Anti-Environment Agenda
Nov 2, 2018 | MinnPost
By Ron Meador

Have you heard the sleazy tale about “glider trucks,” shady campaign contributions, and a tiny business interest’s big gift from Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency?
Carbon Tax Swap for Climate Rules Could Be Bridge Too Far
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott

It’s an offer that carbon tax backers say could bring reluctant Republicans and industry aboard and grow the economy to boot: Congress agrees to revoke the climate authority of the EPA and other federal agencies to get a carbon tax signed into law.
U.S. Top Court Rejects Trump Administration Bid to Halt Climate Trial
Nov 5, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Lawrence Hurley

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected for now a bid by the President Donald Trump's administration to block a trial in a lawsuit filed by young activists who have accused the U.S. government of ignoring the perils of climate change.
EPA Plans ‘Accelerated’ Consideration of Ozone Pollution Rule
Nov 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to implement an “accelerated” process for deciding whether to further restrict allowable ground-level ozone pollution limits.
States, Environmentalists Oppose EPA Plan To End Air Monitoring Mandates
Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

Several states and environmental groups are opposing EPA's plan to lift air emissions monitoring requirements first established under an obsolete Clean Air Act program, warning that eliminating the monitoring will weaken compliance with other environmental programs and risks unlawful “backsliding,” or worsening of air quality.
EPA's Call For Data Sparks Fight Over Assessing NAAQS' Adverse Impacts
Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA's call for data on the adverse impacts of implementing ambient air standards is sparking a fight over how, and whether, the agency and its advisers should consider such impacts, with industry groups saying they are a vital factor while environmentalists and some states say weighing such factors in reviews of the standards is unlawful.
As Statewide Races Remain Close, GOP Critics Of EPA Appear To Fade
Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan

Key gubernatorial and Senate races remain close days before critical midterm elections, though several leading GOP critics of Obama EPA rules appear to be fading in their efforts to win higher office, including the attorneys general (AGs) of Michigan and West Virginia -- each of whom successfully sued to block EPA power plant rules.
High Court's Surprise Decision Bolsters Youths' Bid For Novel Climate Trial
Nov 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

In a surprise move, the Supreme Court rejected a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to halt the novel suit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs seeking to compel the government to address climate change, bolstering efforts by the plaintiffs to go to trial in a federal district court in Oregon though they will almost certainly face continued DOJ opposition.
Trump: 'People Very Much Dispute' Climate Change
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman

President Trump dismissed the National Climate Assessment that shows humans are driving climate change, and said he was focused on the reports that dispute it.
ALL ABOUT: London’s Low-Emission Street
Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ali Qassim

London’s financial district wants to create its first low-emission street.

Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Are on the Ballot as New Money Tries to Shake Up D.C.

Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report, Financial Express

By Lauren Coleman-Lochner

Climate change, offshore drilling, the regulation of toxic substances—several science-related policy issues are at stake in the mid-term elections, and a new political action committee wants more scientists voting on them.
Organizers formed 314 Action Fund—the name comes from the first three digits for Pi—after the 2016 election brought President Donald Trump and his planned regulatory rollback to Washington.
Now, as Congress ponders legislation options that include defanging states’ product-labeling laws, the PAC has spent more than $1.7 million to back 13 congressional candidates who have science and technology backgrounds.
All of them happen to be Democrats—though the group says it’s not a partisan organization.
“What is so troubling with the Trump administration is deregulation at all costs,” said Shaughnessy Naughton, founder and president of 314 Action, the non-profit affiliated with the fund. The Republican platform is “just in denial of the scientific consensus too often.”
The use—and definition—of science in public policy is playing out in races across the country, a signal that such issues may represent a growing political battlefield.
“Science should not be a partisan issue,” said Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, another new group, which advocates rolling back regulation. “It has obviously become one.”Chicago Showdown
Nowhere is it more intense than in a congressional district in suburban Chicago. There, incumbent Republican Representative Peter Roskam is backed by the chemical industry, while his challenger, Democrat Sean Casten, is a clean-energy executive endorsed by former President Barack Obama and 314 Action.
The district also is home to a sterilization facility that’s under fire for emitting ethylene oxide, a chemical that the Environmental Protection Agency said in 2016 was “carcinogenic to humans” and more dangerous than previously thought.
A bombshell report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this summer said the 19,721 people living within a mile of the Sterigenics facility were at an elevated risk for cancer. Four schools and a daycare center are also located within that one-mile radius. The chemical industry’s trade group, the American Chemistry Council, says the testing is flawed and has asked for the data to be corrected.
Also last summer, the ACC spent $82,250 on TV ads supporting Roskam, according to Kantar Media—ads that were focused on Roskam’s support of the 2017 income-tax overhaul legislation.
Scott Openshaw, a spokesman for the ACC, said the industry group has a long history of “periodically running issue ads thanking elected officials from both parties for their efforts to improve economic growth, job creation, and overall U.S. economic competitiveness, including comprehensive tax reform.” Nationwide, the group spent about $2.2 million on such ads for 14 candidates, Openshaw said.Calls for Closing
Last month, the 314 Action PAC countered by spending $92,696 to oppose Roskam in direct-mail ads, federal records show.
Casten, the Democrat, whose background includes degrees in molecular biology and biochemical engineering, has called for halting production at the Sterigenics plant until further study. While Roskam also called for closing the plant last month, Casten says Roskam would have a hard time separating his constituents’ needs from the industry’s.
Roskam’s office didn’t provide comment for this story. He has voted with his party in favor of bills that have drawn the ire of environmental groups, including the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, which expands industry representation to panels that inform policymaking and makes it harder for academics to serve; and the Honest Act, which would bar certain data not publicly available or replicable.
Critics say that would exclude epidemiological data that’s been used to demonstrate substances’ harm to populations. Both measures passed the House on near party-line votes.
The non-partisan Cook Political Report says the close Roskam-Casten race is leaning Democratic with just days to go before voters head to the polls. Casten said it’s important to get more science-minded people in policymaking roles.‘Institutional Knowledge’
“To the extent that you make government beholden to outsiders, you basically put all the institutional knowledge on K Street rather than in the government, and there’s a real problem there,” Casten said in an interview. “But here we’ve got something right in people’s backyards where we’re saying the data from the EPA Science Advisory Board, which was a decade in the making, is pretty unambiguous.”
The 314 group also is backing 75 state-level candidates in the Nov. 6 elections and says it has raised as much as $5 million to fund its aims this cycle. As of Oct. 17, it had raised about $2.5 million for use in federal campaigns, according to its filings with the Federal Election Commission.
“What I realized was that we really need to get scientists to go beyond just advocacy and actually get involved in electoral politics, whether it’s to run for office themselves or support their colleagues,” said Naughton, a former chemist and breast-cancer researcher who ran unsuccessfully in two Democratic congressional primaries in Pennsylvania. When the group put out a call in January 2017 for scientists interested in running, 7,000 responded.
The group is what’s known as a “hybrid” super PAC, meaning it contributes directly to candidates but can also make “independent expenditures” that support candidates but can’t be coordinated with their campaigns. As of Oct. 31, it had spent $1.5 million independently and contributed $231,500 directly to congressional candidates.
The outcome of those races matters when it comes to how Congress thinks about science, said Stier of the anti-regulation group Consumer Choice Center. Although that group doesn’t back candidates, it does work to promote its anti-regulatory positions, and it warns a Blue Wave could make it more burdensome on companies trying to keep costs to consumers down.
If Democrats advance, “there is going to be a move toward a European style regulatory approach that embraces the precautionary principle at the expense of consumer freedom, low priced, affordable and safe products,” he said.
—With assistance from Stephen Joyce and Bill Allison.

https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/scientists-are-on-the-ballot-as-new-money-tries-to-shake-up-dc

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Contributing Heavily to Frasier in Bid to Unseat Walsh in the 19th

Nov 2, 2018 | The Daily World

By Dan Hammock

A highly contested House race in the 19th Legislative District has the Democratic Party pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into challenger Erin Frasier’s campaign as she seeks to unseat incumbent Republican Jim Walsh.
According to the State Public Disclosure Commission, the agency that keeps tabs on campaign contributions and expenditures, as of the week before the election Frasier had raised a little more than $356,200, and spent nearly $345,000 on campaign activities such as signs, mailers and radio and newspaper advertisements. By comparison, two years ago, Democrat Teresa Purcell spent a little more than $250,000 in her unsuccessful bid against Walsh, who was running for his first term.
Various arms of the Democratic Party have contributed $233,442-plus in cash and in-kind donations to Frasier’s campaign, the largest a $75,000 cash donation from the Washington Senate Democratic Campaign, an organization established in 2013 to support election and re-election of Democrats to the state Senate.
Walsh’s campaign claims cash and in-kind contributions from the Republican Party of just more than $74,000, the largest a cash contribution of $50,000 from the House Republican Organizational Committee.
Non-party contributions
Frasier received contributions of $2,000 each from several labor groups including UFCW 21, which represents industry workers in grocery store retail and health care; the Service Employees International Union, which represents caregivers; Laborer’s International Local 252; and the Washington Federation of State Employees. The same amount was donated by the Childrens Campaign Fund; the Washington Education Association; and the Justice for All PAC, a group that supports pro-civil justice candidates. Other union interests donating cash included the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, UA Pipefitters Local 26, and IBEW Local 77, representing electrical workers.
Walsh got cash contributions from Wiegardt Brothers, Inc., oyster producers; Puget Sound Energy; the Washington Beer and Wine Distributors Association; Northwest Dairymen; the Washington Affordable Housing Council, the political action committee of the Building Industry Association of Washington; Delta Dental; Phillips 66; timber companies including Rayonier, Weyerhaeuser and Green Diamond; and the Washington Forest Protection Association.
Independent expenditures
Independent expenditures are made without the cooperation or consultation of a particular candidate. The Public Disclosure Commission requires these contributions to be reported with a designation indicating if they are in support of or against a particular candidate.
Frasier has independent expenditures in her favor from the Mainstream Voters of Washington, a group funded heavily by Democratic groups like the Harry Truman Fund and Justice for All PAC; the Alliance for Gun Responsibility Victory Fund, and Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest totaling more than $150,000.
The “against” expenditures were from the Quality Communities Committee — $81,956 funded entirely by Chad Minnick, a “public affairs specialist and political strategist” from Bellevue — and the Conscience of the Progressives sponsored by Send a Message PAC, the group behind the controversial mailers sent to district voters in October urging them to write in Teresa Purcell over Frasier on the general election ballot.
A large independent expenditure — nearly $220,000 — was made against Walsh by the Mainstream Voters of Washington, for direct mail, cable ads, radio ads and video production. The Alliance for Gun Responsibility Victory Fund also shelled out more than $1,500 for ads against Walsh.
Our Olympic Communities PAC, Quality Communities Committee and the Mainstream Republicans of Washington paid for advertising in favor of Walsh totaling less than $30,000.
District 19 representative Position 2
Far less money is flowing into the Position 2 race, which most believe incumbent Democrat Brian Blake has well in hand after a solid showing in the primary.
According to the Public Disclosure Commission, Blake has taken in a little more than $140,000, the largest an in-kind contribution from the House Democratic Campaign Committee of $8,750. Donations of $2,000 came from a number of sources, including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Washington Beverage Association, Ash Grove Cement Company of Overland, Kan., Green Diamond Resource Company, Anheuser-Busch, the American Chemistry Council and the Washington Forest Protection Association.
Blake’s opponent, Republican Joel McEntire, has raised only a little more than $11,000; $5,000 of that came from the House Republican Organization Committee and $1,000 each from the Cowlitz County Republican Women’s Club and Cowlitz County Republicans. The rest are mostly individual contributions of $200 or less.
24th District representative
Less money is funneling into the 24th District representative races. In the Position 1 contest, incumbent Democrat Mike Chapman has raised a little more than $116,000; his Republican opponent Jodi Wilke just more than $42,000.
Timber companies such as Rayonier, Green Diamond and Weyerhaeuser, the Washington Hospital PAC, the Public School Employees of Washington and the Northwest Marine Trade Association count among Chapman’s $2,000 contributors.
Wilke’s major contributions include $3,500 from the Clallam County Republican Party, and $2,500 each from the Jefferson County Republican Central Committee and the House Republican Organizational Committee.
In Position 2, incumbent Democrat Steve Tharinger has raised a little over $123,000. His Republican challenger Jim McEntire has raised just less than $50,000.
The Northwest Sportfishing Industry PAC, Puget Sound Pilots, Green Diamond, Rayonier, several Indian tribes, medical groups and labor organizations are among Tharinger’s top contributors.
McEntire’s major contributors include $10,000 from the House Republican Organizational Committee; $3,500 from Clallam County Republicans; $2,000 from John Quigg, president of Quigg Bros. Construction; and $1,500 from the Washington Association of Realtors.
Countywide races
Grays Harbor County Clerk
Democrat Kym Foster has nearly doubled the contributions taken in by her opponent Janice Louthan (who lists no party preference), $8,000 and change to a little more than $4,500 for Louthan.
Foster’s major contributions include $1,000 from the State Council of County and City Employees, and smaller contributions from Jill Warne Real Estate Services in Elma, the Grays Harbor Democratic Committee and Montesano attorney and mayor Vini Samuel.
Louthan has self-funded much of her campaign, with a dozen or so individuals contributing $100 or less.
Superior Court, Position 3
Current Superior Court Judge Ray Kahler has tripled the contributions collected by challenger David Mistachkin, just under $36,500 for Kahler to a little more than $11,000. Kahler has contributed the majority of funds to his campaign, with contributions of $2,000 from the Hoquiam law firm Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Koehler Moore; $1,000 from PFAU Cochran Vertetis Amala, a law firm with offices in Seattle and Tacoma; and $100 from the Laborers International Union of North America Local 252.
All but about $1,500 of Mistachkin’s campaign was self-financed.
Auditor
Neither Republican Joel MacLean or Democrat incumbent Chris Thomas have not recorded any contributions large enough to require filing reports with the Public Disclosure Commission.
http://www.thedailyworld.com/news/dems-contributing-heavily-to-frasier-in-bid-to-unseat-walsh-in-the-19th/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) ‘The Final Straw’

Nov 3, 2018 | Telluride News

By Leslie Vreeland

In 2010, Telluride resident Suzan Beraza released her documentary, “Bag It: Is Your Life Too Plastic?” to critical acclaim (and an Audience Choice Award) at Mountainfilm.
That same year, a ban on plastic bags became the law in the Town of Telluride.
In the ensuing years, Beraza’s own career has taken off; today she’s the executive director of Mountainfilm. Yet the problem of plastics — the focus of Beraza’s film — has increased, not only in the world at large but also (perhaps ironically) in Beraza’s own hometown.
It is not for a lack of goodwill. “The Town of Mountain Village set up a goal to be zero waste by 2020, and the Town of Telluride is working on it and chipping away on it,” Mountain Village resident Jonathan Greenspan recalled thinking recently. “But we still haven’t solved the problem. Not even close.
“Two of us, Kiersten Stephens and myself, said, ‘Let’s take this one on,’” Greenspan said. “We did countless hours of research.” They learned (among other things) that banning plastic bags is not enough. The effects not just of plastic bags but also of so-called single-use plastics — straws, coffee stirrers, styrofoam packaging and more — on ecosystems and wildlife worldwide is profound.
In a work session for the Towns of Telluride and Mountain Village on Oct. 4, members of the Telluride Ecology Commission (of which Greenspan and Stephens are both members), the Mountain Village Green Team and others presented their findings in a report called “The Last Straw and Single Use Plastics.” From Seattle and Miami Beach to India and Taiwan, the report noted, “bans on a variety of single-use plastics are being legislated.”
Companies, including McDonald’s, Starbucks, Adidas, Ikea and others, “are also getting on board by eliminating the use of single-use plastics.”
No less than the American Chemistry Council — which is in the business of promoting the use of plastic — “took a formal product stewardship position” earlier this year “aimed at encouraging consumers to use fewer plastic straws.”
And the kicker: The Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant “has reported that a significant amount of small plastic waste is too small to be filtered out of our sewage,” meaning “we are directly participating in the spread of toxic micro plastic pollution in our region.”
Greenspan and his colleagues did surveys of dining establishments in Mountain Village, and to their surprise, 100 percent “agreed that an initiative banning single-use plastics was a good idea. The majority of them, like Tracks, had already made the switch. They told us their expenses had skyrocketed because these plastics would get into drains, and they’d have to clean them up. We hope to finish up our Telluride surveying this week. So far, we’ve had similar results.”
The town councils both agreed “they want to move forward with an ordinance,” Greenspan said. “The next step is a first reading, which we hope to get on November’s calendar, with a second reading by December.”
The new law would ban “plastic straws, plastic utensils, styrofoam to-go containers, even the little plastic sword you put your martini olives on,” Greenspan said. “There’s a whole laundry list of things.” It would also, at last, ban plastic bags in Mountain Village. “We hope the two ordinances, in Telluride and Mountain Village, will mirror each other,” Greenspan said. “You don’t want to get out of the Gondola” and find a different set of rules.
The members of the Ecology Commission and the Mountain Village Green Team have started the Waste Energy Citizen Action Network (WE-CAN), a nonprofit “we hope to have in place by the first of the year,” Greenspan said. Cath Jett, who recently became the chairman of the Mountain Village Green Team, said the single-use ban comes none too soon.
“Just because people are recycling plastics,” increasingly, “there’s no market for” the companies that pick them to sell them, she pointed out. “It’s kind of a pipe dream. And the problem is getting worse and worse. At the supermarket, beans that used to be in a can now come in a plastic pouch; rice that used to be in a recyclable container is in some weird Ziploc thing. We need to protect the environment so we can continue to live here. This is not a sustainable model.”
https://www.telluridenews.com/news/article_466324f2-def8-11e8-8059-fb9b54502b0e.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Toss Computers, Cell Phones, iPods Properly

Nov 2, 2018 | Suffolk News Herald

By Alex Perry

Keep Suffolk Beautiful is partnering with the Suffolk Public Library to host an electronic recycling drive on Nov. 10 in recognition of America Recycles Day.
The drive will be held from 9 a.m. to noon in the parking lot of North Suffolk Library, 2000 Bennetts Creek Park Road.
Goodwill will be on site to accept any old electronics that residents would like to get rid of before the holiday season. That includes old cell phones, printers, computers and more.
“The only things we won’t take are the old tube TVs, but anything else will be great,” said Wayne Jones of Suffolk Litter Control and Keep Suffolk Beautiful.
Computers will be recycled through Goodwill’s partnership with Dell. According to the press release, the Goodwill Dell Reconnect program provides free and responsible computer recycling for any brand, in any condition, at more than 2,000 Goodwill locations across the country.
“We want to remind people that electronics can be recycled, but not in your curbside blue recycling can,” Keep Suffolk Beautiful Chair Kathy Russell stated in the press release. “Goodwill and other organizations are a great way to pass on your old electronics to be given a new lease on life or broken down to remove valuable resources.”
America Recycles Day is the only nationally recognized day and community-driven awareness campaign dedicated to promoting and celebrating recycling in this country, going back to when it was first held in November 1997. This has been made possible through the support of the American Chemistry Council, H&M, Indorama Ventures, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Keurig Green Mountain and Waste Management, according to the press release.
“America Recycles Day provides a key moment in time to regain momentum for recycling in America, and to help make recycling a daily social norm across the country,” Brenda Pulley, senior vice president of recycling for Keep America Beautiful, stated in the press release. “Take the “#BeRecycled” Pledge and invite your friends, family and neighbors to do the same. Let’s get people recycling in every aspect of their lives — at home, at work and on the go!”
Search for “Keep Suffolk Beautiful” on Facebook or call 514-7604 for more information.
https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2018/11/02/toss-computers-cell-phones-ipods-properly/

Return to headline | Return to top
How to Fight Bad Science Infiltrating the EPA

Nov 2, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion

By Mike Mikulka

Scientific integrity is under attack by the U.S. EPA. Why has the erosion of clean air and water regulations become the norm? What good comes from reversing environmental protections and basic scientific integrity? What can your vote on Nov. 6 do about it?
For months, EPA’s Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has been dismantling the agency by stacking the EPA Advisory Board nominees with fossil fuel industry allies who have dubious credentials. Meanwhile, Wheeler has cut mainstream scientists and disregarded sound science.
Wheeler relies on the White House’s biased, political agenda of deregulation to justify rolling back environmental protections.In the last 100 days, he has disbanded one EPA advisory panel on air pollution and stacked another with industry allies. He’s rolled back Clean Car emissions standards, proposed to replace the Clean Power Plan's limits on carbon emissions with a rule that favors the coal industry and threatened to scrap the mercury-limiting air toxics rule despite its proven public health benefits. Congress has done nothing to stop him.
His infamous predecessor, Scott Pruitt, made lots of noise about challenging scientific principles that undergird clean air and water protections. He also entertained contriving a climate debate that had even this White House worrying. One of his own advisors complaining that it made no sense. Implying preconceived conclusions through a “red” and “blue” team “debate” on climate change misunderstands scientific inquiry itself, which knows no political party, nor should it.
Yet, Wheeler is quickly and quietly intensifying and realizing Pruitt’s anti-science agenda.
In mid-October, Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, disbanded EPA’s advisory panel on particulate matter — emissions that can lead to lung cancer. He then stacked EPA’s primary air pollution advisory panel, known as CASAC (Clean air Science Advisory Committee), with industry-disposed scientists. This panel advises EPA on the safe level of air pollution. The panel had previously been balanced with respected academics, industry professionals, and non-profit science groups. Not any longer. One of the new appointees claimed that researchers overplayed the dangers of air pollution and reduced smog would not benefit public health. Another said fine particulate matter, or soot, is not linked to lung health.
Currently, Wheeler is about to select new, like-minded members to EPA’s Science Advisory Board, and among his choices are:a tobacco-industry-funded researcher who downplays the health risks of secondhand smoke and fine particulate matteran Exxon Mobil consultant who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus on greenhouse gases causing climate changetwo folks who argue that more carbon dioxide will benefit humans (It won't.)
Would they have Americans think it’s safe to smoke cigarettes? That is Scott Pruitt’s red team/blue team debate idea, only worse: it’s for all clean air issues, not just climate. And there’s only one team: red.
If he is successful, Wheeler effectively could select the counselors to Philip Morris, Exxon Mobil, and coal giant Murray Energy to help review and filter the public health data that EPA considers. The fox is not just guarding the henhouse, it’s inviting the wolves to come in.
Andrew Wheeler’s crusade to dismantle health and safety regulations will have dire consequences in the real world. To be clear: scientists, including those at EPA, widely agree that smog can cause asthma and other respiratory problems, while soot is linked to lung cancer and other deadly conditions, and mercury is, indeed, a neurotoxin that can harm a developing fetus. But regularly those scientific voices are being silenced in favor of the industry voices.
Millions of Americans’ health is at stake, and his next actions to stack the EPA’s Science Advisory Board could bring more erosion of public health standards and more risk to vulnerable communities and our children. Despite, our constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress has done little to stand in the way of this anti-science crusade to undermine EPA.
While EPA is taking public comment on the Science Advisory Board nominees until Nov. 7, the best way to stop Wheeler from undermining scientific integrity is one day earlier, November 6, at the polls, by electing a Congress that will stand up for science.
Mike Mikulka is President of AFGE Local 704 and spokesman for Save the US EPA Campaign.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/414502-how-to-fight-bad-science-infiltrating-the-epa

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump's EPA May Have Shut Down Its Climate Change Website for Good

Nov 5, 2018 | Newsweek

By Alexandra Hutzler

The Environmental Protection Agency has stopped updating its websites with climate change information, instead leaving site visitors with error messages and blank pages.
In April 2017, three months after noted climate-change skeptic Donald Trump took office, the EPA removed its climate change subdomains from public access. Overall, at least 80 URLs, including epa.gov/climatechange, were shut down. The federal agency claimed the move was only temporary, and that the sites were “being updated” to reflect the new priorities of the agency under the new leadership of President Trump and then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt. Pruitt has since resigned in the midst of ethics scandals.
“The process, which involves updating language to reflect the approach of new leadership, is intended to ensure that the public can use the website to understand the agency’s current efforts,” a news release issued by the agency read at the time.

But a report released last week by the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, a nonprofit organization that analyzes federal environmental data, showed that in October the EPA modified the splash page and removed statements that said the website was under construction. Now the page simply states: “We want to help you find what you are looking for.”
Along with discontinuing any potential updates to the climate change sites, the EPA removed links to its searchable web archive for any past information on the subject, as well as a link to its technical support request form.
The Trump administration has made it clear that the environment is not a top priority, even though the president has said that he has a “natural instinct for science” that informed his understanding of climate change. Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration had all references to climate change removed from the White House website.
Emissions and steam rise from the American Electric Power Company's coal-fired John E. Amos Power Plant in Winfield, West Virginia, on July 18. A new report shows that the Environmental Protection Agency has dismantled its websites about climate change.LUKE SHARRETT/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES
Trump dismissed an October report by a group of international climate scientists that warned that the effects of climate change might become irreversible by 2024, saying, “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda.”
Pruitt, Trump’s first pick to lead the EPA, notoriously suggested that global warming could benefit humans. “We know humans have most flourished during times of warming trends,” Pruitt said earlier this year before he was forced to resign amid such ethics violations as using his office to help his wife get a Chick-fil-A franchise and spending $43,000 to soundproof a phone booth in his government office.
Pruitt’s replacement, Andrew Wheeler, was one of the biggest coal lobbyists in Washington and sued the EPA 14 times against pollution restrictions while serving as Oklahoma's attorney general.
The Environmental Data & Governance Initiative said that the “cumulative effect of removing” these pages and URL links is “substantial reduction of access to the EPA’s historical public information about climate change.”
https://www.newsweek.com/epa-shits-down-climate-change-websites-1198362

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Environmentalists Urge EPA to Delay TSCA Studies to Bolster Analyses

Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

Environmentalists are urging EPA to take steps to strengthen the scientific underpinnings of the first 10 risk evaluations the agency is conducting under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including urging officials to use authority in the new law to delay the reviews so the agency has more time to ensure their quality.
Earthjustice, Environmental Health Strategy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families urged EPA in an Oct. 30 letter to “take advantage of” language in TSCA section 6(b)(4)(G) requiring EPA to complete such risk evaluations within three years but allowing for an extension of up to six additional months if needed.
EPA is working toward release in late 2018 or early 2019 of draft assessments for the first 10 chemicals assessed as directed in Congress' 2016 re-write of the original TSCA. The revised statute gives EPA significantly more authority -- and more responsibilities -- regarding so-called existing chemicals, those that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976 or have since been added to the TSCA inventory.
While environmentalists are not usually known for urging EPA to delay actions, they are raising concerns with EPA's approach to crafting the assessments and peer review and urging the agency to exercise authority under the new law that would take the six-month extension, allowing the work to be completed by June 30, 2020.
The groups argue that such an extension “would provide additional breathing space for the public comment and peer review process, increasing the likelihood that EPA receives high-quality comments and giving the reviewers the time necessary for an in-depth examination of draft evaluations and preparation of detailed reports. It would also give EPA scientists more time to ... revise the draft evaluations to incorporate this input and develop a detailed response … It would be a serious mistake for EPA to cut corners on these steps and to rush final evaluations out the door.
In addition to taking more time, the groups also listed a series of additional steps they want the agency to take, including allowing 120 days for public comments on each of the evaluations.
They also suggest the agency group some of the chemicals with “similar uses and chemical compositions” together for peer review by a single panel of experts, such as the solvents trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride, “while substances that raise unique issues (e.g. asbestos) should be reviewed separately.”
And they call for EPA to establish a separate panel to review the toxics office's controversial new “systematic review” methodology and other cross-cutting science issues,” allow public comment on the panels' candidates and charges, and also provide comments to the panels; ensure the panels prepare consensus reports, seek peer review of the evaluations from EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, respond to all comments and peer reviews, and ensure that the scientists selected to serve on the panels “undergo a rigorous review for conflicts of interest and bias regarding the 10 chemicals, including full disclosure to EPA of all sources of funding and business and financial relationships, and the public should have an opportunity to comment on all candidate reviewers.”
The groups are not alone in their call for members of EPA's of the peer review panels and EPA's Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), required by the new statute, to undergo conflict of interest screenings or to urge EPA to accept comments on potential SACC members.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, urged EPA in an Oct. 29 letter to screen all of the SACC members and all prospective candidates for the review panels “for actual or potential conflicts of interest (COI) or appearance of loss of impartiality, including with respect to each of the specific chemicals for which EPA intends to utilize SACC to conduct peer reviews of EPA’s draft risk evaluations of the chemicals” and to “provide ample public notice and opportunity for comment on proposed nominees for ad hoc participation and possible membership on the SACC.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-urge-epa-delay-tsca-studies-bolster-analyses

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Blog) Letter to the Editor – Food Additives and Child Health

Nov 2, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters

The technical report published by Trasande et al., has suggested that phthalates may be present in the diet and could have potentially adverse effects on children’s health. To prevent misunderstandings that could arise from this report, it is important that we highlight the following:
People typically are not exposed to phthalates through microwaveable plastics – Plasticizers, including phthalates, are not used in rigid vinyl products identified by recycling code 3. Only flexible packaging contains plasticizers, and the US FDA recently published an article that confirmed that most food packaging is now made with alternative plasticizers(1). General purpose plasticizers like DINP are only cleared for a narrow range of food contact applications, specifically at temperatures not exceeding room temperature. Hence, this type of plasticizer is unlikely to be present in a microwaveable food contact article.
All phthalates are not the same – The common misconception is that all phthalates are toxicologically equivalent. However this is not the case. Trasande et al. note that DINP and DIDP “have not been banned or restricted by regulatory agencies.” This is with good reason. DINP/DIDP are two of the most studied phthalates and have been evaluated by multiple regulatory agencies over the past 20 years. These include at least three regulatory determinations by the European Union (EU) that have included risk evaluations for children or adults exposed via food(2). No exposure risks were found. The UK COT, an independent advisory body to the UK Food Standards Agency(3), New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)(4) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)(5) also announced results of evaluations of dietary exposure risk to phthalates, including DINP and DIDP, in consumers. All three bodies independently found no safety concern to the general public, similar to the conclusion reached by the EU. All these studies, and more, are not cited in the technical report by Trasande et al., and directly contradict the hypothesis in the report that phthalates, such as DINP and DIDP, are a dietary concern to children.
DINP and DIDP have been determined to be safe in all current applications – In attributing DINP/DIDP exposure to several health effects (e.g. insulin resistance), Trasande et al., cited their own published articles. However, these studies do not provide any evidence for direct causation and also caution that “causation cannot be inferred from a cross-sectional study”. High molecular weight phthalates have been used safely in consumer and commercial applications for more than 50 years, ranging from use in building and construction, automotive and many other applications. They are among the most studied chemicals in commerce today and have been rigorously evaluated by regulatory agencies around the world. These agencies continue to affirm that DINP and DIDP are safe in all current applications and do not pose a dietary concern to the general public via exposure in food packaging.

References
1              Carlos, K.S., L.S. de Jager, and T.H. Begley: Investigation of the primary plasticisers present in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products currently authorised as food contact materials. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 35(6): 1214-1222 (2018).
2              European Chemicals Agency: “Evaluation of new scientific evidence concerning DINP and DIDP in relation to entry 52 of Annex XVII to REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006”. Helsinki, Finland: European Chemicals Agency, 2013.
3              Committee on Toxicity: “COT Statement on Dietary Exposure to Phthalates – Data from the Total Diet Study (TDS)”: Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, 2011.
4              Pearson, A., and J. van den Beuken: “Occurrence and risk characterisation of migration of packaging chemicals in New Zealand foods”. In MPI Technical Paper No: 2017/61. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2017.
5              Food Standards Australia New Zealand: “Survey of Plasticisers in Australian Foods: An Implementation Subcommittee for Food Regulation Coordinated Survey”: Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2018.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/11/letter-to-the-editor-food-additives-and-child-health/

Return to headline | Return to top
FDA-Approved PFAS: A Serious Breakdown in Assessing Food Additive Safety

Nov 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Tom Neltner

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director, and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Independent Consultant
This blog is the fourth in a series describing information we discovered in reviewing thousands of pages from the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of the agency’s approval of 31 Food Contact Substance Notifications (FCNs) from 2002 to 2016 submitted by six companies for 19 distinct chemical mixtures of per- and poly-fluorinated substances (PFAS).
In this blog, we identify one company’s serious breach of its obligation to provide FDA with all relevant toxicology data. While hindsight is 20/20, we have reason to believe that if FDA had had all relevant information, it would have demanded more studies potentially revealing risks that are only now coming to light with related chemicals. Though we have not completed a similar review for the other companies, we think this inadequate approach to chemical safety is not unique to a single company, and FDA should reassess all its reviews given what is now known about PFAS chemicals.
Safety assessment requirements for food additives – including food contact substances
When a company seeks FDA’s approval of food additives (including food contact substances), it is required to provide the agency with all relevant chemistry, toxicology and environmental data so it can conduct a safety assessment. While the agency typically conducts a literature search of its own and of public databases, the company that is claiming the chemical’s use is safe is obligated to include any data that is inconsistent with the company’s conclusion.
This requirement is essential because, as part of the safety assessment, the agency must determine that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from the chemical’s intended use considering three factors: 1) the probable consumption of the chemical due to the use; 2) the cumulative effect of chemically- and pharmacologically-related substances in the diet; and 3) appropriate safety factors. When data are omitted, the agency could miss critical information that would prompt it to raise questions, demand more studies, and possibly refuse to approve the use.
As a practical matter, this review is critical because it is FDA’s best chance to get it right; the agency rarely looks back at the safety of a chemical unless there is a later notice or other request for the same substance. And when it does reassess safety, the agency appears to mistakenly think it must prove the chemical is unsafe rather than show its use no longer meets the standard of safety. Therefore, the agency may never learn of an omission or act on it if discovered. For instance, FDA has never withdrawn an approval for a food contact substance notification (FCN), not even when it raised concerns about the safety of long-chain PFASs.
Since 2000, FDA has reviewed the safety of a food contact substance (FCS) whenever a company submits a FCN. Until the agency approves the notice, the law requires that the agency evaluate it out of public view. If it approves the notice, the agency only posts the final approval and the environmental assessment on its website. A FOIA request is needed to get the notice and the agency’s evaluation – a process that can take months and results in a heavily redacted response. If the notice is withdrawn – which happens about 28% (530 of 1913 notices) of the time – FDA cannot release the notice in response to a FOIA.
Daikin’s failure to inform FDA on an animal study showing liver and kidney effects
From 2008 to 2016, Daikin, a Japanese company that is a major producer of fluorinated chemicals, submitted eight FCNs for PFAS. Our FOIA covered five – FCN# 820, 827, 888, 933, and 1044 – for PFAS polymers made from the same chemical known as 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl 2-propeonate.[1]
This chemical has six carbons that are fully fluorinated (commonly called C6) and two non-fluorinated carbons. For convenience, we will refer to this chemical as C6SFA, one of several names Daikin uses for it. The other names are perfluorohexylethyl acrylate, 13FA and 13F-SFA. The company’s PFAS manufacturing facility is in Decatur, Alabama and its wastewater is discharged into the Tennessee River upstream of several recreational lakes.
We reviewed the toxicology information Daikin submitted to FDA for each of the five FCNs and compared it to human health effects studies the company listed in its website. We mostly focused on the FCN 820 because it was the first one submitted to the agency using C6SFA. The notice included three genotoxicity studies – two in vitro and one in vivomouse study.
To our surprise, the company did not submit a month-long feeding study in rats showing that the liver and kidney of the animals treated with C6SFA were heavier and showed pathological changes. Also, the rats’ incisor teeth showed signs of decreased mineralization (mottled teeth) associated with ingestion of excessive fluoride. The study concluded that “it was considered that [C6SFA] had mainly effects on the incisor, liver and kidney” and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was considered to be 5 mg/kg bw/day based on increased relative kidney weight in males at the next largest dose, 25 mg/kg bw/day (See Table 1 below). This is consistent with the type of harm seen with longer chain PFAS.Table 1. Comparison between the 2007 and 2014 28-day repeated dose oral toxicity studies in rat Daily dose (mg/kg bw)Liver weightLiver functionLiver pathologyIncisorsKidney weightKidney pathology20075________NOAEL__25________Increased__125IncreasedIncreased enzyme levels (AST, ALT, ALP); decreased total cholesterolIncreased cell size, cell deathDecreased mineralization; irregular cell alignment, cysts.IncreasedDilated tubules, altered tubular cells_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________201430Increased*____Not evaluatedNOAEL*__120IncreasedIncreased bilirubinIncreased liver cells sizeNot evaluatedIncreased__* Daikin reported a NOAEL of 30 for 2014 study despite the increased liver weight. In our review, 30 should be the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and not the NOAEL.
The notice also did not include an animal study that measured the dose necessary to kill half of the tested animals as well as one additional in vitro study.
Beyond the consumer exposure to PFAS uses in contact with food, the issue is important for drinking water systems downstream from the facilities where the chemicals are made and applied to paper and other materials. In a previous blog, we reported that Daikin estimated that as much as 225 pounds of the PFAS made from C6SFA may be released from a paper mill using it to greaseproof paper for food use.
Daikin repeats the missing study in 2014
On Daikin’s website,[ii] we found that the company repeated the rat study of C6SFA seven years later, in 2014, “to confirm the presence or absence of the toxic effects at 30 mg/kg/day and reproducibility [of] the test results.” This typically happens when a company considers increasing potential exposures to levels that may be above the current NOAEL.
The study used only two doses instead of the typical three and the amounts of C6SFA were slightly different from the earlier study. However, the results were very similar to the 2007 toxicity test: the weight of liver and kidneys was increased, the microscopic structure of the liver and its function were altered. Despite this evidence, Daikin selected a new NOAEL of 30 mg/kg bw/day even though that dose increased the weight of the liver. Table 1 below compares the results of the two studies.
Because our FOIA did not include two FCNs approved by FDA in 2014 – FCN# 1360 and 1451 – that used C6SFA, we do not know whether Daikin provided FDA with the studies in those notices.
In addition, we do not understand why in 2014 Daikin would undertake a new animal study and not design it to evaluate the more sensitive endpoints associated with similar PFAS such as reproductive and developmental harm. While these might not have been clear in 2008, there was growing evidence for similar chemicals by 2014.
More-common omissions in industry food additive safety assessments
As noted earlier, a chemical safety assessment must consider the cumulative effects of chemically- or pharmacologically-related substances in the diet. In our eight years of reviewing industry safety assessments we often see this factor narrowly defined or not mentioned at all. Therefore, we reviewed the FOIA response to see whether the companies included studies on other PFAS that were similar in the chemical structure or the organs affected.
We did not find any FCN that assessed the toxicological cumulative effect of similar PFAS. However, because some documents are heavily redacted, we cannot rule out that similar PFAS were identified as members of the same class and that their cumulative effects were discussed.
More significantly, FDA noticed these omissions. In its toxicology assessment memo of FCN 820, the agency’s toxicologists identified five FCNs using PFAS that appear very similar to C6SFA:Hercules FCNs 542, 746 and 783: 2-propen-1-ol, reaction products with 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6-tridecafluoro-6-iodohexaneAsahi FCNs 599 and 604: polyfluorooctyl methacrylate
Inexplicably, FDA did not appear to request Daikin or any of the other PFAS manufacturers that submitted FCNs to assess safety as a class of chemically-related substances in the diet.
Potential biopersistence of similar C6 chemicals
As we reviewed Daikin’s webpage, we realized there were studies, beyond toxicology, that were also of interest because they dealt with the breakdown products of C6SFA in the environment by microorganisms, in activated sludge and in water in various pH conditions. For instance, we learned that degradation products of C6SFA are tridecafluorooctanoic acid and 2-(perfluorohexyl) ethanol (aka 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-Tridecafluorooctyl alcohol), a type of fluorotelomer alcohol known as 6:2 (six fully-fluorinated carbons and two non-fluorinated carbons).
These fluorotelomer alcohols are significant because earlier this year FDA scientists published a peer-reviewed journal article stating that these alcohols are components of high-molecular weight polymeric food contact substances such as those approved by the agency. More importantly, the scientists concluded that 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohols have “high biopersistence potential.” We haven’t been able to find any information on biopersistence in the 31 FDA-approved FCNs covered by our FOIA.
Conclusion
Both FDA and companies must apply the legally mandated requirements when performing chemical safety assessments of food chemicals. This includes identifying chemicals that belong to a class because they are chemically-related or because they cause similar biological effects in animals or humans. The agency applied the concept of chemical class only once, when it decided that three long-chain PFAS were unsafe. This should be the norm not the exemption.
Given these problems, we maintain that FDA should demand that Daikin update its notification to include the missing data and reassess whether the use is safe for public health and the environment. While we have not completed a similar review for the other companies, we think a similar reassessment is needed for all PFAS given what is now known about these chemicals.
Lastly, manufacturers should support the agency’s long-promised effort to make information available to the public with the necessary protections for confidential information. Transparency is a first step to reestablish the public trust that has been eroded by decades of excessive reliance on incomplete data and old scientific assumptions.
[1] We have not yet submitted a FOIA for three FCNs submitted after 2011 including two – FCN# 1360 and 1451 – which appear to be based on the same C6SFA monomer.
[ii] Daikin appears to have deleted the webpage, but we tracked down the old page on an Internet archival service.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/11/04/fda-approved-pfas-breakdown-assessing-food-additive-safety/

Return to headline | Return to top
New Jersey Should Draft Better Radon Regulations, Court Says

Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Leslie A. Pappas

A court has urged New Jersey regulators to flesh out rules on radon measurement and mitigation in response to a dispute with the state’s largest radon testing company.
In a Nov. 2 decision, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division partially affirmed, partially reversed, and remanded a decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) against Radiation Data Inc. of Skillman.
“The DEP is also urged to engage in prospective rulemaking,” the court concluded.
The decision could spell changes to New Jersey’s Radiation Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2D-1 to -89), enacted in 1986. Under the act, it is a crime to perform radon testing or mitigation without required certification, and the department may levy penalties of up to $2,500 for any violation.
Radon, the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S., is an odorless, colorless, radioactive gas that comes from uranium in soil and rock, and can seep into homes through cracks in basements and around pipes.
Company Appealed Decision
Radiation Data appealed a Nov. 1, 2017, agency decision that found the company violated several department regulations involving radon measurement and mitigation from August 2009 through December 2014.
Many of the alleged violations were related to radon tests carried out by technicians who were affiliated with Radiation Data but were self-employed or worked for other businesses as subcontractors to do the work.
Radiation Data argued it shouldn’t be held responsible for “affiliate” technicians that the company doesn’t directly pay or otherwise supervise.
The company argued that over time, the department changed its interpretations of the regulations that required all businesses that offer radon testing service to obtain a certification, to a contrary policy that allows testers to simply affiliate with a certified measurement business such as Radiation Data, the decision says.
Radiation Data argued that the department is attempting to enforce rules against the company “without appropriately promulgating them through public notice and comment rulemaking as required,” the decision says.
The department referred a Bloomberg Environment request for comment to the state’s attorney general, which didn’t immediately respond to an email inquiry.
Radiation Data didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
The case is N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Radiation Data Inc., N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., No. A-1777-17T3, 2018 BL 405481, 11/2/18.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/new-jersey-should-draft-better-radon-regulations-court-says

Return to headline | Return to top
Dr Pepper, Mott’s Sued Over Pesticide in Apple Sauce

Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Julie Steinberg

Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. got hit with a new suit challenging the marketing of some Mott’s “all natural” applesauce and apple juice that allegedly contain traces of a synthetic insecticide.
The suit, also filed against Dr Pepper Snapple’s Mott’s LLP unit, joins a growing number of consumer deception actions that allege companies tout their products as healthful despite chemical residue.
A number of suits target traces of the weedkiller glyphosate. But the suit here concerns acetamiprid, a bugkiller.
Dr Pepper Snapple Group didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Recent consumer suits challenging the presence of glyphosate in food include proposed class actions against Quaker Oats and Pret a Manger. Those companies have previously declined to comment on the suits.
Nothing ‘Natural’ About Neurotoxin
Acetamiprid can legally be used in treating and harvesting crops, and certain amounts of residues are permitted on fruits and vegetables.
But it also is a neurotoxin that may be hazardous to humans and animals, the complaint alleges.
Consumers pay a premium for “natural” products and wouldn’t expect them to contain the pesticide residue, the consumers say.
Californian Hawyuan Yu seeks money damages and either changes to the products’ labels and marketing, or a reformulation so the products no longer contain acetamiprid.
Mott’s now calls “natural” applesauce “unsweetened applesauce,” according to its website.
Yu seeks to represent a national class, or a California subclass.
The Richman Law Group represents Yu.
The case is Yu v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 18-6664, 11/1/18.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/dr-pepper-motts-sued-over-pesticide-in-apple-sauce

Return to headline | Return to top
Duckworth Seeks More Data, Monitoring at Controversial Plant

Nov 5, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar

Sen. Tammy Duckworth this afternoon called on EPA to provide the public with additional information about cancer-causing emissions from a politically toxic medical instrument cleaning facility outside Chicago.
Specifically, the Illinois Democrat asked the agency to immediately publish online stack test results and public health standards for the Sterigenics International LLC facility as well as to begin continuous fence-line monitoring of its ethylene oxide emissions.
"It is critical that the EPA swiftly work to enhance transparency at and restore public confidence in EPA so Illinoisans — and all Americans — can trust that their government is doing everything in its power to protect them," she wrote in a letter to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
EPA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter, but earlier this week the agency released a detailed timeline of its efforts to address dangerously high levels of carcinogenic emissions from the Sterigenics facility (Greenwire, Oct. 30).
The Sterigenics facility has become a political liability for the Trump administration as well as two Illinois Republicans seeking re-election.
Gov. Bruce Rauner, who is a part owner of Sterigenics via the private equity firm he co-founded, has faced questions about his response to news reports about the facility in August. He initially said "this is not a public health immediate crisis," and then last month called for the facility to be temporarily closed (Greenwire, Oct. 3).
Meanwhile, Rep. Peter Roskam's ties to the chemical industry have become a top issue in the race against Democratic challenger Sean Casten (Greenwire, Nov. 1).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/02/stories/1060105083

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Solving the Capacity Crunch in Today's Petrochemical Supply Chain

Nov 3, 2018 | Oilman Magazine

By Aaron Kline

It has become extremely difficult to optimize product movements across an increasingly complex petrochemical supply chain. Chokepoints at shale oil fields are complicated by capacity problems further down the logistical stream that are stimulating the construction and expansion of oil export terminals. Today’s challenges are slowing down product transports, increasing costs, and threatening to prevent oil companies from realizing the full benefits of increased capacity.
To solve these challenges, companies are turning to Industry 4.0 solutions for liquid storage terminals that aggregate sensor and planning/forecasting data into a single shared view while also delivering valuable analytics and real-time alerting capabilities. These tools enable operators to squeeze the highest possible product volumes through their supply chain and transportation infrastructure.
A Tough Problem Gets More Challenging
A 2017 report by the ACC (American Chemistry Council) and PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) predicted that, in the larger U.S. chemical industry, excess inventories could soon cost $22 billion in working capital, and capital expenditures (CAPEX) could increase by $23 billion for the equipment and infrastructure required to handle increased congestion and delays. The report also predicted that logistical inefficiencies could result in up to $29 billion in increased operating costs over a ten-year period.
Today’s terminal optimization tools offer a solution, delivering accurate real-time data so operators can make the best possible decisions at all stages of the supply chain – from upstream exploration and petroleum production through midstream transportation to refineries for conversion and storage, and on through downstream processing and the transportation, marketing, and distribution of refined products by pipeline, vessels, rail, and trucks.
Terminal optimization platforms have already played a key role in helping liquid storage terminals absorb massive growth in crude oil transportation traffic from onshore shale finds, over the past few years. Initially deployed at the dock, these web-based and collaborative process optimization tools have enabled users to reduce dock delay times an average of 35 percent within the first few months of their adoption, and to complete approximately 15 percent more vessel calls within the first year. More recently, these tools have evolved to provide planning, reporting, forecasting, analytics, and alerting capabilities across all terminal logistics operations, thus setting the stage for new ways to manage multi-modal product movements.
A New Approach
At the core of today’s terminal-optimization platforms is a combination of real-time and historical AIS (Automatic Identification System) data that enables users to improve visibility into vessel operations and to cut liquid-cargo transportation costs while enhancing safety and security. This enhanced visibility vastly improves processes like demurrage calculation, ensuring that all parties have the same information about demurrage costs and who is responsible for penalties. Everyone can discuss and dispute issues by using the same information about real-time and historical vessel movements, and can collaborate to identify and correct root causes of delays.
In addition to improving visibility, today’s tools also facilitate collaborative real-time operational planning and reporting across all terminal product movements from the dock to tanks, trucks, rail, and pipelines. Stakeholders can work together on an extensive range of logistics operations – from pipeline transfer scheduling, tasking, and line management functions to historical reporting for performance tracking, optimization, and trending analysis. They can also troubleshoot together, solving scheduling and other problems while understanding how actions in one part of the operation affect what is going on elsewhere.
Another benefit of today’s tools is more consistent asset allocation, along with asset-utilization reporting. The most common problem that operators report is when multiple products must go through the same pump and there is an incoming product that requires special handling or that needs more time to transport than other products. Planners can now preempt these problems, oversights, and associated scheduling conflicts by giving teams the necessary logistics information about delays and other issues in order to collectively make complex asset-utilization decisions (Figure 1).
LIKED THIS ARTICLE?Subscribe to the weekly OILMAN Newsletter and receive updates on oil & gas technology, trends, training, news and events.
Email Address* WE ONLY SEND REALLY GOOD STUFF, NO SPAM, PROMISE.
Figure 1: One of the purposes of delay dashboards and reports is to correlate information about inbound pipeline moves and the availability of docks. Dock delay reports improve how users schedule vessel arrival times and manage through any disruptions, while also enabling them to assess how delays impact productivity and demurrage expenses.
All event logging activities are automated, and diverse stakeholders can collaborate anywhere, anytime. Users can build tank-to-tank lineups on the fly and keep them for future use, and do this in a consistent fashion to ensure that everyone can understand throughput for every line and route, identify bottlenecks, and build business cases for additional infrastructure. They can also implement proactive alerting to prevent overfill and underfill situations and other scheduling conflicts.
Additionally, today’s tools deliver valuable forecasting and planning capabilities across all transportation modes and serve as the most consistently accurate source of information – thus enabling all available information to be obtained from a single shared source. Operators can validate capital and outsourcing investments, while also comparing the effectiveness of third-party resources, analyzing investments in additional owned assets, and evaluating a combination of both approaches.
Leveraging Key Performance Indicators
One of the most transformational capabilities of today’s terminal-optimization tools is that they deliver the real-time and historical operational data that operators need to set and manage measurable KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). This capability enables operators to improve and standardize productivity, alert users when corrective actions are needed, and keep operations within desired efficiency envelopes. KPIs help mitigate supply chain risks by enabling all stakeholders to understand root causes of delays, and they facilitate the creation of benchmarks for improving and standardizing best practices (see Fig. 2). KPIs can also be used to trigger alerts before deviations from the target KPI benchmarks exceed accepted thresholds, so users can collaborate on the best courses of action.
Figure 2: Users can also create delay dashboards that drill deeper into the root causes of delays, which facilitates the development and tracking of KPIs for improving and standardizing best practices.
KPIs have traditionally been used to plan capital expenditures on maritime dock expansion projects, and to validate that existing dock capacities were being fully utilized. Now, operators are also using these tools to more effectively plan investments in new tanks and in other storage and transportation infrastructure. With these tools, operators can generate reports on a variety of terminal-wide task metrics and track measurable KPIs ranging from how long it takes to complete one task and launch another, to compliance reports on emissions regulations.
Today’s collaborative terminal process optimization tools are quickly becoming logistics hubs for all product movements – whether they are tank-to-tank transfers or a variety of inbound and outbound pipeline, railcar, and truck movements. These tools are changing how terminals operate by automating significantly more of the supply chain management process. They are also introducing real-time KPIs and trending analytics into capital investment decision making and into the increasingly critical process of improving and standardizing efficiency best practices and benchmarking.
https://oilmanmagazine.com/article/solving-the-capacity-crunch-in-todays-petrochemical-supply-chain/

Return to headline | Return to top
Colorado Measure Could Force State to Pay Frackers

Nov 4, 2018 | Wall Street Journal

By Rebecca Elliott and Dan Frosch

Colorado voters on Tuesday will decide whether to sharply curtail oil-and-gas drilling in an election that has divided the state.
They will also consider a separate ballot measure that would require state and local governments to potentially pay fracking companies and other property owners who claim their holdings were devalued by regulations.
Proposition 112 would prevent drilling within 2,500 feet of homes, businesses and green spaces. Amendment 74 would require the government to provide landowners with “just compensation” when regulations cause any reduction in property value.
While the fate of the measure to prevent drilling looks too close to call heading into election day, the measure to compensate landowners appears to have a strong chance of passage. Sixty-three percent of respondents to a recent University of Colorado Boulder survey said they backed it.Off LimitsAreas around occupied buildings and green spaces would be off limits to new drilling under a Colorado ballot measure. Unshaded areas would be the only nonfederal land available for new oil and gas development.
Top 5 producing
counties
2,500-foot buffer zone around vulnerable areas
2,500-foot buffer zone around occupied structures
Federal lands
WELD
Greeley
RIO BLANCO
Denver
GARFIELD
COLORADO
Grand Junction
Colorado Springs
50 miles
50 km
LAS ANIMAS
LA PLATA
Note: Occupied structure data not available for some areas of eastern Colorado.
Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
The compensation measure was officially put forward by the Colorado Farm Bureau. Chad Vorthmann, the farm bureau’s executive vice president, said it would make government more accountable for its actions.
The measure has been predominantly financed by the energy industry, and would give oil and gas companies a clearer path to sue over lost drilling access.
“It’ll be implemented, and then boom, the lawsuits will start,” Denver-based attorney John Watson said.
Both measures underscore the conflict that has escalated in the state as oil-and-gas production has soared, often in proximity to booming residential areas.
Statewide measures to limit drilling failed to make the ballot in 2014 and 2016, but a recent wave of deadly drilling explosions in Coloradohas heightened tensions over energy development.
State regulators have estimated that the measure to curtail drillingwould put 85% of Colorado’s nonfederal land off limits to new wells. That doesn’t account for minerals that would remain accessible via horizontal drilling. The energy industry has invested heavily in defeating the proposition, spending more than $36 million as of late October, compared with supporters’ and environmental activists’ more than $800,000, campaign finance disclosures show.
Oregon passed a similar landowner compensation measure that was in effect for most of two years, beginning in 2005. Sarah Marvin, an Oregon land-use planner, said more than $17 billion worth of claims were filed, but without any funds attached to the measure, the state and counties simply waived regulations for 99% of them.
A second measure passed by voters in 2007 modified the original measure, voiding most waivers and halting unprocessed claims.
While Colorado’s ballot proposals have divided lawmakers, many agree both could have a dramatic impact.
State lawmakers are girding for legislative wrangling if either passes.
The president of Colorado’s state senate, Republican Kevin Grantham, said he would move to repeal the drilling ban if it is approved. “It would be incumbent upon me and everyone who has a conscience to get rid of this to save 100 to 200,000 jobs we can’t afford to lose,” he said.
House Majority Leader Kathleen Collins “KC” Becker, a Democrat from Boulder, said that she supported the drilling ban, but would have drafted it differently.
Ms. Becker said she viewed Amendment 74 as more potentially damaging, noting that because it is a constitutional amendment, the legislature had less recourse to change it.
“It is such an outrageous measure,” she said. “It could bankrupt state and local government.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-measure-could-force-state-to-pay-frackers-1541347200?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=4

Return to headline | Return to top
Bill Gates, Pearl Jam Back Carbon Fee in Washington State Vote

Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Oil companies fighting a Washington state ballot measure that would impose the nation’s first fee on carbon dioxide are squaring off against some formidable foes—from rock band Pearl Jam to Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates.
Ballot initiative 1631 would impose a fee on refineries, utilities, and other producers of carbon dioxide emissions of at least $15 per ton starting in 2020 if voters approve the measure Nov. 6. State officials estimate it would raise $2.3 billion by 2025 for clean energy spending.
Opponents say the measure unfairly targets the oil and gas industry while exempting the state’s other large polluters and, therefore, it would be ineffective at curbing pollution. Environmental advocates—who have been joined by business leaders and celebrities in support—say the oil companies are being hypocritical, given that some have publicly supported actions to fight climate change. Those companies include BP Plc, which has backed carbon dioxide pricing yet is the largest contributor in the campaign against the fee.
Lobbying on the measure has topped $46 million, with the oil industry accounting for $31 million of that, according to state public disclosure filings. That makes it Washington’s most expensive ballot initiative since records have been kept, according to Ballotpedia.org, a nonpartisan politics website that tracks such measures.
“These campaigns aren’t just battling for Washington, but for future measures that could go on the ballot elsewhere with similar policies,” said Josh Altic, the group’s ballot measures project director, in an email. “The opposition is trying to preempt future efforts.”Funding From Supporters, Opponents
Top backers of the effort include the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group based in Arlington, Va., which has given more than $3 million to support the measure, and the League of Conservation Voters, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. Microsoft co-founder Gates has donated $1 million to the cause, as has Bloomberg LP founder Michael Bloomberg.
Entertainers, including Grammy award-winning rapper Macklemore and rock band Pearl Jam, have voiced support through public events and statements.
“We can’t wait for our polarized governments to be decisive,” Pearl Jam guitarist Stone Gossard wrote on the Seattle-based band’s website. “A fee on the largest polluters in our state to help the communities most impacted by climate change, while supporting clean energy projects, is the right next step.”
Oil companies have contributed 99 percent of the $31 million raised to oppose the carbon fee, with BP leading donations with $12.9 million. Oil refiners Phillips 66 and Andeavor—some after it was bought by Marathon Petroleum Corp.—have given $7.2 million and $6 million respectively to the campaign. Refiners Valero Energy Corp., Koch Industries Inc. and the Washington, D.C., trade group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufactures have also contributed about $1 million each.
BP has joined with other oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil Corp.—which is not listed in state records as contributing on the ballot measure but is a member of the petrochemical manufacturers trade group—in proclaiming their support for a carbon price.
The company said in a letter sent earlier this year it “attempted” to work with the sponsors of initiative 1631 “to create an effective plan” but it cannot support the measure because it would “disrupt” the state’s economy and wouldn’t achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions.
“BP has long believed that the threat of climate change is an important long-term challenge that justifies action,” Jason Ryan, a BP spokesman, said in a statement. “We are committed to working with policy makers to develop a fair and robust carbon pricing program that will lower carbon emissions in the State of Washington.”
BP and other opponents take issue with plan’s exemption for a coal-fired power plant, an aluminum smelter, and pulp and paper plants in the state.
“It shouldn’t be any surprise they are funding our campaign,” said Dana Bieber, a spokeswoman for Vote No on 1631, said of the oil and gas industry. “The way the proponents wrote the measure, they exempted all the other large polluters leaving only energy companies and their customers on the hook.”
Bieber said the measure would increase costs for Washington families by $440 in the first year alone.State’s Largest Polluters
Nick Abraham, a spokesman for Yes on 1631, a coalition supporting the carbon fee, disputes that figure and said the initiative covers 18 out of 20 of the state’s largest polluters. The oil and gas industry is “by far” the largest polluter in Washington, he said.
“I think it’s pretty disingenuous for the oil industry to point fingers at other folks when they are not only the largest polluter in the state but also the largest polluter in the world,” he said in a phone interview. The coal-fired power plant in question is scheduled to shut down in 2025 as part of deal with the state, Abraham added.
Backers of the measure, including the Washington Environmental Council, say the oil industry’s opposition is motivated by protecting their profits, especially if a successful vote in Washington leads to similar initiatives in other states or on the federal level.
“I think they realize states have power to take action and build momentum for a national solution,” said Becky Kelley, the council’s president.
Oregon’s Legislature is expected to take up a carbon price next year, she said.

https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/billgates-pearl-jam-back-carbon-fee-in-washington-state-vote

Return to headline | Return to top
Americans Need a Balance: Cleaner Environment, Affordable Energy

Nov 2, 2018 | RealClearEnergy

By David Holt

Very soon, many of us – all, I hope – will close the voting booth curtain and cast votes on how to best expand critical public services, trim household costs and increase our state and nation’s economies. To cast the right vote, we don’t have to look much further than our candidates’ proposed energy policies.
It’s what voters in various states with booming economies have done in recent years, and it’s working. The examples are endless.
New Mexico, for instance, has an economy that leads other states in job and wage gains since President Trump took office, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia data, as cited by Bloomberg. GoBankingRates, meanwhile, rated West Virginia first in economic growth, citing gross domestic product (GDP) growth, a decline in the unemployment rate and a moderate increase in personal income as the key factors.
And Pennsylvania, a state once decimated by record declines in steel and manufacturing, has seen energy prices decline and job growth balloon thanks to record production in its nearby Marcellus and Utica shales. Consumers there, in fact, saved $30.5 billion over a 10-year period, and the state’s energy sector create nearly 322,600 jobs, according to a recent Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) report.
Several factors contributed to these states’ turnaround, including improved regulatory policies and initiatives and billions of dollars in investment – none of which would have been possible without voters electing the right people with the most balanced strategies to how we best meet our energy solutions.
What’s more, recent polling shows most Americans – 99 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats – support policies that promote energy independence and reduce dependency on foreign resources. No other issue attracts such cross-aisle support.
Energy is a non-partisan issue. We all need heating in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, electricity to power our lights and charge our phones, and fuel to drive to work and school. We also drink the same water and breathe the air; thus, producing and transporting energy via the safest ways known remains an equally important priority.
They are facts all Americans agree with.
Yet too much of the debate continues to force a false choice between developing our energy and environmental protection. Thanks to improved technology and procedures, plus an array of regulations that’s second to none globally, the industry has helped America continue its role as a world leader in energy conservation. Case in point: The U.S. reduced its carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries, in 2017, the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy says, all while the national economy grew by nearly 3 percent.
The sector has also helped reduced energy costs nationally and powered an economic revival that generated its best unemployment mark in decades, producing and exporting energy at never-before-seen levels.
To continue this success, it’s best to choose candidates who support an all-of-the-above energy policy that includes finding zones where the wind gusts the most and the sun shines the brightest, and areas where traditional, reliable sources like natural gas and oil are abundant – especially since America, according to pollster Frank Luntz, still imports about 40 percent of its oil needs, accounting for some 20 percent of its trade deficit. Other must-have sources including nuclear, coal and hydroelectric should be included.
CEA is doing its part. Its Energy Pledge initiative, which helps consumers identify elected officials and candidates who recognize that balancing environment safeguards and affordable energy policies for households and small businesses struggling to make ends meet or meet payroll, has attracted nearly 250 signers.
But more is needed. Inaction on balancing economics with environmental stewardship remains commonplace in town halls, municipal buildings and state capitals, and Washington, D.C. Too many in politics talk too much and do too little. The same, unfortunately, applies to voters. That may change next month if voters keep energy affordability firmly in mind.
David Holt is President of the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA).
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/11/02/striking_a_balance_between_a_cleaner_environment_and_affordable_energy_110361.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Chevron’s U.S. Natural Gas Volumes Surge 14%, Liquids Jump 25%

Nov 2, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

Supermajor Chevron Corp. produced a record 2.96 million boe/d net in 3Q2018, 9% higher than a year ago, as the Wheatstone natural gas export project in Australia ramped up and Permian Basin volumes continued to climb...
Access to full text unavailable –subscription required.
Story can be found here:
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116350-chevrons-us-natural-gas-volumes-surge-14-liquids-jump-25

Return to headline | Return to top
Ethane Infrastructure Squeeze to Loosen in 2019: ExxonMobil Executive

Nov 2, 2018 | Platts

By Kristen Hayes and Richard Rubin

An infrastructure squeeze that has escalated US ethane prices while compressing ethylene margins should be resolved by the end of 2019, a top ExxonMobil executive said on Friday.
"We are seeing some near-term impacts of recent industry supply growth, including our own, which does not change our view of the long-term attractiveness of this business," Jack Williams, executive vice president, said during the company's quarterly earnings call.
In May, US ethylene prices fell to 12 cents/lb FD USG alongside US ethane prices at 25.875 cents/gal as new derivative plants, including ExxonMobil's two new 650,000 mt/year polyethylene plants in Mont Belvieu east of Houston, were not yet soaking up new ethylene capacity.
Ethane demand rose as new cracker capacity came online,including Exxon's new 1.5 million mt/year cracker in Baytown that started up in July. However, a lack of natural gas liquids processing and pipeline infrastructure helped push ethane prices to 61 cents/gal on September 18, the highest level since July 2012. Ethylene rose in tandem to 23 cents/lb FD USG on the same date.
Prices for both have since fallen. On Thursday, US ethane was assessed at 31.50 cents/gal, while spot US ethylene was assessed at 19.50 cents/lb FD USG, according to S&P Global Platts data.
Williams said called the NGL infrastructure issue said the infrastructure lag will New NGL fractionation and pipeline capacity projects are under construction or planned. Those include Enterprise Products Partners' Shin Oak 250,000 b/d NGL pipeline from West Texas to the company's Mont Belvieu hub slated to start up in the second quarter next year, and new fractionation capacity planned by Enterprise and Phillips 66 in 2020.
"That's a transitory issue," Williams said Friday. "There's more NGL fractionation capacity being built, constructed right now. We see plenty of ethane supply out there, and quite frankly, a lot of it is getting rejected in the ethane stream right now, so that's going to get resolved. I think it's going to get resolved in a manner of the span of 2019."
Neil Hanson, Exxon's vice president of investor relations and secretary, added that the company considers long-term chemical fundamentals strong, with demand growth at 1% over GDP over time. "You'll see times where you'll see cyclical pressures," he said.
NEW COMPLEX IN 2022
Williams said ExxonMobil's new 650,000 mt/year polyethylene plant under construction at its Beaumont, Texas refining and chemical complex was on track to start up in mid-2019, and the company was progressing on a new petrochemical complex near Corpus Christi, a joint venture with Sabic. Construction remains slated to begin once the venture secures necessary permits, with startup expected in 2022, Williams said.
That complex is slated to include a 1.8 million mt/year cracker, two linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) plants and a monoethylene glycol (MEG) plant. It also will include a rail yard to offload polyethylene pellets for transport and a marine terminal to export MEG and cracker propane and butane streams, according to the venture's permit documents. The companies aim to make their final investment decision to move ahead with the complex once permits are secured, ExxonMobil spokeswoman Sarah Nordin said Friday.
PTTCG America, the US arm of Thailand's PTTGC, also is planning a new petrochemical complex in Southeast Ohio in the 2020s, about 78 miles southwest of Shell's complex under construction near Pittsburgh. PTTGC America and its partner in the project, South Korea's Daelim, are slated to make a final investment decision by the end of this year.
Plans for that complex, according to permitting documents, include a 1.5 million mt/year cracker and four polyethylene plants. Of those, two will have capacity to produce 350,000 mt/year of high density polyethylene (HDPE), and a third HDPE plant and an LLDPE facility will each have capacities of 450,000 mt/year. The complex also will include two HDPE rail car loading operations.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/110218-ethane-infrastructure-squeeze-to-loosen-in-2019-exxonmobil-executive

Return to headline | Return to top
Settlement with Gas Processor to Boost Clean Air in 6 States

Nov 2, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

A Marathon Petroleum Corp. affiliate will pay a $925,000 fine and tighten pollution controls at 20 natural gas processing plants in six states under a tentative court settlement with state and federal regulators.
MPLX LP will have to improve leak detection programs and make other changes that EPA forecasts will eventually cut overall releases of volatile organic compounds by about 1,500 tons annually, according to the proposed consent decree announced late yesterday. The draft agreement would settle allegations that the company and 11 subsidiaries repeatedly violated emission control requirements for New Source Performance Standards.
The agreement, lodged in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, still needs a judge's signature following a public comment period. Representatives for MPLX, which admits no liability, did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment this afternoon.
Attached to the court filing lodged yesterday were several formal violation notices levied against the company in 2015 and 2016. Following standard practice, the Justice Department yesterday also filed a lawsuit outlining the allegations to be resolved by the proposed consent decree.
The Ohio-based firm is a master limited partnership formed by Marathon in 2012 to own and operate pipelines and other "midstream" properties. For 2017, MPLX reported a record $794 million in net income, according to a news release from earlier this year. EPA estimates the changes required under the proposed consent decree will cost about $3 million. The company will also spend at least another $2.5 million on new air monitoring stations near four of the plants, according to an EPA summary.
The plants covered by the proposed deal are in Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. The states of Oklahoma and West Virginia, along with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, are also parties to the agreement. Three-quarters of the $925,000 fine will go to the federal government, with those three states splitting the remainder.
Volatile organic compounds comprise an array of chemicals associated with health effects that range from eye irritation to central nervous system damage. In sunlight, they can also react with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/02/stories/1060105079

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy, Environment Initiatives Prominent Nationwide

Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

From salmon in Alaska to a carbon tax in Washington, voters will take state environment and energy issues into their own hands this week.
People in 37 states will decide on 155 state ballot measures, according to the website Ballotpedia, which tracks political candidates and other election issues nationwide.
E&E News features, analysis and updates on the midterm elections.Click here to view the stories and interactive map.
Energy is a standout theme, with six measures in six states related to fossil fuels and promoting renewable energy generation.
Voters in both Arizona and Nevada will have to decide if half of the electrical power used by utilities should come from renewables by 2030.
The measures are backed by Tom Steyer via NextGen Climate Action and opposed by utilities. If the measures pass, the states would be on par with neighboring California's renewable portfolio standard.
"It turns out Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of solar energy in the United States, and Arizona is number two," Steyer, the founder of NextGen, told The Nevada Independent. "Between the two of them, they could actually produce enough energy to produce enough electricity for the whole United States."
Washington state will try for a third time to pass a carbon tax, which could have sweeping ramifications for climate policy across the country. If the measure passes, it would make Washington the first state to adopt a carbon price from an initiative on the ballot.Alaska
Alaskans will vote to decide if the state Department of Fish and Game should be required to grant permits for activities and development projects that could harm fish habitat.
Ballot Measure No. 1 could impose tough salmon habitat controls on major construction projects related to state waterways. It would not affect existing projects that have state and federal permits.
"So far, we've gotten lucky," says the Yes for Salmon campaign on its website. "Despite a vague law protecting salmon habitat, Alaska has avoided any catastrophic project or disaster on a salmon stream big enough to wipe out a major salmon run.
"But the legal provision is so ambiguous that is it's vulnerable to political interference — whereby pet projects could be legally permitted despite good science and common sense saying they shouldn't."
Opponents of the measure say that the state has enough regulations to help fish habitat and that it would cost Alaskans jobs.
Stand for Alaska-Vote No on One has accused Yes for Salmon and other pro-initiative groups of flouting campaign finance laws (Greenwire, Sept. 21).
The opposition group said "the proponent's failure to disclose campaign donors could cause 'irreparable harm' by denying voters vital information they need to know before they vote November 6." It petitioned the Alaska Public Offices Commission to hold an emergency hearing on its accusations.
The Anchorage Daily News editorial board also opposed the measure.
"Imposing an overreaching system of regulation such as the one proposed by Ballot Measure 1 won't help fish, and it will hurt our state's recovering economy," it wrote.Arizona
Arizona voters will get to decide if electric utilities should increase their usage of renewable resources.
Proposition 127 would require utilities to get half of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. It would require the utilities to steadily increase their renewable energy use each year.
Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, which is backed by NextGen, is leading the campaign.
"This measure protects our air and water and creates thousands of good-paying jobs for Arizonans and ensures future generations have access to clean reliable energy," the groups says on its website.
The proposition is opposed by several national and state Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar and Debbie Lesko. It is also opposed by several utilities, including the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association and Tucson Electric Power Co.
Opponents say the measure could increase utility bills because of language on the ballot that says "irrespective of cost to consumers" (Energywire, Oct. 15).
The group Arizonans for Affordable Electricity says passing the measure would mean the Palo Verde nuclear power plant would have to prematurely close by 2025.
Supporters have disputed these claims, saying it would save the state money in the long run without closing Palo Verde early.California
Not unexpectedly, California's ballot has a handful of environment- and energy-related proposals.
Proposition 3 would authorize nearly $9 billion in bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater storage, surface water storage, dam repairs, watershed protection and habitat restoration.
The money would come from the state's general obligation bonds. Proposition 3 is supported by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) and Democratic Reps. Jim Costa and John Garamendi.
Sierra Club California, Restore the Delta and other environmental groups have opposed the measure. They say that it would let the public's tax money pay for water supply projects that benefit industrial agricultural operations.
Several newspaper editorial boards opposed the measure, including the Los Angeles Times. "Especially when money is flowing and water isn't, it's easy to be seduced into spending on the wrong water projects at the wrong time and for the wrong benefits and beneficiaries. Proposition 3 would lead us into exactly that kind of trap," it wrote.
Also on the ballot is Proposition 6, which would repeal 2017's fuel tax and vehicle fee increases and require a public vote on future increases.
The measure would add an additional step to a proposed tax increase, which requires a two-thirds vote of each state legislative chamber and the governor's signature.
It would repeal the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased that gas tax by 12 cents per gallon, the diesel fuel tax by 20 cents per gallon and increased the sales tax on diesel fuels by an additional 4 percentage points, among other things.
The issue could push higher Republican turnout. State Sen. Josh Newman (D) was recalled in June after a campaign against him focused on his support of the RRAA.
Around $50 million has been raised for and against Proposition 6.
It has gained support from a number of GOP elected officials, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), and California Reps. Doug LaMalfa, Devin Nunes, Ken Calvert and Mimi Walters.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has opposed Proposition 6, tweeting that the "measure pushed by Trump's Washington allies jeopardizes the safety of million of Californians by stopping local communities from fixing their crumbling roads and bridges."
The Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote that it's "hard to overstate how destructive Proposition 6 would be for California," adding that it would eliminate $5 billion a year from the state budget that could be used to "fill potholes on local streets, smooth highways and stabilize bridges."
California residents will also vote on Proposition 12 to establish a minimum space requirement for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens. The measure is supported by some animal rights groups and opposed by farming groups.Colorado
Controversy has surrounded a duo of energy-related ballot initiatives in Colorado.
Proposition 112 would require new oil and gas drilling to be at least 2,500 feet away from occupied buildings and any vulnerable areas like parks and water.
Vulnerable areas would be defined by the initiative as "playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government."
Supporters of Colorado's Proposition 112. @ColoradoRising/Twitter
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently endorsed the measure on Twitter. "Given the crisis we face with climate change, in my view we should move toward a total ban on fracking. At a minimum, it seems obvious that we must protect communities from the environmental damage that fracking causes," he said.
One Colorado county has put a temporary moratorium on new permits for oil and gas drilling because of the pending proposition. The Adams County Board of Commissioners passed the measure because of concerns that a flood of new applications would come if the measure passes, with developers hoping to get approval before it takes effect (Energywire, Nov. 1).
Protect Colorado is the leading campaign against the proposition. It says it would hurt the economy, wipe out jobs and endanger the environment.
"Proposition 112 is backed by extreme out-of-state groups and increases energy setbacks to five times the distance of what is currently requires, which effectively bans oil and natural gas development in Colorado, costing tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions in tax revenue, and devastating large segments of our economy," the campaign says on its website.
Voters will also decide on Amendment 74, which would require that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.
Boulder's Daily Camera editorial board opposed Amendment 74, saying that if the pair of measures both pass, "oil and gas companies could make legal claims that the new setbacks decreased the value of the minerals they own."
Sanders said the measure "seems to be one of the most dangerous propositions in the country." He tweeted: "It would open the flood gates for oil, gas and other corporate interests to bankrupt the state."
Sponsor of the amendment and executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, Chad Vorthmann, said in a statement that the measure is "about protecting Colorado's farmers and ranchers from extremist attempts to enforce random setback requirements for oil and natural gas development.
"While these setbacks may on their face sound reasonable, they would essentially eliminate oil and natural gas development in Colorado and strip away Colorado landowners' right to use their land the way they wish."Connecticut
Amendment 2 on Connecticut's ballot would require public hearings on all legislation to authorize the transfer, sale or disposal of state-owned properties, including state parks, forests and conserved lands.
It would also require a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly to authorize the sale, transfer or disposal of the public lands. It is supported by the Connecticut Forest & Park Association.
"Every year, the [Connecticut] General Assembly considers a 'Conveyance Bill' to sell, swap, or give away state-owned public lands. Valuable public lands like State Parks, Forests, Wildlife Management Areas, and Agricultural lands are included in this process, and changes are often made to the Conveyance Bill at the very end of the Legislative session when no debate or public input is possible. How would you feel if your favorite public lands were lost, and you had no opportunity to provide input?" the group said in a statement.Florida
Voters in the Sunshine State will decide this week whether or not to ban offshore drilling for oil and natural gas on all lands under state waters. Also tied into Amendment 9 is a ban on the use of e-cigarettes in indoor workplaces.
This odd combination has drawn criticism. The Tampa Bay Times editorial board said "this strange juxtaposition of issues has no place in Florida's Constitution."
The offshore drilling ban would not affect federal waters, which start beyond 3 nautical miles on the Atlantic coast and 9 nautical miles on the Gulf Coast.
The amendment was one of six challenged in court, but it ultimately stayed on the ballot (Energywire, Oct. 18). It is opposed by the Florida Petroleum Council and Florida Chamber of Commerce.
Collin O'Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, told E&E News that this combination of issues could mean the loss of younger voters but that "public health voters are generally public health voters" across the board (Greenwire, Oct. 31).Georgia
Georgia residents will vote tomorrow on two land conservation measures.
Amendment 1 would create a land conservation trust fund with up to 80 percent of the revenue from sales and use taxes on outdoor recreation equipment.
The amendment does not appear to have any vocal opponents. It is supported by the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Coalition, which is comprised of the Conservation Fund, Georgia Conservancy, Nature Conservancy and others.
Amendment 3 would revise the method for calculating taxes on forest land and creates a timberland property class.Maine
Question 2 on Maine's ballot would authorize $30 million for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
The majority of the funds — about $27 million — would go to a local wastewater treatment facility and hydrographic modeling in coastal wetlands. The rest would go to replacing malfunctioning septic systems and assisting homeowners to do the same.
Question 3 would authorize $106 million for transportation infrastructure projects. Most of the money would pay for the construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of highways and bridges.Missouri
Missouri voters will decide this week if they should increase their gas tax to give more money to the state highway patrol.
Proposition D would increase taxes on gasoline, diesel, natural gas and propane by 10 cents per gallon. For gasoline and diesel, the increase would be phased in over four years.
The amendment would also increase the tax on alternative fuels like compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas and propane. Gov. Mike Parson (R) supports the measure.Montana
A measure on Montana's ballot would add requirements for new hardrock mine permits.
Montana I-186 would require new mines of hard rock materials like gold, diamond, copper, silver, nickel, platinum and zinc to have plans for reclamation or rehabilitation and restoration.
If the measure passes, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality can only give out permits to new hard rock mines if their reclamation plans are "sufficient to prevent the pollution of water without the need for perpetual treatment."
Supporters of the measure want tougher pollution standards for mines, while opponents say the measure could effectively end mining in Montana (Greenwire, Oct. 18).
Montana Trout Unlimited and Earthworks say that taxpayers bear the burden of water quality problems and cleanup costs.
The Montana Mining Association has said new mines shouldn't be judged against events in other places that occurred decades ago.Nevada
Question 6 on Nevada's ballot would require electric utilities to get half of their electricity from renewable sources like solar, geothermal, wind, biomass and hydroelectric by 2030.
The state's renewables standard now is 25 percent by 2025. If approved, the measure would have to return to the ballot in two years.
Opponents of the measure argue that it will raise energy costs and hurt the economy, but it hasn't received the same level of backlash from utilities as the similar proposal in Arizona (Greenwire, Aug. 30).
Question 3 would amend the Nevada Constitution to guarantee that energy customers have the right to choose their energy provider and generate their own power for resale.
It would require the state Legislature to pass laws to establish "an open, competitive retail electric energy market" and protect "against service disconnection and unfair practices" by July 1, 2023.
Voters approved the measure in 2016, but they must approve it again for it to become constitutional law.
NV Energy, which is part of Warren Buffett's portfolio through Berkshire Hathaway Energy, controls about 90 percent of the state's retail electricity market and has spent millions of dollars opposing Question 3 (Energywire, Oct. 1).
Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign also opposes Question 3 over concerns that changing the power market would stall progress on clean energy and solar.North Carolina
The North Carolina Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment would create a state constitutional right for residents to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife.
The measure would also state that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife in the state.
The National Rifle Association supports the bill. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) and the state Democratic Party oppose the measure.
A SurveyUSA poll from October found that 64 percent of voters support the measure with a 4.8 percent margin of error.North Dakota
A measure in North Dakota would provide volunteer emergency responders with a special license plate that would give them free access to state parks. Measure 4 doesn't face any substantial opposition.Oklahoma
State Question 800 would set aside 5 percent of the state's oil and gas revenue into the Oklahoma Vision Fund.
The money would be appropriated starting in July 2020, and after that fiscal year, the percentage would increase by two-tenths percentage points each year.
The measure would also transfer 4 percent of the fund's capital to the state's general revenue fund. It has bipartisan support from state senators.
However, the Oklahoma State School Boards Association has opposed State Question 800.
"Simply put, this state question is vague, filled with unknowns and could erode millions of dollars in dedicated funding for public schools," said Shawn Hime, the executive director of school group.Rhode Island
Question 3 on Rhode Island's ballot would issue $47.3 million in bonds for environmental, water and recreational projects. Money would go to coastal resiliency projects, wastewater treatment, dam safety, dredging and other projects.Virginia
Voters will decide if there should be local property tax exemptions for flood abatement, mitigation or resiliency.
Virginia Question 1 would authorize local governments to provide a partial local property tax exemption for real estate that has improvements to stop flooding or long-term damage from flooding. Climate change and rising sea levels have been a hot issue for coastal Virginia races (Greenwire, Oct. 29).
Fredericksburg's Free Lance-Star editorial board opposed the measure.
"Given that waterfront property generally commands higher prices on the real estate market than similar properties located inland, approving this amendment would in effect provide a kind of flood insurance that is paid for by people who do not own, or cannot afford, waterfront property themselves," it wrote.Washington
Washington state this week will try for a third time to get a carbon tax implemented. Initiative 1631 would impose pollution fees on large emitters of greenhouse gas pollutants starting in 2020.
The fees, which would be based on rules determining carbon content, would be $15 per metric ton of carbon in 2020 and increase $2 per metric ton every year until 2035 carbon reduction goals are met. Revenue from the fees would fund various environmental programs and projects.
Washington voters rejected a similar idea in 2016 by a 59 to 41 percent margin. Environmental groups and oil companies have pumped money into the campaign (Climatewire, Oct. 4).
The carbon tax isn't the only energy issue on the ballot. Advisory Question 19 would ask residents whether or not a state Senate bill that applied a tax on crude oil and petroleum products that came through pipelines should be repealed.
"The legislature expanded, without a vote of the people, the oil spill response and administration taxes to crude oil or petroleum products received by pipeline, costing $13,000,000 over ten years for government spending," the questions states.
S.B. 6269 passed the state Senate and House in March. All no votes were from Republicans.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/11/05/stories/1060105105

Return to headline | Return to top
Scrutiny Could Imperil Entergy's New Orleans Project

Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Edward Klump

A proposed $210 million natural-gas-fired power station in New Orleans is looking less certain after two City Council members said they're willing to consider a new vote on the project.
The comments have inspired hope among critics pushing the council to repeal a March vote in support of the proposed gas plant. The council's decision has been tarnished by a scandal involving payments by an Entergy New Orleans subcontractor to people posing as project supporters at public meetings leading up to the vote.
It's not clear when a move to suspend or rescind the council's earlier vote supporting the project might happen — or how a new vote might turn out. But decisions may soon be on the horizon.
The City Council last week proposed fining Entergy $5 million, a figure that critics have dismissed as pocket change for the utility. If finalized after a 30-day public comment period, the fine would be part of the response to the local scandal (Energywire, Oct. 31). Litigation disputing the city's handling of the power plant proposal is also pending, alleging the city breached open-meetings law and appealing the council's decision to greenlight the plant.
A new council vote on the project would be notable in a city where advocates say the dangers of climate change and the needs of low-income residents have been downplayed or ignored over the years. It also would stand as a rebuke to Entergy Corp., the locally based energy powerhouse.
Any move to backtrack on the council's support could spur a fresh legal fight. It's also possible a new vote would produce another show of support from the City Council. Five of the seven current council members weren't part of the March vote.
"While a [revote] on the plant (or an outright cancellation) is by no means certain, it is encouraging to see elected officials really listening to the people," Logan Atkinson Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, said in a statement. The alliance opposes the plant and is appealing the council's decision in court.
A report from independent investigators to the City Council found that Entergy knew or should have known that payments to individuals occurred or might reasonably have happened. The company has apologized for the presence of unapproved paid plant supporters at public meetings. But it has argued the council's approval rests on the project's merits and came after extensive proceedings.
The proposal includes a roughly 128-megawatt power station that would use natural-gas-fired reciprocating engines.Calling for 'a conversation'
Remarks during a special meeting last Wednesday offered opponents reason for optimism and caution.
"I think as a person who voted in favor of this plant that we still need to have a conversation about whether or not we need to have another vote," council President Jason Williams said.
Williams said it's wrong that people who were paid took seats, though he said his vote was based on experts' reports. He's fearful, he added, that outages would increase if the plant isn't built.
"But I am also very fearful of having a council and a government and a process that you cannot believe in, that you don't want to participate in and that you cannot trust," Williams said.
The council president said he planned to meet with colleagues to discuss next steps. He said the council still has work to do.
Councilmember Jared Brossett said he agreed with Williams and thought the vote had been necessary based on evidence from experts. But Brossett said that he was "open to revoting on this matter."
Williams and Brossett are the only current members who were on the council for the March vote. Some of their comments last week drew crowd applause.
New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell was on the council in March and voted in favor of the gas plant. Cantrell said in a statement last week she was disappointed the council was "deliberately deceived" and expected Entergy to be held accountable.
Williams and Brossett are seeking new positions, which may complicate or create questions around their stances. Brossett is up for clerk of Orleans Parish Civil District Court this year. Williams is seeking to become district attorney for the parish in 2020, according to news reports.
Another wrinkle is the existence of documents showing that Entergy New Orleans and the City Council agreed a few years ago that the company would pursue a New Orleans peaking plant. That agreement was tied to the end of Entergy's former system agreement.
But Monique Harden, an attorney for the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice who's involved in litigation over the project, said the agreement denied citizens a fair process by a neutral decisionmaker and violated basic due process rights.
Entergy has said the station could help meet peak power demand, bolster grid reliability and aid in power restoration after a natural disaster. It would go at the site of a former power plant. Critics have maintained Entergy didn't fully explore alternatives. Those could include transmission, demand response and battery storage.
The City Council also has moved to start a prudence investigation around power service disruptions and complaints as well as distribution system performance. Critics of the project have argued that reliability issues wouldn't be solved by building a local gas-fired power plant.Considering a revote
Now that the prospect of a new vote has been raised, it may be hard to ignore.
Tiffaney Bradley, communications director for Councilmember Kristin Gisleson Palmer, said in a statement that Palmer will consider a revote "if fellow councilmembers support it."
Council Vice President Helena Moreno said during last Wednesday's meeting on the report that the situation was "just plain sad and disappointing." After Williams and Brossett mentioned a possible revote, Moreno said there was "more work to do, indeed."
Entergy CEO Leo Denault addressed the situation during an earnings call last week by saying the company took exception to certain characterizations and omissions in the recent investigative report even as it appreciated the council's effort to review the matter.
He said there are no facts that support a conclusion that Entergy employees knew about payments to people to show support for the power project. But Denault said better oversight and asking the right questions could have prevented subcontractor actions or allowed them to be discovered and stopped.
"We continue in earnest our effort to regain the trust and confidence of the citizens of New Orleans and the council," the CEO said. The company made similar points in a letter to the City Council.
Denault said the company was waiting on a state air permit for the New Orleans power station before it could proceed. He said the plant's commercial operation date might be delayed by four to five months.
The project is expected to be completed "on budget," according to Denault. An Entergy slide listed the plant as being in service in 2020.
The New Orleans Advocate in a recent editorial said Entergy retains "a powerful argument" that the plant is needed to avoid cascading outages and provide local power generation if a disaster were to cut transmission. The piece acknowledged that council members may take another vote on the project.
"[W]e hope that they reflect on the economic future of the city, which is heavily dependent on reliable power," the editorial said.
Burke of the Alliance for Affordable Energy said the discussion isn't about vilifying a person or punishing a company. Instead, her statement said it's "about the community having a say in their energy future, and transparent regulation of a public service."
A group of plant critics sent Williams and Brossett a letter Friday asking that they formalize their words in a motion to suspend a past resolution and grant reconsideration of the council's decision to back Entergy's gas plant proposal.
"The results of the Council's own independent investigation prove the process was subverted and undermined by Entergy's actions," the letter states.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/05/stories/1060105131

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

2 Lake County Polluters Emit Same Cancer-Causing Gas as Sterigenics, But Authorities Haven't Warned the Public

Nov 2, 2018 | Chicago Tribune

By Michael Hawthorne

Communities facing abnormally high cancer risks from toxic air pollution stand out on a color-coded map created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Only a few dozen residential areas nationwide are shaded dark blue like neighborhoods surrounding the Sterigenics facility in west suburban Willowbrook, where potent ethylene oxide gas escapes from fumigation chambers used to sterilize medical instruments, pharmaceutical drugs and food.
Pull back from a tight focus on Willowbrook and another dark blue cluster comes into view about 40 miles northeast in Lake County.
More than 19,000 people live within areas at risk from ethylene oxide emitted by a Medline Industries facility near Interstate 94 in the southwest corner of Waukegan, the interactive map shows.
Another facility in Lake County could pose even greater risks than Sterigenics or Medline. Federal and state officials confirmed the only reason it isn’t on the map is that someone at the state level failed to provide the facility’s ethylene oxide emissions for the U.S. EPA’s latest estimate of cancer risks, known as the National Air Toxics Assessment.
Vantage Specialty Chemicals in Gurnee reported to another office at the EPA that during 2014 it released 6,412 pounds of ethylene oxide — more than either Sterigenics or Medline did during the same period.
READ MORE: What is ethylene oxide? Here's what you should know. »
The federal agency estimated cancer risks based on 5,566 pounds of the toxic gas emitted by Sterigenics that year and 3,058 pounds released by Medline. Without the Vantage emissions in its calculations, the EPA dramatically underestimated the dangers to nearly 23,000 people living near the Gurnee chemical plant.
None of the findings about Medline and Vantage has been shared with the public until now.
Click for maps displaying cancer risks in the north and west suburbs. (Tribune graphics)
“I had no idea what these facilities are putting into the air,” said Celeste Flores, a Gurnee resident who grew up in the area and now lives a mile from Medline and about 2 miles from Vantage.
“I would like to hear more about this from our elected officials,” said Flores, the Lake County outreach coordinator for Faith in Place, a nondenominational coalition of religious leaders that focuses on environmental issues. “We need to be just as concerned about our health as we are about jobs and livable wages.”
READ MORE: Trump and Rauner administrations knew about Sterigenics cancer risks months before telling public »
Federal, state and local officials declined to explain why they haven’t warned neighbors about the hazards. They also wouldn’t say why they haven’t responded as urgently as officials did in communities near Sterigenics, despite evidence there are more than twice as many people in Lake County breathing pollution that increases the long-term risks of breast cancer and lymphomas at extremely low levels.
The reluctance to tell the public what insiders already know could soon change if President Donald Trump’s administration is forced to conduct another high-profile investigation. Already the Trump EPA has detoured from its push to roll back environmental regulations, vowing it will propose more stringent limits on ethylene oxide early next year.
Environmental activist Celeste Flores, shown outside her Gurnee home, lives a mile from Medline Industries and about 2 miles from Vantage Specialty Chemicals, both ethylene oxide emitters. (Erin Hooley/Chicago Tribune)
After the Chicago Tribune began asking officials last month for more information about Medline and Vantage, both of the state’s U.S. senators, Democrats Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, and Democratic U.S. Rep. Brad Schneider sent the EPA a letter requesting a Sterigenics-level effort in Lake County. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan later sent a similar letter to the federal agency.
Duckworth, who serves on a key Senate committee that oversees the EPA, said ethylene oxide is a clear danger to public health and has no place in local communities.
“The fact that Sterigenics and companies in Lake County all appear to be operating within their permits doesn’t mean the chemical is any safer,” Duckworth said, “but rather shows us that regulations limiting ethylene oxide emissions are woefully inadequate to protect our families and our children.”
Durbin released a blistering statement after this story was posted online Friday. “This is simply outrageous,” he said. “Day after day, the Rauner and Trump administrations continue to prioritize public relations over serious public health hazards.”
Since the Tribune first reported in August about the alarming cancer risks in Willowbrook, local officials have demanded more aggressive action from environmental regulators and called for routine monitoring of ethylene oxide in surrounding communities. Neighbors have protested outside the facility, picketed the Sterigenics corporate offices and lambasted the company in a steady stream of Facebook and Twitter posts.
READ MORE: Citing cancer risks, Lisa Madigan, DuPage prosecutor urge court to shut down Sterigenics in Willowbrook »
On Tuesday, Madigan and Robert Berlin, the DuPage County state’s attorney, sued Sterigenics in state court. They urged a judge to either shut down the facility or enforce stricter limits on its pollution.
Like Sterigenics in Willowbrook, it can be easy to miss Medline’s nondescript one-story buildings set back from Skokie Highway and Casimir Pulaski Drive in Waukegan.
Vantage Specialty Chemicals' plant in Gurnee is within a few miles of middle-class subdivisions and the Six Flags Great America amusement park. (Erin Hooley/Chicago Tribune)
Vantage is tucked against railroad tracks at a dead end of a drab industrial park a few miles up the highway, where addresses quickly change from Waukegan to Park City to Gurnee.
Within a 2-mile radius of the two facilities are increasingly diverse middle-class subdivisions interspersed with wetlands and housing for military personnel associated with the nearby Naval Station Great Lakes. The Six Flags Great America amusement park also is about 2 miles west of Vantage.
A Tribune analysis of EPA data shows there are 109 census tracts out of the 73,057 nationwide with cancer risks exceeding the rate considered acceptable by the agency: 100 cases for every 1 million people exposed to toxic air pollution during their lifetime.
Seven of those high-risk tracts surround Sterigenics in Willowbrook. Another four are near Medline in Waukegan, including one where the risks are more than five times higher than the national average.You can’t miss the coal plant. But nobody notices these other facilities are even there.— Rev. Eileen Shanley-Roberts
There is no indication either Lake County facility is violating permits that allow ethylene oxide emissions within certain limits. But legal air pollution still can be dangerous, and the U.S. EPA has not updated its regulations to reflect much-vetted research that shows the chemical poses health risks at significantly lower levels than previously thought.
During their initial discussions with EPA officials in August and September, Medline and Vantage executives confirmed the accuracy of emissions data they had reported earlier to regulatory agencies, according to emails obtained by the Tribune through a Freedom of Information Act request.
“We have learned no additional information that would cause us to revise our 2014 number,” a Medline operations director wrote in an Aug. 13 email to regional EPA officials.
Medline, which manufactures and distributes medical equipment, uses ethylene oxide to sterilize products before shipping them to hospitals and clinics.
The Medline Industries plant in Waukegan has largely escaped community activists' notice, in part because its emissions are far less noticeable than those from a coal-fired power plant along Lake Michigan. (Zbigniew Bzdak/Chicago Tribune)
“We abide by all federal standards as we serve health care providers,” Lara Simmons, president of the company’s quality division, said in an email.
Less than an hour after the Tribune contacted Vantage, the company hired Chicago-based crisis communications manager Dennis Culloton. He emailed a statement saying Vantage recently provided the EPA with new information showing the company releases less ethylene oxide than previously reported during the manufacturing of other substances added to food, personal hygiene products, textiles and lubricants.
The statement said Vantage plans to test pollution levels around the perimeter of its property. It also vowed the company will reduce its emissions.
“We take this matter very seriously,” Drew Richardson, the company’s site leader, said in a statement. “Not only because we have been a long-standing corporate resident of Gurnee, but because many of us also call this community our home for ourselves and our families.”
Gurnee Mayor Kristina Kovarik said the EPA hasn’t shared information about potential risks in her village. “The village will continue to monitor risk assessments as to the chemical ethylene oxide,” she said Wednesday in an email.
At least one local official already knows about the risks from Medline’s pollution.
When the EPA notified Waukegan Mayor Sam Cunningham and his staff about the cancer risk report by phone on Aug. 21, an unidentified person on the call asked if residents could figure out “which facility is causing the problem,” according to another email obtained by the Tribune.
“Yes, an enterprising citizen could determine what the source of emissions is,” an EPA official replied.
“U.S. EPA’s information thus far was a broad overview of potential concerns,” David Motley, a city spokesman, said Wednesday in an email directing questions to the federal agency.
The U.S. EPA and the Illinois EPA said the agencies are collecting and reviewing information requested from Medline and Vantage. Depleted by budget cuts and retirements, both government agencies have struggled to keep up with demands for more information about companies that emit ethylene oxide in Illinois and nationally.
“Illinois EPA, along with U.S. EPA, has already been in discussions with sources identified ... to ensure our information on their processes accurately reflects operations at these facilities,” the state agency said in a statement. “We are also working with U.S. EPA to determine if any additional steps should be taken regarding these facilities.”
Neither agency would commit to testing for the toxic gas in neighborhoods surrounding Medline and Vantage. Nor does the U.S. EPA plan to recalculate Lake County cancer risks using the Vantage emissions data it missed the first time.
Neighborhood air testing provided key evidence in the Sterigenics investigation. Under pressure from residents and elected officials, the U.S. EPA has agreed to collect more samples near the Willowbrook facility.
In Waukegan, community activists have been focused for years on noxious pollution emitted by one of the state’s last coal-fired power plants, an aging facility on the shore of Lake Michigan that can be seen from miles away. They also have joined city officials pushing the EPA to clean up abandoned industrial sites — projects that have hindered redevelopment of city’s lakefront.
“It would not have occurred to me that these other facilities are a problem,” said the Rev. Eileen Shanley-Roberts, former rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Waukegan and, along with Flores, a leader of the nonprofit group Clean Power Lake County. “You can’t miss the coal plant. But nobody notices these other facilities are even there.”
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-lake-county-cancer-risks-pollution-20181028-story.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Capitol Corridor Nears PTC Completion

Nov 5, 2018 | Railway Age

By William C. Vantuono

In coordination with Amtrak and Union Pacific, initial testing of the PTC system started in July 2018 by enabling PTC on a limited number of trains that were rotated throughout the shared fleets of the Capitol Corridor, as well as the San Joaquins, which serve California’s Central Valley.
During the week of Oct. 8, 2018, Amtrak deployed PTC on four weekday trains to test its application on the service. After successful operation of the system, with only one 15-minute delay, the Capitol Corridor began implementing PTC across the fleet on Oct. 24.
The installation, testing and implementation of PTC “is a team effort by the CCJPA, Caltrans, Amtrak, Union Pacific, BNSF and the San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority,” CCJPA noted. “Capitol Corridor passengers should not notice any significant changes or disruptions because of PTC. If anything, passengers could experience minor delays if the crew has issues initializing the system at the start of the route. Train crews have received extensive PTC training and have become increasingly familiar with its operation since testing began in July.”
“Safety is and always will be the Capitol Corridor’s number one priority,” said CCJPA Board Chair, Lucas Frerichs. “PTC is the gold standard of rail safety, and its implementation on the Northern California Intercity Passenger Rail fleet that carried a record 1.7 million passengers last year is a huge milestone. As ridership grows throughout the Northern California megaregion, the Capitol Corridor is poised to meet this demand with additional capacity, all while standing firm in our commitment to maximizing safety through PTC.”
https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/capitol-corridor-nears-ptc-completion/

Return to headline | Return to top
Prognosis for Bill Improves if House Changes Hands

Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Maxine Joselow

It's a perennial joke in Washington: "Every week is infrastructure week."
The joke turns on the fact that President Trump's much-touted $1 trillion infrastructure plan failed to make it through Congress this year.
But if Democrats retake the House tomorrow, infrastructure could become a ripe area for bipartisan collaboration next year.
That message has been trumpeted by leaders of both parties in recent weeks, from Vice President Mike Pence to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Pence told Politico last week that the administration views infrastructure as a top priority for collaboration if the House flips to Democratic control.
"The American people elected a builder to be president," Pence said, adding, "He wants to rebuild America's infrastructure. The president talks about a trillion-dollar investment in infrastructure, and he's absolutely committed to working with both parties to accomplish that."
Pelosi, who could become speaker if Democrats control the House, said at an event last month hosted by CNN: "One of my themes is build, build, build. Build the infrastructure of America from sea to shining sea. Not only surface transportation but broadband and water systems."
D.J. Gribbin, who served as Trump's top infrastructure adviser before exiting the White House last spring, told E&E News it's likely that Congress will examine infrastructure next year.
"The biggest challenge is not whether Congress will do something on infrastructure or not," Gribbin said in an interview. "The biggest question is whether Congress will take an approach to infrastructure that's sustainable for the problems we have."Momentum behind a gas tax raise?
Still, questions remain about whether Republicans would agree on funding mechanisms for broad infrastructure legislation. Pay-fors were a perennial problem that dogged Trump's plan.
"I think the Democratic interest would be there. The question is whether Republicans could understand that infrastructure doesn't grow on trees," said Philip Howard, chairman of Common Good, a New York City-based group that advocates for rebuilding America's infrastructure.
"You have to pay for it," Howard said. "And that requires coming up with a revenue stream that some Republicans might interpret as raising taxes."
One funding idea that keeps popping up is raising the federal gasoline tax. The tax of 18.4 cents per gallon hasn't been raised since 1993.
The gas tax is on the ballot in several states this election cycle. In California, Republicans have rallied around a gas tax repeal known as Proposition 6, although the odds of it passing look increasingly slim.
Trump surprised a group of lawmakers in February by saying he supported raising the gas tax (E&E News PM, Feb. 14). But the president has yet to endorse the idea publicly.
Sean Joyce, a former GOP aide on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said a public endorsement by Trump would make it less toxic politically for Republicans to back.
"If Donald Trump comes out and says, 'The gas tax is the way we're going to go,' I think it becomes a whole lot easier for Republicans to become supportive of it," said Joyce, who's now CEO of the consultancy group Atlas Crossing.
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) said he thinks Trump would sign a bill to increase the gas tax if it landed on his desk.
"If they passed it, I think he would sign it," Rendell said. "The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since '93. Since '93, an average movie ticket in America has gone from $4 to $12. The average price of an automobile has gone from $11,000 to $31,000."
He added, "My point is, everything has gone up, and the gas tax has to go up. I think it's necessary and inevitable."Impact of oversight
Then there's the question of oversight. If Democrats were wielding gavels and issuing subpoenas, they might find it harder to work with the Republican administration on infrastructure.
"The Dems are saying that if they take over the House, they're going to begin their oversight hearings and subpoenas and impeachment hearings," Joyce said.
"Working with the administration while they're doing that oversight seems like a very tall order," he said. "But crazier things have happened."
If the House flips, Trump's energy and environment chiefs would likely get grilled (Greenwire, Oct. 31). But Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao could also face questions about reports this fall that her calendar includes more than 290 hours of meetings labeled "private" — an unusual departure from the practices of other Cabinet officials.
Still, Gribbin said he doesn't think Democratic oversight would get in the way of a broad infrastructure bill.
The bigger challenge, he said, would be pushing through legislation before Democrats start focusing on the 2020 presidential race.
"I think the bigger obstacle will be if this doesn't get done next year but pushes into 2020," Gribbin said. "If not addressed next year, it will certainly be an issue in the 2020 campaigns."Uncertainty over T&I chairmanship
Another open question is who will wield the gavel on the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), the retiring chairman of the committee, released draft infrastructure language this summer in an effort to reignite stalled momentum on the issue (E&E Daily, July 24).
If the House flips to Democratic control, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has said he would use the chairmanship to push a spending measure for roads, bridges and public works.
A DeFazio spokeswoman declined to elaborate and instead sent the following statement: "It's well past time for Congress and the Trump Administration to get serious about our infrastructure needs. I will continue to work to build consensus around ideas that strengthen the Federal role, boost Federal investments, and create and sustain hundreds of thousands of American jobs."
If Republicans retain control of the House, Reps. Sam Graves of Missouri and Jeff Denham of California will be vying for the chairmanship.
"Two of my top priorities are to find a long-term funding solution for the Highway Trust Fund and incorporating new developments in technology into our transportation network," said Graves last week.
There are few significant policy differences between the two Republicans when it comes to infrastructure funding. They've both been skeptical of raising the gas tax and supportive of implementing a vehicle-miles-traveled fee.
Denham, though, is locked in a tight re-election race against Democratic challenger Josh Harder, a venture capitalist. The latest polling shows the two candidates neck and neck.
If Denham pulls off a win and seeks the chairmanship, he'd have industry backing. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Denham received more money from the airline, railroad and trucking industries than any other lawmaker last year.
In addition to the T&I Committee, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) is pushing for the creation of an infrastructure subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee. Politico first reported his push.
Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor, said he met with Blumenauer in Philadelphia last month to discuss the idea.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/11/05/stories/1060105101

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) A Look Back at the Trading of Favors That Drives Trump’s Anti-Environment Agenda

Nov 2, 2018 | MinnPost

By Ron Meador

Have you heard the sleazy tale about “glider trucks,” shady campaign contributions, and a tiny business interest’s big gift from Donald Trump and his Environmental Protection Agency?
I myself had missed the New York Times investigative report earlier this year — lost it, I suppose, in the ceaseless news of assaults on public health, public lands and waters, and all the other assets that make each of us the true beneficiary when government protects this abstraction we call “the environment.”
But then I caught a lecture that the Times reporter, Eric Lipton, delivered last week on what’s really been driving these rollbacks. It ain’t free-market philosophy or promoting economic growth. Mostly it’s quiet trading of gifts and favors among pro-Trump business interests, administration officials, and various Republican politicos the White House chooses to back, with the truck thing as just one egregious case in point.
“Glider truck” is kind of a charming misnomer for a front portion of a tractor-trailer rig that’s built and sold, initially, without an engine. Later an aftermarket outfit adds a pre-1999 engine, which then propels the truck through a curious loophole in the modern, health-protecting limits on diesel pollution that evolved through the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.
Each step of the way, a glider truck is considerably cheaper to buy and operate than one that meets the standards. Considerably filthier, too.
This strange-sounding exemption arose from an argument that can be summarized like so: If you crashed your 1998 Peterbilt rig in, say, 2002, and the engine could be salvaged, why shouldn’t you be able to re-use it? After all, the environmental impact would be the same as if there had been no wreck.
The rulemakers thought this made sense, and nobody much objected while the numbers of shiny new trucks with dirty old engines remained small. But then production and sales of gliders began to surge, reaching 1,000 a year by 2010 and swelling to 10,000 in 2015, and the Obama administration sought to tighten and eventually close a loophole stretched far beyond initial expectations.
This clampdown had considerable support, Lipton has written, from manufacturers like Volvo and Navistar, as well as major purchasers like United Parcel Service; also backing it were the National Association of Manufacturers and, of course, the American Lung Association and other clean-air groups.
On the other hand, Lipton told a program for environmental journalists at the University of Colorado, the loophole’s pending demise rankled Tommy Fitzgerald Jr., whose output from three plants in Tennessee make him the largest supplier of glider trucks in the country.
Fitzgerald met personally with Scott Pruitt, when Pruitt was head of the EPA, to plead his case, and he had support from Tennessee’s Rep. Diane Black, a Republican who was leaving her seat in Congress to run for governor with Trump’s backing. A look at campaign finance records, calendars and emails showed the support was mutual:
Turns out that Fitzgerald had been donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Diane Black, who had gone to Pruitt and said, you know, Scott, can you take care of this? There’s a campaign contribution limit in Tennessee, but they figured out a way to evade it by using every possible LLC and all their family members.
With a chuckle, Lipton put up a slide of a document listing suspiciously attributed gifts and said:
When you’re a reporter looking at campaign contributions, and you see something like this, you know you’re onto something good: Peterbilt LLC 1, Peterbilt LLC 2, 3, 4, 5, 6….”Buying favorable research
Also, Lipton found, Fitzgerald had financed a study at Tennessee Tech University to compare the pollution from gliders with those from normal new trucks. Remarkably, it concluded that the emissions were the same, “even though it’s hard to imagine how that could even possibly be the case.”
Coincidentally, the EPA’s regional office in Michigan was doing its own study, which found that glider trucks had 43 times the particulate emissions of modern equipment, and much higher output of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. In fact, EPA figures showed that a year’s worth of glider truck sales would contribute 13 times as much nitrogen oxide as all the cars involved in the Volkswagen diesel-testing scandal.
(Not only that, but a salesman at one of the Fitzgerald operations — presumably taking Lipton for a customer — bragged that the glider trucks were exempt from the safety rule that requires tracking of a driver’s time behind the wheel, as well as from the federal excise tax on trucking that funds road construction and repair.)
When word of the study’s findings got out, it embarrassed the school’s president — who had attended NASCAR events with Fitzgerald, and accepted millions in donations for building projects — into withdrawing the research and opening an investigation into academic misconduct.
Nevertheless, Lipton said, Pruitt directed EPA staff to prepare a new rule on glider trucks that “incorporates the latest technical data” — meaning the Tennessee Tech study, not the agency’s own work. And on his last day in office, just before resigning under pressure of ethics investigations, he announced that the EPA would simply stop enforcing a limit holding each manufacturer to 300 gliders per year. (Fitzgerald sold about 3,000 in 2017, Lipton has reported.)
Under court pressure, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler has countermanded that decision, which seemed plainly illegal. But work on revising and extending the loophole, and exempting glider trucks from other emissions standards, continues.Nothing personal
This would be a good place to point out to any skeptics in the house that Lipton — whose work has been honored with three Pulitzer Prizes — also noted that he has been a Pruitt admirer, and was not an uncritical observer of Trump’s predecessor.
What I’m doing is all about transparency and gameplaying. It’s not personal.
When I first met Pruitt in 2014, when I spent time with him in Oklahoma, I was actually really impressed with the guy and how well he understood federal environmental regulations, and he could talk about them very eloquently and he had a level of understanding that was quite surprising for a state attorney general. I respected that he had a different view of government.
There was gameplaying going on in the Obama administration, too, with environmental groups at times literally conspiring with the administration to get certain rules passed, and I wrote about that. For example, the “waters of the U.S. rule.” The Sierra Club was working with EPA to try to influence public opinion to build support for the rule, which has been very controversial; it expands EPA jurisdiction over surface waters. And EPA had aligned itself with this social-media effort to get more people to comment in favor of the rule. I wrote a story about that, and it generated an investigation by the Government Accountability Office that concluded there had been a “covert propaganda” effort by the Obama EPA.
That kind of PR effort isn’t honorable, to be sure. But is it on par with the rollback on glider truck pollution? Lipton didn’t address that point, and nobody in the lecture hall asked him to, but I’ll just go ahead and say I can’t see reasonable equivalence there. I’ll also say it was kind of moving to hear him speak of Pruitt’s ethical meltdown and shameful departure after Trump, with an eye to midterm elections, finally yielded to pressure and dumped his loyal functionary.
Other exemplary rollbacks
The glider truck story wasn’t Lipton’s only example of industry-influenced policy rollbacks, and Pruitt wasn’t the only notable dismantler:Nancy Beck left the American Chemistry Council to run the EPA division that regulates the council members’ products, having obtained a waiver from rule that usually requires a two-year pause when the conflict of interests is so large and evident. Even before the waiver was in place, Lipton said, “she went in and started to rewrite the risk evaluation and prioritization rules that EPA was adopting to decide how it would evaluate the most toxic chemicals in the United States.”
She was literally taking the documents from the guy — it happened to be a man, and I know who he was — whose job was to oversee the rule-writing, and she took the pen from him and rewrote the rule herself, and it directly reflected the comments she’d submitted on behalf of the council just months earlier.Bill Wehrum, a top lawyer/lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry who now heads another EPA division dealing with air quality, has pursued an agenda of regulatory rollbacks that just happen to match a PowerPoint presentation he had given at a meeting of U.S. petrochemical executives, listing their repeal priorities.Scott Angelle, formerly a Sunoco executive and lobbyist pressing for more lenient rules on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, now runs the Interior Department bureau that applies those regulations — and in the last few weeks has rolled back a suite of new rules adopted in response to the 2010 blowout at BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig. Pressing hardest for the repeals, Lipton found, were companies drilling in the shallower zones of the continental shelf:
Most of them are these rusty [rigs] owned by companies that are barely holding on financially, really low-producing, and they’re in really bad shape. And what I found in the data I collected from the Interior Department was that these companies had the worst safety records and the worst conditions at the platforms…. The Exxons and Shells and Chevrons had basically written the cost of the rules into their bottom lines, and they were ready to comply with them.
Earlier on, it was possible for some journalists, including me, to see much of the Trump White House’s anti-environment agenda as empty or clumsy gestures that would fade away or fail court review, but Lipton feels that outlook is changing as the Pruitts are replaced by more skillful Wehrums, Angelles and Wheelers:
The bottom line is, [Wheeler] has the same regulatory philosophy that Pruitt had, and the regulated industries still have incredible influence inside the agency … all the repeals are still moving ahead, but he’s doing it more rigorously, and they’re more methodical. Bill Wehrum is also a really smart guy, and fewer of their repeals are going to be thrown out by the courts, because they’re doing things in a much smarter way.
https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2018/11/a-look-back-at-the-trading-of-favors-that-drives-trumps-anti-environment-agenda/

Return to headline | Return to top
Carbon Tax Swap for Climate Rules Could Be Bridge Too Far

Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott

It’s an offer that carbon tax backers say could bring reluctant Republicans and industry aboard and grow the economy to boot: Congress agrees to revoke the climate authority of the EPA and other federal agencies to get a carbon tax signed into law.
But some environmental groups—which are battling to protect Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency power plant carbon limits and CAFE vehicle emissions rules from being rolled back by President Donald Trump—say that is too high a price for getting a carbon tax.
“Our view is that we need all the tools in the toolbox” to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, David Doniger, who heads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean energy program, told Bloomberg Environment.
Increasingly dire warnings about climate change suggest that the U.S. needs both: strong regulations and broader legislation to cut emissions, Doniger said, though he stressed the NRDC hasn’t endorsed a carbon tax.
Other environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, say it’s too early to consider such a swap.
“Congress and the administration clearly need to act on climate,” said federation spokesman Mike Saccone. “But we’re not going to engage in hypothetical questions about hypothetical horse trading.”
Even the most ardent carbon tax backers concede that any significant legislative progress will have to wait until the end of the Trump presidency. But climate change legislation will likely get new life if Democrats win control of the House Nov. 6.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she will revive the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that she created after Democrats won the majority in 2006, which could begin laying the groundwork for energy and climate legislation. Republicans disbanded the panel after winning back the House in 2010.
Regulatory Trade-Off
The current patchwork of federal climate authority starts with the two most significant climate rules—the EPA’s Clean Power Plan rules for power plants and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for vehicles that the Transportation Department and EPA issued—and includes small-bore climate rules that boost the use of renewable fuels and improve appliance efficiency.
The Trump administration is rolling back the power plant and vehicle standards rules, the main climate policies of the Obama administration, though its actions are being challenged in the courts.
Tackling climate change through regulations has drawbacks. Power plant and vehicle efficiency rules still leave many big sources of U.S. carbon emissions untouched, including manufacturing and high-emitting industries such as steel and cement.
Even if fully implemented, the regulatory climate approach comes with costs.
According to an October study by EY, formerly Ernst & Young, the existing regulatory approach could shave 1.1 percent off U.S. gross domestic product in the long run.
By contrast, a carbon tax set initially at roughly $31 a ton and gradually increased to $55 a ton, could increase annual economic growth by an additional 3.2 percent. That scenario, however, would require Congress to get rid of all climate regulation and use all carbon tax revenue to extend the 2017 tax cuts set to expire after 2025, including its business deductions, according to the EY study.
Revenue Use?
Congress could use the carbon tax revenue for other purposes, such as infrastructure or rebates for households. But that wouldn’t provide the same economic bang for the buck as would extending tax cuts past 2025, according to the study. The study was commissioned by the Alliance for Market Solutions, which is pushing congressional Republicans to back a carbon tax proposal that in exchange jettisons climate regulations.
Nullifying climate regulations could bring some Republicans along to a carbon tax, but could drain support from Democrats, who would resist sacrificing climate regulations, said Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan environmental policy professor who tracks global action on carbon taxes.
Stronger CAFE standards and EPA’s power plant carbon limits tend to be backed by significant majorities of the public, Rabe told Bloomberg Environment.

“In theory, this is an intriguing trade-off. But there is not one model for where this has worked around the world or even been tried,” he said, pointing to Australia’s on-again, off-again flirtation with a carbon tax and British Columbia’s adoption of a gradually increasing carbon fee set to rise to $50 a ton in 2021.
Alex Flint, executive director of Alliance for Market Solutions, the pro-carbon-tax group that backed the EY study, said that while the public does tend to back climate regulations, people also could back a carbon tax once they learn more about it. But a carbon tax will also be seen as the better option if the U.S. decides to seriously address the scope of the climate threat and the emissions that would have to be reduced, Flint said.
“And if we were to use regulations to achieve these big climate objectives, they would have to be so much more restrictive compared to a carbon tax” to make significant emissions cuts, given that current regulatory authority is largely limited to the transportation and the power sector, he said.
Other Uses for Revenue
Trading climate regulations to get a carbon tax also is a main pillar of the Carbon Dividends Plan unveiled in June 2017 by the Climate Leadership Council, which is backed by several Republicans who served in the Bush and Reagan administrations.
The council’s proposal, which would rebate all carbon tax revenue to U.S. households, said getting a carbon tax through Congress “will require trading a robust carbon price for regulatory relief.”
But to get that “grand bargain,” environmental groups “must be assured that the carbon fee rate will continually increase until emissions targets are met, while businesses and conservatives must be assured the corresponding regulatory simplification will last.”
Others backing the CLC include BP Plc; Exxon Mobil Corp.; Johnson & Johnson; Rob Walton, former chairman of the board for Walmart; and environmental groups Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/carbon-tax-swap-for-climate-rules-could-be-bridge-too-far

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Top Court Rejects Trump Administration Bid to Halt Climate Trial

Nov 5, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

By Lawrence Hurley

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected for now a bid by the President Donald Trump's administration to block a trial in a lawsuit filed by young activists who have accused the U.S. government of ignoring the perils of climate change.
The loss for the administration means it now faces a high-profile examination of U.S. climate change policy during the trial that was due to begin on Oct. 29 in Eugene, Oregon but has since been postponed by the judge.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Oct. 19 had temporarily put the case on hold while the court as a whole decided how to proceed.
The Supreme Court's three-page order noted that the administration may still have grounds to take its arguments to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
ADVERTISEMENT
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have granted the administration's request. There was no indication how Trump's new Supreme Court appointee, conservative Brett Kavanaugh, voted on the issue.
In the lawsuit, 21 activists, ages 11 to 22, said federal officials violated their rights to due process under the U.S. Constitution by failing to adequately address carbon pollution such as emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
The lawsuit was filed in 2015 against former President Barack Obama and government agencies in a federal court in Eugene, Oregon. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have failed in efforts to have the lawsuit thrown out.
The administration has said a courtroom is not the appropriate venue for a debate on climate change policy.
"This suit is an attempt to redirect federal environmental and energy policies through the courts rather than through the political process, by asserting a new and unsupported fundamental due process right to certain climate conditions," Trump administration Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in court papers.EDITORS’ PICKSHow Trump Really Got RichThis is 18 Around the World — Through Girls’ EyesIn Japan, the Kit Kat Isn’t Just a Chocolate. It’s an Obsession.
ADVERTISEMENT
Francisco noted that the plaintiffs are seeking to hold the U.S. government liable for the cumulative effects of carbon dioxide emissions "from every source in the world over decades."
Lawyers for the young activists, led by Julia Olson of a Eugene-based group called Our Children's Trust that brought the lawsuit, have said their clients have suffered "irreparable harm" from the effects of a changing climate.
"This is a case about the fundamental rights of children and whether the actions of their government have deprived them of their inalienable rights," Olson said in court papers.
On July 30, the high court rejected an earlier application by the Trump administration, calling it premature.
Eugene, Oregon-based federal Judge Ann Aiken has repeatedly allowed the case to move forward to trial over the objections of the government. The trial will proceed if neither the high court nor the 9th Circuit intervene.
Aiken said in an Oct. 15 ruling that although the case raised questions about the role of the judiciary delving into a matter of policy those concerns were not enough to warrant a dismissal of the entire case.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/11/02/us/politics/02reuters-usa-court-climate.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Plans ‘Accelerated’ Consideration of Ozone Pollution Rule

Nov 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to implement an “accelerated” process for deciding whether to further restrict allowable ground-level ozone pollution limits.
In a draft plan released Friday, the EPA explained that in order to meet the legally required deadline of late 2020 to make a final decision on ozone, it has found some ways to speed up the review process.
“The current review of the [ozone standard] is progressing on an accelerated schedule and the EPA is incorporating a number of efficiencies in various aspects of the review process to ensure completion within the statutorily required period,” the agency wrote.ADVERTISEMENT
The changes from previous review processes include skipping a kick-off workshop, not giving the external air pollution advisory committee a separate period to review the standard apart from the public comment period and not writing a risk and exposure assessment.
“The successfulness of these and other efficiencies implemented in this review will be considered by the EPA in planning for other future [air standard] reviews,” the EPA said.
Under the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, the EPA is obligated to decide every five years whether to write a new standard for pollutants like ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, based on the latest scientific literature, among other factors.
The EPA is not allowed to consider implementation costs in setting the standard. But nonetheless, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told agency officials earlier this year to consider how the costs of implementation could threaten public health, in an action that environmental advocates said was trying to get around the prohibition on cost considerations.
Pruitt also told the agency to consider how naturally occurring ozone and pollutants blown in from other countries could impact compliance, another factor that could weigh toward a less-restrictive standard.
The Obama administration wrote the last ozone rule in 2015, setting the allowable level at 70 parts per billion, down from 75 parts per billion. The EPA is still defending that rule against ongoing litigation against it from industry.
Ozone is a byproduct of pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels, and can cause various respiratory problems. In areas that do not meet the federal standard, states have to craft plans to bring down pollution levels.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/414581-epa-plans-accelerated-consideration-of-ozone-pollution-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
States, Environmentalists Oppose EPA Plan To End Air Monitoring Mandates

Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

Several states and environmental groups are opposing EPA's plan to lift air emissions monitoring requirements first established under an obsolete Clean Air Act program, warning that eliminating the monitoring will weaken compliance with other environmental programs and risks unlawful “backsliding,” or worsening of air quality.
However, other states and groups representing industrial sectors counter that the proposal is vital to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, and they also call for maximum flexibility on complying with monitoring requirements.
The arguments are detailed in comments submitted to EPA ahead of an Oct. 29 deadline for public input on the agency's Sept. 27 proposal to reduce monitoring obligations associated with the “NOx SIP Call” emissions trading program. The rule aims to remove provisions of the legacy program that has been overtaken by two subsequent emissions trading programs for nitrogen oxides (NOx), gases which are precursors to ozone formation.
The Clinton EPA introduced the now obsolete NOx Budget Trading Program (NBTP) under the SIP Call in 1998, covering both large power plant boilers and large non-utility boilers that emitted significant quantities of NOx. But EPA discontinued the budget trading program in 2008, replacing it for power plants ultimately with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) NOx trading regime that remains in effect today.
In its proposal, the Trump EPA notes that while the power plants formerly participating in the NOx SIP Call program also employ monitoring required by other rules, such as CSAPR and the Acid Rain program, the non-electric generating units (EGUs) are not subject to those other federal rules. SIP refers to state implementation plans, air quality blueprints states write detailing how they will meet federal air standards.
“Over time, many of the originally affected large non-EGUs have retired or switched to cleaner fuels, and newly affected large non-EGUs generally have lower emission rates, so total NOx emissions from the group are considerably lower than in the past. Several NOx SIP Call states have expressed interest in establishing alternate, potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for the remaining large non-EGUs,” EPA says in the proposal.
Therefore, the proposed rule would allow states to use alternative monitoring methods for the affected mostly non-utility boilers, such as replacing continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) with less-onerous periodical stack testing. States could then incorporate the changes into their SIPs.
But states and environmentalists in their comments note that the CEMS are used by states to ensure compliance with several different regulatory requirements, and CEMS give a much more accurate picture of a plant's true emissions than occasional stack testing. Dropping the CEMS requirement would further force some states to eliminate CEMs for the affected sources, because they have state statutory mandates not to apply tougher environmental regulations than federal rules require. This would amount to unlawful “backsliding” under the air law, environmentalists argue.
'Backsliding' Program
Sierra Club in its Oct. 29 comments says it “opposes EPA’s proposed relaxation of NOx emission monitoring requirements, as there is neither any legitimate need for such loosening of air protections cited by the Proposal nor any assurance that such deregulation will not lead to increased emissions of NOx pollution, contrary to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA should not finalize the proposal, and should instead leave in place the existing NOx emission monitoring requirements.”
Sierra Club says there is no legitimate reason to remove the CEMS required by the NOx SIP Call, which have been in place since 1993, and EPA does not even attempt to quantify the environmental impact of its proposal.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in its Oct. 29 comments says, “By permitting EGU and non-EGU sources that are only subject to the NOx SIP Call to utilize alternate and less effective monitoring methods, EPA is creating a regulatory program in which backsliding and violations of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act could occur with no recourse.”
The state air regulators of New Jersey and Wisconsin also fault EPA's proposal. New Jersey in Oct. 29 commentsnotes that it needs CEMS to determine compliance of two refineries in the state with various emissions limits. EPA should modify the proposal to continue to require CEMS, but eliminate the requirement to report monitoring results to EPA's Clean Air Markets division.
Wisconsin in Oct. 25 comments says the proposed rule “would limit the ability of both states and EPA to identify and address ozone transport issues.”
Further, “The data resolution provided by a CEMS helps Wisconsin understand how precursor emissions originating in upwind states affect ozone concentrations measured in Wisconsin.”
EPA “has indicated that states should work together to develop regionally consistent approaches to 'Good Neighbor' state implementation plans for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, the loss of CEMS data will make those discussions significantly more challenging, since alternative monitoring methods would not provide the same level of detail on NOx emissions needed to inform this collaborative process. EPA needs to address this disconnect prior to finalizing this rule,” Wisconsin says.
'Unnecessary Burden'
But several other states and industry groups support the rule, arguing it would ease regulatory burdens while also pushing for EPA to give states maximum flexibility on complying with monitoring mandates.
For example, Ohio in Oct. 16 comments says the proposal “would eliminate unnecessary burden on both the regulated community and states.”
North Carolina in Oct. 29 comments says that for non-EGUs, “continuation of costly, legacy monitoring requirements at the level needed for the previous budget trading programs is unwarranted.”
And West Virginia in Oct. 25 comments is supportive of the proposed rule, saying EPA is correct in observing that many of the originally affected sources have switched to cleaner fuels such as gas, and that “newly-affected” sources emit NOx at much lower rates than older ones.
Industry groups, meanwhile, also back the proposal. For example, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association in Oct. 26 comments “strongly supports U.S. EPA’s proposed rule” because it would provide “much needed regulatory relief,” cutting the costs of monitoring.
The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) in its Oct. 29 comments backs EPA's proposal and seeks the maximum flexibility for states to use alternative monitoring methods.
However, “We also recognize that there are large non-EGU boilers, combustion turbines or combined cycle units that may have continuous emissions monitoring obligations pursuant to other regulations.” Such sources “may opt to continue to use their certified continuous emissions monitoring equipment to satisfy obligations under state or local programs to satisfy the NBTP,” CIBO says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-environmentalists-oppose-epa-plan-end-air-monitoring-mandates

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA's Call For Data Sparks Fight Over Assessing NAAQS' Adverse Impacts

Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA's call for data on the adverse impacts of implementing ambient air standards is sparking a fight over how, and whether, the agency and its advisers should consider such impacts, with industry groups saying they are a vital factor while environmentalists and some states say weighing such factors in reviews of the standards is unlawful.
In recently filed comments, proponents say allowing a first-time consideration of adverse effects such as economic costs in reviewing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) will result in fairer standards that minimize regulatory burdens. But critics say the effort is more likely to lead to standards that fail to meet a Clean Air Act mandate that NAAQS be set at a level requisite to protect public health and the environment with an adequate margin of safety.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which advises EPA on how to set the NAAQS, has a statutory duty to also advise the agency on “any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance” of NAAQS. To date, the panel has never offered advice on such adverse effects, instead focusing on NAAQS' health effects -- the basis for the standards.
The Obama EPA took the position that under Supreme Court precedent, EPA must set the NAAQS sufficient to protect the public health with a sufficient “margin of safety,” and without consideration of costs. As a result, EPA was careful to keep consideration of implementation costs out of NAAQS reviews. Critics of considering costs in NAAQS reviews also note that a 2001 Supreme Court ruling appears to bar assessment of cost factors.
But now, pursuant to a May memo from former Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, EPA is driving CASAC to consider such adverse effects. EPA has reconfigured the committee to include only one research scientist, but several state air regulators, and the panel is now led by industry consultant Tony Cox. Current Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and agency air policy chief Bill Wehrum have largely affirmed Pruitt's directive.
Several sources, however, have told Inside EPA that they doubt the seven-member CASAC can offer meaningful advice on a wide array of adverse implementation effects in addition to advising EPA on its reviews of the ozone and particulate matter NAAQS, which are both due to be completed in late 2020.
Nevertheless, several industry groups in comments submitted to EPA ahead of an Oct. 24 deadline for public input outline an extensive series of widely varied issues for EPA and CASAC to consider, complicating this already daunting task. Because the call for information is not tied to any specific NAAQS, industry groups offer both general observations about implementation effects, but also comments specific to particular pollutants.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing investor-owned utilities, in its Oct. 24 comments raises complaints often cited by states and industry -- for example it cites EPA's prior tendency to designate “unnecessarily and inappropriately large” areas as “nonattainment” for NAAQS. Regulators in nonattainment areas must impose tougher pollution control mandates than elsewhere, raising costs for industry.
UARG further cites the frequent requirement for states and industry to comply with two or more NAAQS for the same pollutant concurrently as excessively onerous. EPA does periodically revoke older NAAQS when finalizing revised standards, but must apply “anti-backsliding” protections to protect air quality even where it makes NAAQS tougher, under federal court precedent. But UARG argues this is unreasonable.
The group also attacks what it calls EPA's failure to weigh international emissions when enforcing NAAQS, saying states should not be forced to compensate for international pollution by stricter regulation of domestic sources.
Industries' Comments
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in its Oct. 24 comments focuses on what it says are adverse effects of the Obama EPA's 2015 ozone NAAQS, which the agency tightened down from the Bush administration's 2008 level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. NAM says that EPA and CASAC ignored estimates showing huge implementation costs for the more-stringent standard, and that EPA forced states to implement the new standard before implementation of the prior 2008 standard was complete.
The National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP), a broad industry coalition representing several sectors, in its Oct. 24 comments provides results of a lengthy literature search into numerous adverse effects of NAAQS implementation, including higher energy costs and unemployment, lower economic growth, lower capital investment and plant relocation overseas.
In its Oct. 24 comments, the National Association of Homebuilders complains of a litany of adverse effects on the sector resulting from state implementation strategies. The group singles out the air permitting challenges presented by New Source Review permit program as a particular obstacle, noting that the permits are linked to NAAQS and become tougher to obtain as NAAQS increase in stringency.
The Aluminum Association in Oct. 24 comments singles out implementation problems stemming from EPA's 2010 one-hour sulfur dioxide standard, including several ideas to modify that NAAQS and its implementation terms. “The current implementation of the SO2 NAAQS program has the potential for significant adverse effects and there is no public health benefit from the current SO2 NAAQS being more stringent than is requisite,” the group says.
At least one state, Texas, also used its comments to urge consideration of adverse economic factors. The state's Oct. 25 comments say the factors include: the costs to states of crafting state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain NAAQS; the costs of states evaluating “exceptional events” eligible for NAAQS exemptions, and also the role of uncontrollable international emissions in air pollution; costs of control strategies to industry; and costs of regulatory provisions forcing reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are ozone precursors, rather than nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are also ozone precursors, in areas where ozone levels are driven more by NOx and less by VOCs.
Texas also calls on CASAC to weigh costs of stringent “nonattainment new source review” air permits, required in areas not meeting NAAQS; costs to industry of obtaining air pollution “offsets” in nonattainment areas; public health harm caused by regulatory costs of meeting and maintaining NAAQS; and the “disbenefit” of reducing NOx in highly populated areas where atmospheric chemistry means that NOx cuts do not drive ozone reductions.
Critics' Concerns
Meanwhile, environmental groups and California use their comments to attack the entire premise of the call for information, which they say aims to elicit only negative information, focused on costs, to prejudice NAAQS reviews. This would contravene the high court's unanimous 2001 ruling in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, in which the late Justice Antonin Scalia held that EPA may not consider implementation costs when setting NAAQS.
Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club in their Oct. 24 comments caution that EPA's requested information is “hardly relevant” to the requirement to set NAAQS to protect public health. The groups argue that “any information received in response to the instant request is only relevant to setting or revising NAAQS insofar as it addresses the public health and welfare effects of the NAAQS pollutant in the air. Other information may be useful for other purposes, but its consideration in the NAAQS-setting process would render the NAAQS decision unlawful.”
The groups attack Pruitt's May memo as unlawful. “We urge EPA to withdraw this flawed Memo and return to the agency’s traditional, and legally required, approach to reviewing and updating the NAAQS.” The memo “attempts to confuse science and policy considerations throughout the NAAQS review process.”
The groups warn EPA not to build “flexibilities” into implementation that flout the air law, and also say it “is not lawful for EPA to consider issues like background pollutant levels and international transport in setting the NAAQS.”
To the extent that EPA does weigh the costs of NAAQS implementation outside of setting the standards themselves, the agency must also consider the benefits of improved health, the groups argue.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) in Oct. 24 comments warns that “the Call for Information is inconsistent with Clean Air Act mandates and may lead to biased and potentially unlawful decisionmaking.”
“In requesting information on adverse effects of NAAQS attainment itself, rather than particular strategies for attainment and maintenance, and suggesting that such information may influence its consideration of air quality criteria, U.S. EPA greatly exceeds CASAC's statutory remit. Moreover, the requested information exceeds the bounds of information that the agency is statutorily permitted to consider in setting air quality criteria and standards,” CARB says.
Minnesota air regulators in their Oct. 24 comments say, “We are concerned about the seemingly biased approach of this Notice and EPA's departure from widely-accepted agency norms regarding the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC's) role in advising the administrator during the [NAAQS]-setting process.”
It “is disingenuous for the EPA to weigh the associated costs of a health-based standard more heavily than the co-benefits,” they say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-call-data-sparks-fight-over-assessing-naaqs-adverse-impacts

Return to headline | Return to top
As Statewide Races Remain Close, GOP Critics Of EPA Appear To Fade

Nov 2, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Lee Logan

Key gubernatorial and Senate races remain close days before critical midterm elections, though several leading GOP critics of Obama EPA rules appear to be fading in their efforts to win higher office, including the attorneys general (AGs) of Michigan and West Virginia -- each of whom successfully sued to block EPA power plant rules.
Polls suggest that Michigan AG Bill Schuette (R), who successfully challenged the finding underlying EPA's power plant air toxics rule, appears unlikely to defeat his Democratic opponent in the state's gubernatorial race. In addition, West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey (R), who led efforts to block the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP) and other rules, similarly appears unlikely to unseat Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).
Meanwhile, the GOP AGs of Ohio and Nevada -- who both successfully sued to block a major EPA Clean Water Act (CWA) rule governing which waters are jurisdictional -- are in close races to become their states' governors.
The challenges the AGs face come as Republicans are trying to curb expected Democratic statewide gains in a handful of populous or politically important states, including some that are grappling with hot-button disputes over water, climate change and other environmental issues.
While some key gubernatorial and Senate races remain close, election analysts are solidifying their views about how the midterms will shake up Congress next year, with Democrats increasingly expected to take over the House and the GOP poised to retain control over a closely divided Senate.
The number of “toss up” gubernatorial races ranges from five to nearly a dozen, depending on the analysis. Virtually all such seats are currently held by Republicans, meaning that party is playing defense across a wide spectrum of states.
Nearly all prognosticators expect close races in Ohio, Georgia, Nevada, Iowa and Kansas. All are currently held by Republican governors not running for re-election, with the exception of the Hawkeye State.
Some experts believe Democratic candidates are poised to secure the governor's mansion in Florida and Wisconsin for the first time in over a decade, though others also put those races in the “toss up” category.
Further, Democrats are making a surprisingly good showing in gubernatorial races in traditionally Republican states such as South Dakota, Oklahoma and Alaska, even as the GOP is making strong runs in Democratic states like Oregon and Connecticut. The latest polls underscore that Democrats could to make significant in-roads in the Midwest, likely retaining the governorships in Pennsylvania and Minnesota while flipping control in Illinois and Michigan.
Water issues have played a role in the Great Lakes State, where Democrat Gretchen Whitmer holds an 8-point lead over Schuette in the latest average of polls. The drinking water crisis in Flint, MI, has continued to have ripple effects, including spurring a tough new state law mandating replacement of lead-contaminated service lines.
Schuette led a group of Republican AGs who successfully challenged the underlying finding for EPA's power sector air toxics standards, though the issue does not appear to be giving him much of a boost in his bid for the state's highest office.
Meanwhile, Morrisey is also struggling in his bid to defeat Manchin. A top “super PAC” affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently stopped all television advertising in the race, according to the Washington Post, even though President Donald Trump saw his largest margins in that state in 2016.
Morrisey has made his opposition to Obama EPA rules affecting the coal sector a central part of his political brand. In a Nov. 1 statement praising the Trump EPA's narrow utility greenhouse gas rule to replace the CPP, Morrisey said his office “led the nationwide fight” against the regulation and won a Supreme Court stay of the measure.
Virtually Tied
Polls show a virtually tied race in Ohio, where former state AG Richard Cordray (D) is facing current AG Mike DeWine (R), though forecasting site FiveThirtyEight has shown incremental movement toward Cordray in recent days.
DeWine and Schuette both played a part in challenging the Obama administration's CWA jurisdiction rule, both at the appellate level as part of a massive coalition of states and industry groups, and in a district-level suit that they filed along with the state of Tennessee.
The appellate suit led to a nationwide stay of the rule handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. While the Supreme Court earlier this year scrapped that decision on the grounds that challenges to the scope of the water law should be filed in circuit court rather than at the district level, Schuette and DeWine used the opportunity to push forward with their district-court case.
In that still-pending suit, the Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee AGs are now seeking an injunction from the court that would block enforcement of the 2015 rule within their borders, which would mirror orders issued by district judges in Texas, Georgia and North Dakota that currently apply to 28 states.
The Buckeye State is always closely watched due to its historic status as a political bellwether, even though Trump carried the state relatively comfortably in 2016.
Observers expect that a DeWine victory could ease long-standing GOP attempts to scrap the state's renewable power and energy efficiency standards. The state is also home to several high-profile coal plants that are at risk of retirement in the coming years.
Meanwhile in Nevada, AG Adam Laxalt (R), who was part of the same broad coalition that helped block the CWA rule at the appellate, is also in a tight race to become the Silver State's next governor.
And in Missouri, AG Josh Hawley (R) is slightly trailing in his campaign for Senate against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), according to the polls. Hawley took office after the 2016 elections, and thus has not actively participated in lawsuits against major Obama EPA rules, though he has criticized both the CPP and the CWA jurisdiction rule.
Water Issues
Water issues are also a focus in Florida, where Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D) has held a small but steady lead in recent polling over former Rep. Ron DeSantis (R). The state is grappling with toxic algae blooms and “red tide” events on both coasts -- naturally occurring events that are exacerbated by nutrient runoff from farms and development, as well as coastal waters that are warming due to climate change.
The algae is also putting a dent in term-limited Gov. Rick Scott's (R) campaign to unseat Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), with environmentalists ridiculing Scott as “Red Tide Rick” for his response to the blooms.
One group is banking on a Gillum victory in a bid to toughen enforcement of a Clean Water Act permit for a wastewater facility in Southwest Florida. The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility is urging EPA Region 4 to take over administration of the permit from the state, though a source with the group told Inside EPAthat the election might “change” the state's emphasis on the permit.
Out West, Democrats are heavy favorites to retain governorships in California and Colorado, while flipping control in New Mexico. The latter race could be key because of the state's outsize role in natural gas production, with environmentalists charging that state officials have failed to impose sufficiently tough controls on emissions of the potent GHG methane.
But the party is engaged in a closer-than-expected contest in Oregon. Gov. Kate Brown (D) is up by a little more than 4 points over Republican Knute Buehler, according to the latest average of polls by RealClearPolitics. That site and others list the race as a toss-up, though FiveThirtyEight disagrees and says Brown is “likely” to win another term and extend the party's more than 30-year hold on the governor's mansion.
That race could be particularly important given that Brown and state Democratic leaders have pledged to pass a GHG cap-and-trade program that would link with California's market. They hope to do so in next year's legislative session after lawmakers failed to pass such a measure in this year's “short” session.
Environmentalists several months ago were hopeful that the state legislature would pass a GHG trading measure in 2019, though Marten Law attorney Richard Allen recently noted that Buehler would likely veto a cap-and-trade bill and that Democrats would struggle to override such a veto.
Western states also feature several energy-related ballot initiatives -- including renewable mandates in Arizona and Nevada, a first-of-its-kind carbon tax in Washington state, and oil and gas drilling restrictions in Colorado. Environmentalists hope the measures will draw like-minded voters to the polls, potentially aiding Democrats in statewide and key congressional races.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/statewide-races-remain-close-gop-critics-epa-appear-fade

Return to headline | Return to top
High Court's Surprise Decision Bolsters Youths' Bid For Novel Climate Trial

Nov 4, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

In a surprise move, the Supreme Court rejected a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to halt the novel suit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs seeking to compel the government to address climate change, bolstering efforts by the plaintiffs to go to trial in a federal district court in Oregon though they will almost certainly face continued DOJ opposition.
Hours after the justices Nov. 2 rejected DOJ's request in United States v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregonto halt the trial in Juliana, et al. v. United States, lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a request asking the trial court to schedule “an immediate status conference in order to set a date for the Pre-Trial Conference and the commencement of trial.”
Attorney Julia Olson, who is representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the request is aimed at getting the case “back on track for trial in the next week.”
The trial in the high-profile case -- where the plaintiffs say the government's actions to promote fossil fuel and inactions to limit emissions violate their due process rights under the Constitution as well as the public trust doctrine -- had been slated to begin Oct. 29.
Before he retired, Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected DOJ's first request to the high court to block the case. But on Oct. 19 Chief Justice John Roberts – who was temporarily overseeing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit following Kennedy's retirement – agreed to DOJ's second request and issued a temporary stay stopping discovery and the trial pending a response from the plaintiffs.
Legal experts had seen that as an ominous sign for the plaintiffs, especially given the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who often expressed skepticism of EPA climate rules when he was an appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit.
This case is considered to be more novel than litigation over any EPA regulatory action, since it does not cite statute but instead the Constitution and the public trust doctrine.
After briefing from both sides, the Supreme Court issued an order late Nov. 2 rejecting DOJ's request. "At this time, however, the Government's petition for a writ of mandamus does not have a 'fair prospect' of success in this court." That is because, the court notes, "adequate relief may be available" in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. "When mandamus relief is available in the court of appeals, pursuit of that option is ordinarily required."
The order notes that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have granted the petition, but does not say what the other seven justices would have done.
It is unclear what happens next because of overlapping actions by the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit, where the high court thought relief could be granted by the appellate court and the appellate court rejected the government's petition as moot due to the high court's administrative stay.
DOJ had filed a similar petition for mandamus relief with the 9th Circuit on Oct. 12 -- marking the third time it sought such relief at the appellate level -- but a three-judge panel in a Nov. 2 order rejected it as moot, citing Roberts' temporary stay.
"Although we have not been so informed by the government, Chief Justice Roberts issued a temporary stay of the start of the trial, and the Court is now considering the government's requests. Given the issuance of the temporary stay order and the fact that there is no request before us other than for a stay pending Supreme Court consideration, Petitioner's non-substantive emergency motion for a stay is DENIED as moot.”
The court was also disgruntled that DOJ did not tell the court that it had also gone to the Supreme Court with the same petition. “We request that, in the future, the government promptly inform this Court of the developments affecting its pending motions,” the order said.
Next Steps
Both the appellate and Supreme Court orders were issued without prejudice, meaning DOJ can refile with either court.
DOJ could not be reached for comment at press time regarding any next steps.
The Supreme Court order also notes the two prior denials of mandamus relief by the 9th Circuit, saying those denials rested in large part on the likelihood that plaintiffs' claims would narrow as the case progressed. "Those reasons are, to a large extent, no longer pertinent. The 50-day trial was scheduled to begin on October 29, 2018, and is being held in abeyance only because of the current administrative stay."
Olson, the plaintiffs' attorney, called the high court action "an important decision . . . that shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy.”
The statement adds that the high court's order is narrow because it considered only one of the two factors for granting such a stay: that there be a "fair prospect" that at least five justices would grant the petition. The second factor, which the court did not address in the order, is whether the government would suffer irreparable harm. "The court did not reach the irreparable harm factor in its order because it found as to the first factor" that not enough justices would grant the relief.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/high-courts-surprise-decision-bolsters-youths-bid-novel-climate-trial

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump: 'People Very Much Dispute' Climate Change

Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

By Scott Waldman

President Trump dismissed the National Climate Assessment that shows humans are driving climate change, and said he was focused on the reports that dispute it.
Jim VandeHei of Axios showed Trump a copy of the assessment, which was developed by his administration, and said the language identifies humans as the source of global warming. The interview was conducted in the White House by VandeHei and reporter Jonathan Swan for the debut "Axios on HBO" show.
Trump repeated a popular talking point among conservatives, acknowledging that humans contribute in some way to global warming, without accepting mainstream climate science that says consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for warming the planet.
Instead of dismissing it as a hoax, as he has in the past, Trump said humans play a role because "there's certain pollutants that go up and there's certain things that happen, certain things we do."
Trump then repeated a talking point he first used several weeks ago. The president claimed that climate change will "go back" on its own. Scientists dispute that characterization.
"Is there climate change? Yeah. Will it go back like this, I mean, will it change? Probably, that's what I think," Trump said as he waved his right hand. "I believe it goes this way, and I believe man, meaning us people — man and women, to be politically correct, because everyone says man, but now we have to add women to that one, too — man and women, we do have an impact, but I don't believe the impact is nearly what some say, and other scientists that dispute those findings very strongly."
Scientists have known since the 19th century that rising levels of carbon dioxide can cause the planet to warm. The world's major science agencies, including NASA and NOAA, determined long ago that the planet is warming at an unprecedented pace. There are a small number of scientists who claim humans are not driving climate change, and many of them are allied with conservative think tanks opposed to regulations.
E&E News reported recently that senior administration officials had sought a PowerPoint presentation on climate change from the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that works to cloud the findings of scientists. The group largely relies on the work of researchers who aren't climate scientists or who are funded by the energy industry.
Trump said he was focused on those types of scientists.
"I want everybody to report whatever they want, but ultimately, I'm the one that makes that final decision," Trump said. "I can also give you reports where people very much dispute that, you know, you do have scientists that very much dispute it. I want to make sure that we have the cleanest air."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/11/05/stories/1060105137

Return to headline | Return to top
ALL ABOUT: London’s Low-Emission Street

Nov 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ali Qassim

London’s financial district wants to create its first low-emission street.
City of London Corp. is consulting on plans to limit a section of Moor Lane to only ultra-low emission vehicles—such as electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cells—next April on a trial basis.
The corporation is the governing body of the Square Mile, the financial and historic center of London. Moor Lane sits smack in the middle of the Square Mile.
If it works, the plan is to consider extending the restriction to streets in other areas. The eventual goal is to turn parts of the Square Mile into zero-emissions zones by 2022.
“We are funding innovative projects like this because they are vital to encourage more Londoners to switch to ultra-low and zero-emission vehicles and help tackle the capital’s toxic air,” said Shirley Rodrigues, the deputy mayor for environment and energy.
To alert car users, City of London Corp. will put up street signs one month before the trial begins. It will also run an information campaign via social media, leafleting, and talks with companies.
Then, during the first four weeks of the trial, anyone driving through with a non-compliant vehicle will get a warning letter. Repeat offenders will be fined.
This All About appeared in today’s First Move, which is delivered at 7:45 a.m. on weekdays.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/all-about-londons-low-emission-street

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested