Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/11/18
-
Hearing on The Local, State, and Federal Response to the PFAS Crisis in Michigan
Nov 12, 2018 | Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Location: Loosemore Auditorium, Grand Valley State University Richard M. DeVos Center (401 Fulton Street West, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504) / 10:00 AM -
EPA Issues Penalty Associated with Violation of R&D Exemption
Nov 9, 2018 | National Law Review
In September 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a consent agreement with Chevron USA, Inc. (Chevron) related to an alleged violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Product Warnings on Chemical Compounds to Begin in California (1)
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
Businesses that sell or use products in California that contain traces of two types of perfluorinated compounds will have to post warnings starting Nov. 10 saying exposure could cause reproductive harm or birth defects. -
Retailers Plan To Clear Deadly Paint Removers From Shelves, As EPA Delays Ban
Nov 12, 2018 | National Public Radio
By Rebecca Hersher
In October 2017, Drew Wynne collapsed inside a walk-in refrigerator at his coffee business in North Charleston, S.C. By the time his business partner found him crumpled on the floor, Wynne was dead. -
For 10 Years, a Chemical Not EPA Approved Was in Their Drinking Water
Nov 11, 2018 | CNN
By Sara Ganim
For 10 years, some residents in Denmark, South Carolina, have been suspicious of the rust-colored water coming from their taps. -
Eating an Organic Diet May Reduce Your Cancer Risk
Nov 9, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alexis Temkin
Frequently eating a variety of organic foods may significantly reduce your risk of developing cancer, according to a groundbreaking studypublished in the Journal of the American Medical Association. -
Echa Agrees to Review Cobalt Classification Method
Nov 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has agreed to review the method used in the classification of cobalt metal as a category 1B carcinogen after industry raised questions over the proposed specific concentration limits. -
State Carbon-Tax Defeat Won’t Halt Federal Push, Exelon CEO Vows
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Despite Washington state voters’ rejection of a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, there’s still an opening in Congress for a national plan to bolster clean energy and help combat climate change, Exelon Corp. Chief Executive Chris Crane said Nov. 8. -
NYC Appeals Ruling That Favored Oil Majors
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Benjamin Hulac
New York City appealed a federal court ruling in its lawsuit against major oil companies, arguing they have "foisted" the costs of climate mitigation on residents. -
First Commercial Scale Plastic-to-Fuel Plant Coming to Indiana
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
In the tiny town of Ashley, Ind., a factory is about to be built that could help change how American companies dispose of plastic waste. -
Why are People Afraid of Waste-to-Energy Technology?
Nov 11, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
Given that plastic has a much greater British thermal unit (BTU) value than coal pound-for-pound, it would seem that waste-to-energy (WTE) would be a viable method for ridding the world of plastic waste. -
Outlook for Gas Gets a Boost as U.S. Coal Plant Shutdowns Soar
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins and Eric Roston
Way more natural gas is going to be used to fuel power plants next year after coal-fired generation is being retired at the fastest pace since 2015. -
Federal Offshore Fracking Permits in California Blocked by Judge
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Edvard Pettersson
The Trump administration was blocked by a federal judge from issuing hydraulic fracturing permits off the coast of California, saying the environmental assessment process failed to adequately seek input from the state and wildlife protection agencies. -
Insight From Washington: US Energy Conservation Gets Lost in the Drive for Oil Abundance
Nov 12, 2018 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
US energy abundance underpinned the Trump administration’s case for rolling back federal vehicle fuel economy standards, a policy the government aims to adopt by March. -
What Is at Stake in the Keystone XL Pipeline Ruling?
Nov 9, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Rod Nickel
A U.S. federal judge in Montana halted construction of TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, saying a U.S. environmental analysis "fell short of a 'hard look'" at the cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on Native American land resources. -
Another Keystone XL Setback: Environmental Review Ordered
Nov 9, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
In a setback for the Trump administration, a federal judge has blocked a permit for construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada and ordered officials to conduct a new environmental review. -
Data System to Improve Pipeline Safety Would Seek Industry Funds
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A strategy to reduce pipeline incidents and accidents would rely on companies’ voluntary contributions as well as federal funding, a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration working group said Nov. 9. -
Federal Researchers Simulate Power Grid Cyberattack, Find Holes in Response Plan
Nov 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Adam Janofsky
On a rainy Tuesday this week, Tim Yardley trekked through the mud on a remote island about 900 miles from his office at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. -
Combustible Dust Comments Due to CSB Soon
Nov 12, 2018 | Occupational Health & Safety
Comments in response to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board's recent "Call to Action: Combustible Dust" are due by Nov. 26 -
Refiners Get 30 Days to Cut Air Pollution From Startups, Shutdowns
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Petroleum refineries built on or before June 30, 2014, will have just one month to meet toxic air pollution limits for maintenance vents used as operations are started up or shut down for inspection and repairs. -
Democrats Likely To Use CRA As Messaging Tool To Fight EPA Rollbacks
Nov 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
House Democrats are expected to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) -- the law historically used by Republicans to rescind swaths of the Obama administration's regulatory agenda -- as a political weapon to challenge the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts at EPA and other agencies when they formally assume control of the chamber in 2019. -
EPA Draft Memo Would Expand Area Exempt from Air Quality Monitoring
Nov 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
A draft EPA memo open for public comment could expand the areas exempt from ambient air quality monitoring for pollutants like particulate matter and carbon monoxide. -
EPA Floats Redefinition of 'Ambient Air'
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
In another bid to speed approval of industry permits, EPA is re-airing its regulatory definition of "ambient air." -
Taking Shortcuts Won't Protect Our Families from Air Pollution
Nov 9, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elena Craft
We know that air pollution is bad for our families. -
Environmentalists, Power Sector Wage 11th-Hour Effort To Preserve MATS
Nov 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and the power sector are waging an 11th-hour effort calling on the White House and EPA to preserve the Obama-era mercury emissions rule for utilities, with environmentalists aiming to keep the rule intact while utilities that have invested millions of dollars to comply want it retained with changes to ease some requirements. -
State Department Gets U.N. Climate Report Lawsuit Tossed
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Daniel Seiden
The State Department convinced a federal court to dismiss claims that it failed to comply with reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. -
Kids' Climate Trial Faces Another Delay
Nov 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
Landmark litigation brought by 21 youth plaintiffs seeking to force the federal government to address climate change has been delayed yet again, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily stayed a pending trial to consider a Trump administration petition for the district court to dismiss the case. -
Business Group Sues UCLA for Info on Climate Litigation
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Anne C. Mulkern
Conservative business group Competitive Enterprise Institute today sued UCLA for information connected to investigations into oil companies and climate change. -
Calif. Dems Protest Closure of DOJ Environment Office
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Debra Kahn
Congressional Democrats are opposing the Trump administration's plans to shutter the Justice Department's environmental office in San Francisco. -
What Do the 2018 Midterms Say About Climate Action in the U.S.?
Nov 9, 2018 | National Geographic
OVER THE PAST few years, as hurricanes have sent floods through North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, and megafires have burned across the West, the reality of climate change has snapped into focus for many people in the U.S. -
I’m An Environmentalist Opposed to Single-Use Straws. My Disability Has Challenged My Views.
Nov 9, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Laura Kiesel
Two years ago, I was chewing a tortilla chip when I heard a loud crackle of bone and a distinct pop, followed by a shrill ringing in my ear.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing on The Local, State, and Federal Response to the PFAS Crisis in Michigan
Nov 12, 2018 | Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Location: Loosemore Auditorium, Grand Valley State University Richard M. DeVos Center (401 Fulton Street West, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504) / 10:00 AM
INVITED PARTICIPANTS:
PATRICK BREYSSE, PH.D., CIH
Director
National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
ROBERT DELANEY
Environmental Specialist
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
CAROL ISAACS
Director
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team
ADAM LONDON, RS, M.P.A.
Administrative Health Officer
Kent County Health Department
RICHARD R. REDISKE, PH.D.
Senior Program Manager and Professor
Grand Valley State University Robert B. Annis Water Resources Institute
CATHY STEPP
Region V Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SANDY WYNN-STELT
Resident of Belmont, Michigan
DREW YOUNGEDYKE
Communications Coordinator
Great Lakes Regional Center
National Wildlife Federation
-
EPA Issues Penalty Associated with Violation of R&D Exemption
Nov 9, 2018 | National Law Review
In September 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a consent agreement with Chevron USA, Inc. (Chevron) related to an alleged violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA’s issuance of a consent agreement for the alleged TSCA violation is not especially newsworthy. Neither is the agreed upon penalty for the violation, which could be considered minor based on the penalty provisions allowed under TSCA. What is newsworthy here is that the alleged violation, technically three as the violation occurred on three separate days, was related to the research and development (R&D) exemption. Specifically, EPA alleged that Chevron did not appropriately label chemicals that it had distributed to other companies for R&D purposes. In our experience, the R&D exemption under TSCA is seldom the subject of enforcement scrutiny. This may be changing.
The R&D exemption is a critical aspect of TSCA and it offers many companies significant flexibility to research new chemical innovations. The exemption is self-implementing and thus does not require pre-approval by or submissions to EPA. Nonetheless, there are specific restrictions and recordkeeping requirements associated with reliance on that exemption. The consent agreement at issue here confirms that EPA will hold companies accountable to these requirements. The enforcement action is an important reminder to all entities relying upon the R&D exemption to ensure that they comply strictly with each element of the exemption requirements as identified under TSCA Section 5(h)(3).
Companies relying on the R&D exemption for new chemical development may wish to review internal files and processes to ensure compliance, as EPA has shown its intent to pursue violations and associated penalties for non-compliance instances.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-penalty-associated-violation-rd-exemption
-
(ACC Mentioned) Product Warnings on Chemical Compounds to Begin in California (1)
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
Businesses that sell or use products in California that contain traces of two types of perfluorinated compounds will have to post warnings starting Nov. 10 saying exposure could cause reproductive harm or birth defects.
It’s unclear how many products would be affected, but perfluorooctanoic pcid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) have been used in firefighting foam, food packaging, nonstick cookware, stain-resistant items, and other products.
“It’s going to be really difficult for companies,” Nate Johnson, an environmental attorney at Alston & Bird LLP in Los Angeles, told Bloomberg Environment. “So many different products have this in their supply stream. It really does affect a lot of different layers of commerce.”
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment last November added PFOA and PFOS to its Proposition 65 list, which identifies chemicals that pose a cancer or reproductive risk. Warnings are required one year after listing.
The state has yet to set concentration levels of the compounds that would trigger the warnings requirement, calling it a complicated effort.
“These are difficult scientific questions and we don’t have finite resources, but it is something we’re working on,” Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) spokesman Sam Delson told Bloomberg Environment.
Of the 900 chemicals listed as part of Proposition 65, about 300 have these guidance or “safe harbor” levels to inform businesses, Delson said, adding that a timeline for PFOA and PFOS guidance was unavailable.
Businesses with less than 10 employees, government agencies, and water systems are exempt.
Chemistry Council Working on IssueThe American Chemistry Council is working with its members on compliance requirements, spokesman Andrew Fasoli said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment.
He added that the group believes the law should be changed.
“Unfortunately, Proposition 65 often fails to provide consumers with meaningful information, causes unnecessary alarm for them, and leaves businesses exposed to costly and unnecessary litigation when they are actually in full compliance with the law,” Fasoli said.
PFOA and PFOS are part of a class of roughly 3,500 per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals. They don’t break down easily in water and can accumulate in the body. Exposure can cause developmental delays, thyroid problems, immune system issues, and other ill health effects.
Warnings are most common on labels but can also be placed on store shelves or posted to websites. The responsibility generally falls to manufacturers to determine whether a warning is required but retailers can also do so.
“We don’t really care who does it, as long as it gets done,” Delson said.
ComplianceOEHHA, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, focuses on scientific evidence and has no regulatory enforcement authority, nor does it track compliance, saying it’s up to businesses.
Residents and groups can have products tested and sue when warnings are not present. If successful, they can get a portion of the penalties a company must pay, Johnson said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council supported the listing and Proposition 65, saying it protects public health by warning consumers and potentially reducing harmful chemicals. In some cases, chemicals are removed from products to avoid having to provide the warnings, said Avinash Kar, a senior attorney with the council.
The safe harbor guidance isn’t always available, but it’s up to businesses to decide, he said.
“Is it 100 percent foolproof?” Kar said. “Probably not, but I think it’s a pretty good system overall.”
(Updates with compliance details in the eighth paragraph.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/product-warnings-on-chemical-compounds-to-begin-in-california-1
-
Retailers Plan To Clear Deadly Paint Removers From Shelves, As EPA Delays Ban
Nov 12, 2018 | National Public Radio
By Rebecca Hersher
In October 2017, Drew Wynne collapsed inside a walk-in refrigerator at his coffee business in North Charleston, S.C. By the time his business partner found him crumpled on the floor, Wynne was dead. He had suffocated on a chemical called methylene chloride.
The 31-year-old's death is one of dozens blamed on popular paint removers sold under the brand names Goof-Off, Strypeeze, Klean Strip and Jasco among others.
In recent months, some retailers have said they will stop selling products that contain methylene chloride, also known as DCM, and a second chemical, N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone, or NMP. But under the Trump administration, federal regulators have repeatedly delayed a ban that has been in the works for years.
The EPA began a risk assessment of methylene chloride in 2014. In January 2017 the agency proposed banning the use of methylene chloride and NMP in paint removers. In the proposed rule, the agency wrote that the chemicals posed "unreasonable risks" to consumers.
Since 1980, more than 50 deaths had been attributed to methylene chloride, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and Slate.
But the proposed rule has yet to become an actual ban. Methylene chloride manufacturers opposed it, and in public comments in the spring of 2017, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance urged the agency to delay it, saying the regulation would have a "devastating impact on consumers and small businesses." A spokesperson for the industry group, Faye Graul, declined to comment for this story, and the major U.S. manufacturer of methylene chloride, W.M. Barr, did not respond to interview requests.
Today, it's still legal to sell products containing both chemicals. Health and safety experts caution consumers to avoid using them — especially indoors.The other front line
Two days after her son's memorial service, Drew's mother Cindy Wynne saw a story on the front page of the The New York Times that said the EPA was no longer pursuing bans on a handful of chemicals it had determined were hazardous or deadly — including methylene chloride.
"We struggled with that," Cindy remembers. "They weren't going to move forward, even though the ban had been proposed [and] the research had been done."
Drew Wynne (right), and his mother Cindy, with brothers, Brian and Clayton Wynne pose for a family picture at their home in South Carolina in 2017. He died that year from exposure to a paint remover.Courtesy of Cindy Wynne
This spring, Cindy Wynne traveled to Washington, D.C. with another mother whose son died of methylene chloride exposure.
South Carolina's Congressional delegation had helped set up a meeting with then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. Wynne's grief was still fresh, and she was unsure what to expect from Pruitt, but "we felt like we had a very positive meeting," she remembers.
Two days later, the EPA announced it intends to ban methylene chloride.
"We were elated. We were believers," says Cindy. "We're making a difference. And then nothing happened." Months dragged by. Pruitt resigned amid an ethics scandal.
Today, the ban is still pending. This October, budget documents released by the Trump administration suggested a rule would be finalized sometime in December, but didn't announce a specific date. And the second hazardous chemical, NMP, is no longer included.
An EPA spokesperson wrote in an email to NPR "For methylene chloride, EPA is currently evaluating the proposal and regulation of this substance and its uses to determine the appropriate regulation."Not waiting for regulation
But as the nationwide rule has languished, some consumer advocates have taken a parallel route. The vast majority of consumers buy methylene chloride paint removal products at brick-and-mortar retailers; Drew purchased the product that killed him at the hardware store Lowe's.
The chemical safety group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families worked with the Environmental Defense Fund and with families to pressure retailers to stop selling methylene chloride products. The Wynne family was among those writing letters to stores, trying to convince them to pull the potentially deadly products.
In May, Lowe's announced it would discontinue the products. Home Depot, Sherwin Williams and other major retailers followed. In all, thousands of stores will stop selling methylene chloride paint removers by January.
"In the absence of a federal regulatory driver, some retailers have started to step up and do voluntary restrictions on methylene chloride in paint strippers," says Gregory Morose, a research manager at the Toxic Use Reduction Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. That's good news for his research team; just last month, they announced a new, safer paint stripping chemical they say is just as effective as methylene chloride.
They expect some retailers to start selling the new formulation in the next few months.
Lowe's and Sherwin Williams declined to comment on why they decided to stop selling methylene chloride products voluntarily, or what paint stripper formulations they would stock in the future. Margaret Smith, a spokesperson for the Home Depot, confirmed only that the company "will phase out of paint removal products that contain methylene chloride and NMP by the end of 2018."
Of course, without a federal ban, it's still possible to buy potentially deadly paint removal products at some stores.
"The retailers that have committed — it's only a subset of all the retailers," says Morose. "A restriction by the EPA would be extremely helpful. There are just so many distribution channels for methylene chloride and paint stripping products."
He warns that consumers should read the warnings on products carefully, and avoid exposing themselves to methylene chloride as well as NMP and a handful of other toxic chemicals, including toluene, xylene and naphthalene.
And at least one state is considering its own methylene chloride ban. A bill introduced in Maryland this year would make selling paint removal products containing either methylene chloride or NMP a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine.
"It was an easy bill to introduce, but not an easy bill to get passed," says the bill's sponsor, Clarence Lam, who is also a public health professor at Johns Hopkins University. "You know, the data and the evidence are there. But not everyone understands evidence and science."
Plus, he notes, the chemical industry, "is very well funded when it comes to their team of lobbyists."
Lam says he wishes he didn't have to pursue a state-level regulation. He and his fellow legislators have small staffs and limited time — being a state delegate is a part-time job. Ideally, he says, the federal government should be enacting regulations to protect people from chemicals.
"I think a lot of folks don't realize that EPA, at its heart and at its core, its real mission is to protect the health of the public. It is a public health agency," he says. "The best possible outcome would be to have the EPA ban the use of these chemicals in consumer products."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/12/657856033/retailers-plan-to-clear-deadly-paint-removers-from-shelves-as-epa-delays-ban
-
For 10 Years, a Chemical Not EPA Approved Was in Their Drinking Water
Nov 11, 2018 | CNN
By Sara Ganim
For 10 years, some residents in Denmark, South Carolina, have been suspicious of the rust-colored water coming from their taps. They've been collecting samples in jars and using bottled or spring water, even though the local and state government assured them it was safe.But through a Freedom of Information Act request and a one-year investigation, CNN has found new information that may cast doubts on those assurances.The state government was adding a substance to one of the city's four wells, trying to regulate naturally occurring iron bacteria that can leave red stains or rust-like deposits in the water. The substance, known as HaloSan, was not approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency to disinfect drinking water.'What did we do?' Families anxious about chemicals found in tap waterThe city's mayor says that all of the city's wells flow into one system to be distributed throughout the city.The EPA and the state of South Carolina have confirmed to CNN that there is now an open investigation into how this happened, although neither would comment on the target of the probe or the scope.It's unclear what the effects of HaloSan might have been on the almost 3,000 people who live in this rural, tight-knit community, but a group of about 40 residents believe the water is to blame for illnesses and maladies they say they're suffering from.The chemical is typically used as a disinfectant for pools and spas, but several experts contacted by CNN said they could not find another instance where it was added to a drinking water system.One thing is clear -- the state of South Carolina approved its use, and it should not have. It was used for 10 years.CNN was told by the state that it has been adding HaloSan to the water in Denmark since 2008.A spokesman for South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control told CNN in an email that it believed HaloSan was EPA-approved for drinking water based on the way the system was "advertised."The Kentucky county where the water smells like diesel"The Berry Systems HaloSan treatment unit had been advertised as an effective treatment in the control of iron bacteria and was certified ... " said Tommy Crosby, director of media relations for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.Berry Systems, the makers of HaloSan, has not responded to multiple phone calls and emails by CNN requesting comment."It was our thinking that it was an approved chemical to be used," said Gerald Wright, mayor of Denmark, South Carolina. "We rely totally on DHEC because they have the responsibility and expertise to test, monitor and advise."An EPA spokesperson tells CNN that HaloSan is not approved to be used to treat drinking water."HaloSan has not undergone the necessary evaluations as part of the pesticide registration process and, therefore, EPA cannot confirm the safe use of this product for the disinfection of drinking water," according to the EPA.An EPA risk assessment from 2007 shows that HaloSan can be a "significant eye and skin irritant." Other effects can include "burning, rash, itching, skin discoloration/redness, blistering, allergic type reactions including hives/welts, allergic contact dermatitis, and bleeding also have been reported. ... Eye pain and swelling of eyes also has been reported in some incidences."Disinfectants fall under the EPA pesticide program.The EPA told CNN that HaloSan is not a registered pesticide product and has not been reviewed by EPA's pesticide program. By law, "a product intended to be used to disinfect drinking water must be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency," and have scientific data that demonstrates that the product "can perform its intended function without undue harm to people or the environment."An April 2018 presentation by South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control shows that one of Denmark's wells was treated with HaloSan.The EPA also says that dosage must be regulated when being used for its intended purposes in pesticides. In Denmark's drinking water, it's unclear if it was regulated or filtered.Wright tells CNN that he defers to South Carolina's DHEC."The Berry Systems treatment unit ... was specifically designed to treat the Cox Mill Well at the proper level," the DHEC's Crosby said. He did not say how, or if, the standard for daily monitoring was met.Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech engineer and researcher who first learned of HaloSan's usage in a sampling report about Denmark, said he was "dumbfounded" when he saw it was being added to one of Denmark's wells.EPA gives $1.9 million to researcher to find lead in water"I did a thorough search, and I've never seen it approved for a public water supply before," he said. "And the EPA approvals that I saw, none of them were for municipal potable water."In addition, Edwards noted that he sees no evidence in any reports that the dosage was being regulated."You have to make sure you don't put too much of it in the water. And there was no way that they could prove that they weren't exceeding the recommended dose," he said. "There's a maximum allowed amount, even for industrial applications. And they have no way of proving that, that level is not being exceeded."Wilma Subra, a chemist and environmental health scientist, told CNN that HaloSan appears to be sold with a kit that regulates dosage. The state Department of Health and Environmental Control says it required daily monitoring, "performed by the certified system operator," of "any chemical" added to the drinking water, ensuring that the maximum dosage is not exceeded.Joe Charbonnet, science and policy associate at the Green Science Policy Institute, said without knowing the concentration levels in the water, it's hard to know the health effects. He said he is concerned about HaloSan being used as a water disinfectant because it could produce compounds that are toxic.Like many small towns, Denmark's water bills have been rising since its population dropped, along with its revenue. Maintenance of old water lines has fallen victim, leaving pipes to rust and turn the water brown. It's unappealing to look at, even if the discolored water isn't violating the law.A $2 million federal grant to repair and upgrade water pipes here just wasn't enough, according to Wright, Denmark's mayor. "[O]ne grant itself is not adequate to replace all of the necessary pipes. We prioritize the ones that should be replaced first," he told CNN. "At no time have we not responded to a need that was urgent. We've done that. So what we've done is all we know we can do."Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterDenmark, South Carolina, resident Deanna Berry uses bottled water to clean chicken for her family's dinner.Hide Caption4 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterBerry also uses bottled water to brush her daughter's teeth.Hide Caption5 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterThe family uses bottled water to make ice.Hide Caption6 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterCNN's Sara Ganim, left, with Denmark residents Eugene Smith and Paula Brown. They drive 20 miles round-trip to fill empty bottles with natural spring water to use at home.Hide Caption1 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterPaula Brown uses natural spring water to wash her face.Hide Caption2 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterSmith holds a bottle of water he says came from his tap in Denmark.Hide Caption3 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterDenmark, South Carolina, resident Deanna Berry uses bottled water to clean chicken for her family's dinner.Hide Caption4 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterBerry also uses bottled water to brush her daughter's teeth.Hide Caption5 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterThe family uses bottled water to make ice.Hide Caption6 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterCNN's Sara Ganim, left, with Denmark residents Eugene Smith and Paula Brown. They drive 20 miles round-trip to fill empty bottles with natural spring water to use at home.Hide Caption1 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterPaula Brown uses natural spring water to wash her face.Hide Caption2 of 6Photos: Residents don't trust their tap waterSmith holds a bottle of water he says came from his tap in Denmark.Hide Caption3 of 6Water is a problem in thousands of towns across the United States. But in Denmark, it's not just the water pipes that are eroding -- so has trust in government officials who claimed the water was properly treated when it apparently was not.Denmark residents Paula Brown and Eugene Smith have been calling for more government oversight since their water tested high for lead in 2010. Subsequent tests were below the legal limit for lead. But, the couple says there have been concerns about skin rashes and kidney problems among residents for years, although a link has not been made directly to the water.Brown calls into the local radio station almost every day in an attempt to warn her neighbors that she doesn't believe the water is safe to drink."How can they say it's good to drink?," Smith told CNN. "I'm not gonna drink it, and I know other people drink it, but a lot of people are drinking it because they have no other choice."The couple drives 20 miles roundtrip each month to collect local spring water in cases of gallon jugs and uses that to cook, drink and brush their teeth.Flint Water Crisis Fast FactsIn 2016, Brown saw Virginia Tech's Edwards on television, talking about the lead crisis in Flint, Michigan. Edwards has spent nearly two decades testing water and challenging federal, state and local governments on water quality, and his work helped to reveal high levels of lead in Flint's water.Brown picked up the phone and asked him to sample the water in Denmark, too.Edwards took samples at 44 homes and six other locations and found lead levels were at the legal limit. It wasn't enough to sound alarm bells.However, medical experts say there is no safe level of lead in the body.South Carolina's DHEC tested Brown and Smith's home in 2010, and found about twice the legal level of lead in the water. When it returned to test a few months later, it found levels had dropped below the legal limit.But, in 2011, Eugene Smith, was told by his doctor that the level of lead in his blood was high, and he should avoid his own water."They are not to be exposed either by ingesting nor skin exposure," reads a medical report that Smith shared with CNN."I was shocked," Smith said. "Because I hadn't felt like I had it in me. I got kind of upset and very angry at the time."Documents from his doctor show his blood lead levels were elevated and he says he was diagnosed with partial kidney function. Although he can't say his health problem was caused by the water, he suspects it.Marc Edwards and student William Rhoads in Flint, Michigan.But Edwards says he couldn't let go of a nagging feeling that there was something missing, especially after finding red flags, like a 2010 local newspaper story where a city official declared the water had safe lead levels nine days before the testing was conducted. Wright, Denmark's mayor, later told CNN that officials were relying on 3-year-old data when talking to the newspaper because that was what was available at the time.Skeptical of the town's transparency, Edwards decided to request to test the town's water at its source -- the drinking water wells -- for certain bacteria that might be causing some of the rashes and illness that residents described.Lead found in hundreds of Chicago homes' tap water, report saysWright wavered, and eventually, Edwards says he was denied access to the wells.Wright said he had no reason to prevent Edwards from sampling. He said the state was required to do its own testing."I told him I thought it would be a waste of his time and resources to get the same samples," he told CNN. "I guess you have to decide if you gonna believe him or believe me."Instead, the mayor allowed a team from the University of South Carolina to accompany state testers at the well sites, and the resulting report revealed that HaloSan was being added to the drinking water supply at one of the four wells.After Edwards began asking questions, the state was ordered by Clemson University, which oversees pesticide registration in South Carolina, to stop adding HaloSan to the water. The well remains offline and is not in use."I mean it has stopped, but what the effects that did to people who been using this water through and through?" Eugene Smith said. "I'm real kind of upset. People won't know until they go get tested and find what's happened to your body. Oh my god."Get CNN Health's weekly newsletter
Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team.Denmark's mayor told CNN he believes he has done everything to make sure the water is safe."I live here," he said. "I use water every day. Drink it. Washing in it. I would be extremely foolish if I didn't make certain it was safe. I care about myself as much as anybody cares about themselves. We have not been derelict or negligent with anything related to water. Those persons complaining, you will find out they are bogus complaints. We don't have any reason at all to provide anything less than quality water."A group of about 40 residents, including Smith and Brown, are now considering litigation, claiming they've been harmed by the water. They've hired Charleston, South Carolina, attorney John Harrell to represent them.Harrell tells CNN one of his clients, a 12-year-old, had to have her gall bladder removed because she had 4,000 stones in it, and another 15-year-old client had so many bladder-related illnesses that she had to have her bladder removed."There are so many residents that have been diagnosed with kidney dysfunction. I am convinced that there is some serious contamination," he said.South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control, when asked about the potential litigation, said it would be "inappropriate" to comment.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/11/health/denmark-sc-water-chemical-not-epa-approved/index.html
-
Eating an Organic Diet May Reduce Your Cancer Risk
Nov 9, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alexis Temkin
Frequently eating a variety of organic foods may significantly reduce your risk of developing cancer, according to a groundbreaking studypublished in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Study participants whose diets contained the highest amount of organic foods had a 25 percent reduction in overall cancer risk, compared with those whose diet had the lowest share of organic food.
The study joins the growing body of research showing the health benefits of eating foods with fewer pesticides, such as better reproductive health and a higher chance of conceiving.
The findings are part of a French study that tracked nearly 70,000 people, about three-quarters of them women, assessing how often they ate organic foods, including fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat, fish, eggs and grains. After four years, researchers found a significantly lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other lymphomas in the group of people who ate the most organic foods.
People who ate the most organic food were also more educated, had a higher income and better jobs, were more physically active, and ate more fruits, vegetables and nuts, and less processed meat, poultry and milk. But even after researchers controlled for these health indictors, their lowered risk of cancer remained statistically significant.
The greatest reduction of risk, 86 percent, was seen for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Previous studies have linked a risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with exposure to specific pesticides such as glyphosate, the weed killer in Monsanto’s Roundup that is the most heavily used pesticide in the U.S. and the world. In 2014, a similar study of 600,000 British women found a 21 percent reduction in risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in those who ate the most organics.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, has classified three pesticides as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” including glyphosate, which EWG’s recent tests found in oat-based breakfast foods marketed to children, and the organophosphate pesticides malathion and diazinon. Dietary studies in the U.S. and Europe have shown that when adults and children switch from a conventional diet to an organic diet, the levels of organophosphate pesticides in their urine decrease.
Organic food can be expensive. That’s why we created the Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™, including the Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists of conventional produce with the highest and lowest number of pesticide residues, to help consumers reduce their pesticide exposure.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/11/eating-organic-diet-may-reduce-your-cancer-risk
-
Echa Agrees to Review Cobalt Classification Method
Nov 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has agreed to review the method used in the classification of cobalt metal as a category 1B carcinogen after industry raised questions over the proposed specific concentration limits.
The agency will organise a working group to look at the methodology and will report the findings to the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 21-22 November, a spokesperson told Chemical Watch.
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) adopted an opinion last year for the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) of cobalt metal for all routes of exposure with a specific concentration limit (SCL) of 0.01% w/w.
But in a document shared at the June Caracal meeting, industry association body Eurometaux probed the "appropriateness" of the methodology used to calculate the carcinogenic potency and generate the SCL. It asked Echa for more time to evaluate these concerns, and suggested a temporary generic concentration limit (GCL) of 0.1% instead.
Eurometaux launched its own review to determine whether the 'T25' method used to determine carcinogenic potency is suitable for substances generating local cancers via inhalation, and also more specifically, for inorganic metals. T25 is generally used for organic substances that are oral carcinogens.
The first results of this review indicate that applying the T25 method results in the majority of inorganic substances being classified as 'high-potency carcinogens' following inhalation exposure, Eurometaux said.
The question to be discussed further, it added, is "whether this is purely the result of the methodology and applied assumptions or whether this corresponds to a biological reality".
The Echa working group could also investigate other aspects such as adjustment of exposures to dust/particulates, as the current conversion factors apply to gases and vapours, Eurometaux said.Support for GCL
The industry body has shared the outcomes of its review with Echa and the European Commission, and "authorities will hopefully allow these findings and resulting recommendations to be discussed by the expert group".
The cobalt metal's adaptation to technical progress (ATP) entry will be further discussed at the next REACH committee in December. Industry hopes the committee will support an interim GCL, which "would then be revised in line with the conclusions of the expert group," Eurometaux said.
The harmonised classification and labelling of hazardous substances is updated through an ATP adopted yearly by the Commission, following Rac's opinion.
Industry has said that the proposed 0.01% SCL would hit them hard. Cobalt metal is used as a precursor in the manufacture of chemicals for batteries for various portable consumer goods, as well as the emerging market for electric vehicles.
Echa has previously said that while the potency categories based on T25 are simplistic, they could not be regarded as "wrong per se".
https://chemicalwatch.com/71780/echa-agrees-to-review-cobalt-classification-method
-
State Carbon-Tax Defeat Won’t Halt Federal Push, Exelon CEO Vows
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Despite Washington state voters’ rejection of a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, there’s still an opening in Congress for a national plan to bolster clean energy and help combat climate change, Exelon Corp. Chief Executive Chris Crane said Nov. 8.
“We can continue to try to do state-by-state programs, but the only way to really accomplish what the scientists say needs to be accomplished is more efficient done at the federal level,” Crane said in an interview.
The Chicago-based power company is putting $2 million behind a campaign to put a national tax on carbon dioxide emissions and redistribute the revenue to U.S. households.
Odds for action have improved in the House, which is set to be controlled by Democrats in January, Crane said. “There is work to do with the Senate,” he allowed.
Exelon, the nation’s largest producer of nuclear power, would benefit because those plants generate carbon-free electricity but are struggling to compete against natural gas.
“Once we close a unit, we can’t bring it back,” Crane said. “Plants are coming off—and they’re not being replaced by carbon-free sources” of power.Nuclear Power Fleet Closures
More than a third of the U.S. nuclear power fleet could close in the next decade, generally replaced by fossil fuels that generate carbon dioxide emissions, the Union of Concerned Scientists said in an analysis released Nov. 8.
The environmental group said federal policies are needed to stave off those closures, especially in light of dire warnings the world will have to rapidly slash carbon dioxide emissions to prevent the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.
Three states already have enacted policies that reward nuclear power. The Washington State initiative rejected by voters Nov. 6 took a different approach in aiming to broadly discourage carbon-intensive energy through a $15 fee on each metric ton of heat-trapping emissions.
But the money raised by that fee would have gone to public transit programs and renewable energy projects—instead of being rebated to consumers. And the Washington plan included highly criticized exemptions for pulp and paper manufacturers, a coal-fired power plant and an aluminum smelter.
Business leaders also warned that a state-based carbon fee would put them at a competitive disadvantage, Crane said.
“I don’t think it’s a mandate that the citizens of Washington don’t believe in global warming; I think they didn’t agree with the framework of a program,” he said.
The defeat shows how important it is to correctly design a federal initiative so it gets broad support and addresses economic concerns, he said. “We can do this in a matter that gets states to their goals” and “gets the country toward what most of the citizens are pushing for.”
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/state-carbon-tax-defeat-wont-halt-federal-push-exelon-ceo-vows
-
NYC Appeals Ruling That Favored Oil Majors
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Benjamin Hulac
New York City appealed a federal court ruling in its lawsuit against major oil companies, arguing they have "foisted" the costs of climate mitigation on residents.
In a brief filed last night, attorneys for the city said the companies have for decades sold products — oil and natural gas, specifically — that they knew would heat the climate.
The combustion of fossil fuels by the five defendant companies — BP PLC, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC — has cost New York and its residents massively, according to the city.
"Those costs involve building sea walls, implementing public-health programs, and taking other resiliency measures to protect the public and municipal property from rising sea levels, increased heat and precipitation, more frequent extreme weather, and other threats," said the city's brief. "Such costs are currently being borne by taxpayers."
Judge John Keenan, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the case in July. "Climate change is a fact of life," he said, but it is a matter for the president and Congress, not courts.
In appealing Keenan's decision to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the city said he incorrectly determined the case was an "attempt" to regulate greenhouse gas emissions rather than a case about physical damages.
The New York City case is one of several similar suits nationwide, including in San Francisco and Oakland, Calif.; Seattle; and several Colorado municipalities.
The city is seeking damages from the harm of the companies' products. Together, the five firms are responsible for 11 percent of all "carbon and methane pollution from industrial sources" since the Industrial Revolution, plaintiffs said.
"Last night, NYC filed its appeal to reverse a district court ruling in our climate change litigation," Daniel Zarrilli, chief climate policy adviser to Mayor Bill de Blasio, said in a statement on Twitter.
"Big Oil knew that fossil fuel use would lead to rising seas and deadly heat," he said. "We're holding them accountable."
The companies dispute that their activities have harmed New York and sought to shift blame to "third-party uses of fossil fuels" across the nation and world.
Josh Lipshutz, a lawyer for Chevron, said the judge who dismissed the case "issued a thorough and thoughtful opinion." He added that the company would respond in their own court papers.
A spokesman for Shell declined to comment. Representatives for the other companies did not respond to requests for comment.
The case is City of New York v. BP PLC.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/09/stories/1060105907
-
First Commercial Scale Plastic-to-Fuel Plant Coming to Indiana
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
In the tiny town of Ashley, Ind., a factory is about to be built that could help change how American companies dispose of plastic waste.
RES Polyflow plans to break ground early next year on the first commercial-scale plant creating petroleum blends from nonrecycled plastic trash. A multimillion-dollar investment from Brightmark Energy and a possible bond sale will finance the construction of the $200 million plant, which will employ 136 people, RES Polyflow said Nov. 9.
To date, economic incentives to pull post-consumer plastics out of waste streams have been lacking, but “it’s our sense that with the cost to construct the facility, at the production volumes they’ve demonstrated, all make this a great opportunity,” Brightmark CEO Bob Powell said in an interview with Bloomberg Environment.
The plant will turn plastics into fuel through a thermochemical process called pyrolysis—basically super-heating materials in the absence of oxygen. BP Plc has already signed a contract to purchase all the plant’s diesel and naptha, a liquid hydrocarbon mixture, RES Polyflow announced in March.
“Our target is to produce 24 million gallons of low-sulfur diesel, naptha, and wax from about 100,000 tons of plastic” annually, RES Polyflow CEO Jay Schabel told Bloomberg Environment.
Because no air is present, the plastics don’t burn as they would in an incinerator. Once heated to over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, the complex hydrocarbons in the plastic break down into simpler molecules, producing a crude-oil-like liquid and a waxy solid.
With a $10 million investment from Brightmark in hand—as well as the promise of an additional $47 million—RES Polyflow hopes to finance the remainder of its construction costs through a bond issue. The alternative would be a slower, phased approach, to self finance using Brightmark equity. A final decision is expected by next month.Skepticism Gap
“Over the years, I have seen many of those ‘waste-to’ projects which rode on waves of hype, made a lot of media buzz, only to die quietly two or three years later due to market realities,” said Gal Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington-based think tank focused on energy security.
Those realities include the high costs for building and financing new plants, as well locking down a stable supply of plastic feedstocks, which may need to be shipped long distances.
“The fact [RES Polyflow has] a long-term purchase agreement with BP is a nice safety net against oil price fluctuations, but for how long?” said Luft. “After all, this isn’t a huge expense for some great PR.”
Others point to negative emissions associated with the process itself.
“They’re turning a waste product into fuel, which displaces new petroleum, and that’s good,” said Greg Keoleian, director of the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. “But it also isn’t a true closed-loop system, because you’re still taking hydrocarbons and combusting them for fuel.”
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/first-commercial-scale-plastic-to-fuel-plant-coming-to-indiana
-
Why are People Afraid of Waste-to-Energy Technology?
Nov 11, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
Given that plastic has a much greater British thermal unit (BTU) value than coal pound-for-pound, it would seem that waste-to-energy (WTE) would be a viable method for ridding the world of plastic waste. You would think that it's ultimately more environmentally friendly than collecting, transporting, sorting, cleaning, baling, more transporting, grinding and reprocessing plastic waste. However, when WTE is mentioned in any social setting, whether it’s among friends and family or folks from the plastics industry, it’s like suggesting that their first-born be sacrificed to the gods.
Several people I spoke with at the recent AIMCAL/SPE Flexible Packaging Conference commented to me that WTE would seem to be a very commonsense solution to an overwhelming problem, particularly in developing countries that have a recycling infrastructure and lack energy resources. WTE could be the solution to two problems!
Yet, in many industry settings, particularly among those that promote recycling, WTE is looked upon as “wasting” a valuable resource. WTE should be, in the minds of many, a last resort to the problem of plastic waste. I get it: If your business is recycling, everything is seen as recyclable and recycling is the best solution.
In a recent press release from Plastics Recyclers Europe (PRE), the group noted that dealing with unwanted plastic waste has become a huge issue. China’s ban on plastic waste imports has many countries “struggling to process mountains of plastic waste,” said PRE. “Consequently, some municipalities are prompted to end the collection of plastics for recycling and collect them with mainstream waste, which is destined for waste-to-fuel and other recovery facilities.”
As a recycling group, the PRE is not happy about plastics waste going to any type of facility other than a recycling plant, claiming that it “violates the waste hierarchy, the overarching principle of the Waste Directive and the circular economy model itself.” The group proposes overhauling the “unsustainable, inefficient practices that have negative environmental impacts and result in the loss of valuable resources.”
Speaking of “inefficient practices,” that term comes to my mind every time I see the big, green recycling truck drive down my street once a week to pick up the co-mingled paper, plastic, glass and metals in the blue bins in my neighborhood. When I list the extensive number of processes and the energy and resources each process takes to get that milk jug from my hands back into some other HDPE product, I’m truly amazed! Is this really all that environmentally friendly?
The PRE wants to change the “old waste management model,” which was created by plastics not being properly collected and sorted. “Co-mingling results in poor quality of waste due to high contamination by other materials,” said the PRE. “Additionally, properly collected plastics must be sorted per polymer type before being sold to plastics recyclers to ensure quality. EU waste exports are driven by poor quality of waste, as appropriate schemes to treat this waste are lacking within Europe. Well-functioning collection and sorting systems would enable the industry to overcome this challenge.”
As I understand it, Europe has a number of WTE plants throughout the region that supply a good percentage of energy requirements locally. Certainly, the glass and metal components of recyclables collected would have to be sorted out, but the paper (8,000 BTUs per pound) and plastics could go to the WTE plant. Plastics are extremely valuable as energy producers.
According to Penn State University’s Plastic Fuel Project, the mantra should be, “recycle when possible, but if recycling is not an option why not capture the high heat content of plastics?” Its report noted that polyethylene contains 19,900 BTUs per pound; polypropylene has 19,850; cross-linked PE (PEX), 19,780; gasoline, 19,200; and polystyrene, 17,800. In comparison, fuel oil contains 20,900 BTUs per pound (the most of fossil fuels); Pennsylvania coal contains 13,900; and Wyoming coal has 9,600.This may look like a detail of an impressionist painting but it's actually a picture of Plastofuel nuggets. Image courtesy Penn State.
Penn State extruded “logs” of waste plastics that melted the surface of the plastics as it moved through the extruder so that the logs would hold together to be used as a fuel called Plastofuel. They also tested the air quality for three primary emissions—acid gases, particulates and furans/dioxin—and found negligible amounts in each category.
Plastofuel can be easily stored and burned with coal in a coal-fired boiler, or eventually combusted directly in the boiler system, said Penn State’s information. “High-temperature combustion (2,000o F) ensures clean burns with minimal emissions,” said the group’s report. “The key to Plastofuel is that the production process is tolerant of dirt and debris, and because only the outer portions are melted during processing, it requires only about one-tenth the energy to form when compared to producing plastic pellets.”
Obviously, that means minimal sorting and no hot water/chemical baths to remove labels, adhesives and so forth prior to selling the material. That would seem to me to be a very eco-friendly solution to plastic waste and it captures the valuable energy in the plastics waste rather than using valuable fossil fuel energy to create more plastic pellets.
While the PRE calls for “separate collection and high-quality sorting schemes in order to make valuable raw materials,” they might want to consider Penn State’s solution. That would require the use of fewer resources and lower CO2 emissions to collect, transport, sort, wash, grind, transport, reprocess . . . you know the drill. It would also mean capturing the high-heat value of plastics and provide much-needed energy to people in developing countries—to all of us, really—to help offset the need for other types of fuel sources.
https://www.plasticstoday.com/sustainability/why-are-people-afraid-waste-energy-technology/155500178459805
-
Outlook for Gas Gets a Boost as U.S. Coal Plant Shutdowns Soar
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins and Eric Roston
Way more natural gas is going to be used to fuel power plants next year after coal-fired generation is being retired at the fastest pace since 2015.
Twenty coal power plants are planned to be shut in 2018, the most since environmental regulations pushed 17 gigawatts of capacity offline in 2015, according to a Bloomberg NEF report.
If just half the electricity from those plants is generated from gas instead, it will boost demand for the fuel by as much as 1.5 billion cubic feet a day. That’s about 2 percent of the total U.S. consumption in August.
The shale boom released a bounty of gas in the country, sinking prices and increasing demand for the fuel to be burned for power. At the same time, environmental concerns have encouraged the substitution of coal with cleaner-burning fuels or renewables. The transition is far from over: A quarter of today’s coal power plant fleet are expected to be shuttered by 2025.
Along with record exports via pipelines and tankers carrying liquefied natural gas, higher electricity demand will help eat away at the record U.S. output from basins across America. Texas saw the bulk of the coal closures as Vistra Energy Corp. shut down four massive plants.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/outlook-for-gas-gets-a-boost-as-us-coal-plant-shutdowns-soar
-
Federal Offshore Fracking Permits in California Blocked by Judge
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Edvard Pettersson
The Trump administration was blocked by a federal judge from issuing hydraulic fracturing permits off the coast of California, saying the environmental assessment process failed to adequately seek input from the state and wildlife protection agencies.
Judge Philip Gutierrez, ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, sided with the state and environmental advocacy groups Nov. 9. He ordered the administration not to issue any permits until it consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about the impact of fracking on endangered species and it provided its proposals to the California Coastal Commission to determine whether they are consistent with the state’s coastal management plans.
“Stopping offshore fracking is a big victory for California’s coast and marine life,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans program legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re glad the Trump administration lost this round in its push to expand dangerous oil operations off California. This decision protects marine life and coastal communities from fracking’s toxic chemicals.”
California sued the U.S. Interior Department over the fracking review in December 2016 and has since filed numerous lawsuits against the Trump administration to challenge what the state views as a federal rollback of environmental protections.
Representatives of the Interior Department didn’t immediately respond to a request after regular business hours for comment on the ruling.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/federaloffshore-fracking-permits-in-california-blocked-by-judge
-
Insight From Washington: US Energy Conservation Gets Lost in the Drive for Oil Abundance
Nov 12, 2018 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon
US energy abundance underpinned the Trump administration’s case for rolling back federal vehicle fuel economy standards, a policy the government aims to adopt by March.
The US is producing enough oil “to satisfy nearly all of its energy needs and is projected to continue to do so,” the administration argued in the proposal that would freeze fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks at the 2020 target of 43.7 miles per gallon. Booming domestic output has “added new stable supply to the global oil market and reduced the urgency of the US to conserve energy,” it said.
However, this newly abundant supply has not shielded US drivers from global price risks, as recent volatility has shown. And the US has not become less exposed to global market forces as it pumps more crude and exports it around the world.
“The idea that the imperative on conservation is gone because you have abundance is just exceedingly short-sighted and not strategic,” said Sarah Ladislaw, director of the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ energy and national security program.
“That’s where people really take issue with an articulation of that position, because it seems to fundamentally misunderstand the history of oil markets,” she said. “You can have all the supply that you want, but if it can’t get to where it’s going, your reliance on it is still a strategic vulnerability.”
US oil import dependence has fallen sharply from a peak of 60% in 2005 to 21% in 2017, according to the Energy Information Administration. The EIA projects it will average 17.5% for 2018 and keep falling steadily until 2029, when total crude and refined product exports will overtake imports for the first time.
This figure – which EIA calls the net import share of product supplied – reflects the dramatic shift toward US energy abundance that the Trump administration rightly praises. The fact that this figure is on a clear path toward zero does not mean the US is “producing enough oil to satisfy nearly all of its energy needs.”
The US still imports about 7.9 million b/d of crude and 2.2 million b/d of refined products. Those volumes are projected to fall, while US exports of crude and products keep rising.
Even when the US becomes a net oil exporter, US producers will still rely on export markets to find the best home for their particular crude, while US refiners will rely on imports for feedstock. Gulf Coast refineries were built to process heavy crudes from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Some of this capacity will be reconfigured to take advantage of the light sweet crude streaming out of West Texas, but not enough to say the US can become self-sufficient when it comes to producing and refining all the oil it consumes.
“The idea that the amount that you’re producing equals self-sufficiency is wrong,” Ladislaw said. “If you look at what’s happening in the US oil market, we’re getting more deeply integrated into global oil markets because we’re trading and we need to trade to make sure we can optimize our own energy system from the upstream all the way to a downstream perspective.”
Congress created the first US fuel economy standards in 1975 to protect against price shocks and supply shortages like those seen during the 1973 oil embargo. The first rule aimed to double the average fuel economy of the new car fleet to 27.5 mpg by model year 1985. Fast forward to the Obama administration adopting standards for 2012−25 model years to get the fleet-wide average to an equivalent of 54.5 mpg, which would have been 49.6 mpg in actual efficiency gains plus offsets.
The Trump administration said the US no longer needed such ambitious targets because of rising domestic oil production and the US consuming a smaller share of global supply. In addition, a greater diversity of both suppliers and consumers in the oil market since the 1970s had made it less likely a single actor or group like OPEC could harm consumers. “The global oil market can, to a large extent, compensate for any producer that chooses not to sell to a given buyer by shifting other supply toward that buyer,” the administration said in the August proposal.
Despite this line of reasoning by his administration, President Donald Trump has spent much of 2018 blaming OPEC for high US gasoline prices. “The OPEC monopoly must get prices down now!” he said September 20 in one of half a dozen tweets devoted to high gasoline prices and OPEC.
Easing the vehicle efficiency standards is expected to increase US oil demand by 500,000 b/d. The proposal says the economic impact of this extra 2−3% of oil demand is dwarfed by cost savings for auto buyers.
The proposal acknowledges that rising US production and falling import dependence cannot entirely insulate consumers from the effects of price shocks. “But it appears that domestic supply may dampen the magnitude, frequency, and duration of price shocks,” it said. “As global per-barrel oil prices rise, US production is now much better able to (and does) ramp up in response, pulling those prices back down. Corresponding per-gallon gas prices may not fall overnight, but it is foreseeable that they could moderate over time, and likely respond faster than prior to the shale revolution.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/11/12/insight-washington-us-energy-conservation-oil-abundance/
-
What Is at Stake in the Keystone XL Pipeline Ruling?
Nov 9, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Rod Nickel
A U.S. federal judge in Montana halted construction of TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, saying a U.S. environmental analysis "fell short of a 'hard look'" at the cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on Native American land resources.
The ruling is the latest delay to the project, a decade in planning, which was revived by U.S. President Donald Trump after being halted by his predecessor, Barack Obama.
WHAT IS KEYSTONE XL?
KXL, as it is known, is a proposed $8 billion, 1,180 mile (1,900 km) pipeline that would carry heavy crude to Steele City, Nebraska, from Canada’s oil sands in Alberta. Planned by Canada's TransCanada, KXL would provide a shortcut to carry more Canadian oil to U.S. markets, complementing the existing Keystone line than runs from Alberta to Steele City and then Gulf Coast refineries.
WHY IS IT NEEDED?
Crude production in Alberta's oil sands is expanding faster than pipeline capacity, creating a bottleneck that has driven down prices. Canada's heavy crude now fetches a fraction of the benchmark U.S. light oil price, and some producers have curtailed production. The steep discount has stripped billions of dollars from the Canadian economy by some estimates.
ADVERTISEMENT
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF OPPOSITION?
Environmental groups have campaigned against pipelines to carry crude from Canada's oil sands, saying extraction methods used in the region harm the environment more than conventional oil drilling.
In Nebraska, landowners blasted what they saw as heavy-handed efforts by TransCanada to force the pipe through ecologically sensitive areas.
WHAT OTHER OBSTACLES HAS IT FACED?
Obama, a Democrat, axed the project in 2015, saying Canada would reap most of the economic benefits while the project would add to greenhouse gas emissions. President Donald Trump, a Republican, pushed to approve KXL soon after he took office, saying it would create U.S. jobs. In 2017, a presidential permit allowed the line to move forward, and several environmental groups sued the U.S. government.
The Nebraska Public Service Commission issued an approval late last year for an alternative route, a ruling that environmental groups are challenging.
WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS?
In Washington, the judge's ruling on Thursday was a blow to Trump, who critics say is trying to force an unpopular project on the American people.Editors’ PicksOpinionIn Praise of MediocrityFloods Are Getting Worse, and 2,500 Chemical Sites Lie in the Water’s Path50 Years Later, It Feels Familiar: How America Fractured in 1968
ADVERTISEMENT
In Ottawa, pressure is mounting on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to get a pipeline built to help Canadian producers sell their oil at higher prices while building support for other steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before an election expected next year.
In summer, Trudeau's government bought the floundering Trans Mountain pipeline project, hoping to get it built.
WHAT'S NEXT?
U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris ordered the federal government to conduct a more thorough environmental analysis. Separately, TransCanada has said it expects a decision on routing from the Nebraska Supreme Court by the first quarter of 2019.
TransCanada has yet to make a final investment decision to proceed with the project, even though it had started construction. It said last week that it is also seeking partners to finance KXL's construction.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/11/09/world/americas/09reuters-usa-pipeline-keystone-explainer.html
-
Another Keystone XL Setback: Environmental Review Ordered
Nov 9, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
In a setback for the Trump administration, a federal judge has blocked a permit for construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada and ordered officials to conduct a new environmental review.
Environmentalists and tribal groups cheered the ruling by a U.S. district judge in Montana, while President Donald Trump called it "a political decision" and "a disgrace."
The 1,184-mile (1,900 kilometer) pipeline would begin in Alberta and shuttle as much as 830,000 barrels a day of crude through a half dozen states to terminals on the Gulf Coast.
Trump has touted the $8 billion pipeline as part of his pledge to achieve North American "energy dominance" and has contrasted his administration's quick approval of the project with years of delay under President Barack Obama.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Trump administration has not said whether it would appeal the new ruling. The State Department said it was reviewing the decision, but declined further comment, citing ongoing litigation.
The pipeline was first proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada in 2008. It has become the focal point of a decade-long dispute that pits Democrats, environmental groups and Native American tribes who warn of pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions against business groups and Republicans who cheer the project's jobs and potential energy production.
U.S. District Judge Brian Morris put a hold on the project late Thursday, ruling that the State Department had not fully considered potential oil spills and other impacts as required by federal law. He ordered the department to complete a new review that addresses issues that have emerged since the last environmental review was completed in 2014.
New topics include the cumulative effects of climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions of Keystone XL and a related pipeline that brings oil from Canada; the effects of current oil prices on the pipeline's viability; updated modeling of potential oil spills; and the project's effect on cultural resources of native tribes and other groups along the pipeline's route.
The review could take up to a year to complete.
Environmentalists and Native American groups had sued to stop the project, citing property rights and possible spills.Editors’ PicksOpinionIn Praise of MediocrityFloods Are Getting Worse, and 2,500 Chemical Sites Lie in the Water’s Path‘Entering Burn Area’: Yosemite After the Fire
ADVERTISEMENT
Becky Mitchell, chairwoman of the Northern Plains Resource Council, a plaintiff in the case, said her organization is thrilled with the ruling.
"This decision sends TransCanada back to the drawing board," Mitchell said, calling the ruling "the results of grassroots democracy in action, winning for water and people."
TransCanada said in a statement that it was reviewing the judge's 54-page decision. "We remain committed to building this important energy infrastructure project," TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said.
Environmental groups declared victory and predicted the long-delayed project will never be built.
The court ruling "makes it clear once and for all that it's time for TransCanada to give up on their Keystone XL pipe dream," said Doug Hayes, a senior attorney with the Sierra Club, the nation's largest environmental group.
The fight over the project has spanned several presidencies and involved standoffs between protesters and law enforcement.
After years of legal wrangling, Obama rejected a permit for the pipeline in 2015. The company responded by seeking $15 billion in damages.
Trump signed executive actions to again advance construction of the project in 2017.
TransCanada had recently announced plans to start construction next year, after a State Department review ordered by Morris concluded that major environmental damage from a leak is unlikely and could quickly be mitigated. Morris said that review was inadequate.Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.SIGN UP
ADVERTISEMENT
TransCanada has promised continuous monitoring and says automatic shut-off valves would help officials quickly identify a leak or rupture.
Tom Goldtooth, executive director for the Indigenous Environmental Network, a Minnesota-based advocacy group that also is a plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was a win for tribes, water "and for the sacredness of Mother Earth."
He called the pipeline "the enemy of the people, the climate and life as we know it. It must be stopped."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/11/09/us/ap-us-keystone-xl-pipeline.html
-
Data System to Improve Pipeline Safety Would Seek Industry Funds
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A strategy to reduce pipeline incidents and accidents would rely on companies’ voluntary contributions as well as federal funding, a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration working group said Nov. 9.
The federal agency’s working group is creating a framework for a nationwide information-sharing system to which pipeline operators and other parties would voluntarily contribute data. The system would help operators and the agency identify conditions that lead to incidents and accidents before they happen, according to the agency.
The agency will provide seed funding and money to sustain the system, but the board that ultimately oversees the system should consider additional funding through sources such as user fees and public and private partnerships, the working group decided.
“The expectation is that more people would voluntarily step up from the industry once they see the value,” Dan Cote, vice president of safety and compliance at NiSource Gas, said at a Nov. 9 meeting of the Voluntary Information-sharing System working group.
Developing RecommendationsThe group has been developing recommendations for the Transportation Department to create an information-sharing system in which pipeline operators voluntarily contribute their inspection data and other information to share lessons learned.
The group is expected to recommend that submission of sensitive data always remain voluntary, that transparency be a primary aspect of how data are managed and utilized, and that identities are removed from pipeline operator and vendor data, among other recommendations.
It also recommends the formation of a Voluntary Information Sharing System executive board, which will guide the system after the working group completes its responsibilities by submitting its report to the secretary.
One additional meeting is expected in mid-December before submitting its report later that month.
Members include consultants, academics, and representatives from Sunoco Logistics Partners LP, the Utility Workers Union of America, and the Pipeline Safety Trust.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/data-system-to-improve-pipeline-safety-would-seek-industry-funds
-
Federal Researchers Simulate Power Grid Cyberattack, Find Holes in Response Plan
Nov 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Adam Janofsky
On a rainy Tuesday this week, Tim Yardley trekked through the mud on a remote island about 900 miles from his office at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Mr. Yardley, the associate director of technology at the university’s Information Trust Institute, finally arrived at a nondescript shelter about the size of a shipping container.
Mr. Yardley is an expert on what can go wrong when attackers target an electric grid and is one of hundreds of government and industry researchers on the island this week to test their theories. The shelter is packed with wires, sensors and security tools connected to a 5-foot high box capable of transmitting thousands of volts of electricity.
“We want to know that [these technologies and recovery plans] work and that they work under a wide variety of scenarios,” Mr. Yardley said.
Plum Island, a partly dilapidated 840 acres in the Long Island Sound, is primarily a restricted animal disease research center owned by the federal government. It’s also, it turns out, an ideal laboratory for cybersecurity tests. The island is connected to New York’s power grid through undersea cables that officials disabled this week.
For government researchers, the Plum Island drill is what red-teaming and cyber ranges are for corporate executives. That is, the chance to expose security teams to serious threats in a controlled, but realistic, setting.
“It’s a safe, no-fault environment where we can get ready for the real thing if, god forbid, it were to happen,” said Brian Marko, a program manager for energy sector exercises at the Department of Energy. This test follows a small-scale pilot on the island in June.
Dealing with a protracted power outage
Drills played out over seven days, starting on Halloween. The goal was to test how the grid could recover from catastrophic incidents including supply chain attacks, ransomware and misconfigurations of critical machinery. Participants also validated sensors, software and other security tools that could be used in an emergency by utility companies throughout the country.
Among several situations, researchers assessed what they consider a worst-case scenario: A cyberattack that shuts down all power for several weeks, resulting in depleted batteries and inoperable generators that normally should kickstart a downed electric grid.
There is evidence that nation-state attackers are already targeting power grids and other critical infrastructure. In 2015, a team of Russian hackers successfully attacked utilities in Ukraine, creating unprecedented blackouts, The Wall Street Journal reported. A large outage can cause cascading problems, as did a 2003 blackout across the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada that affected 50 million people. It shut down assembly plants in Detroit, caused a severe water crisis in Cleveland and prompted stores throughout New York City to close their doors.
Grid operators and government workers conduct frequent tabletop exercises to determine who would do what during a cyberattack, but those activities lack the depth and urgency of a real-world scenario and might not reveal problems in response plans, said Walter Weiss, the program manager for the Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, who led the exercises.
“Here you can feed back to the policy community what actually worked on the ground,” said Mr. Weiss. DARPA worked with the Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security, plusRaytheon Corp. , BAE Systems PLC and other vendors.
Unhappy surprises cause setbacks
The drills started with a mock order to restore the power grid from Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. Corporate and government engineers and security specialists had to get to work with no internet or cell phones. For the first few days, teams used forensic tools to detect hackers, disinfect devices and isolate the network. Once they set up a secure foundation, they used diesel generators to build up power gradually in a number of substations on the island.
The teams set up landlines and a central operating area to help bring other parts of the grid back online. Throughout the exercise, government officials introduced a number of surprise scenarios, such as a new virus that disconnected parts of the network that engineers had just rebuilt.
Some distinctly low-tech devices also helped. Engineers launched a weather balloon, equipped with sensors, to float a few hundred feet above the island to detect Wi-Fi activity and the hum of generators.
Several dancing inflatable tube men--more commonly seen at car dealerships--were connected to electric fans and used as rudimentary “high visibility power indication devices.” If power came on in the area, the tubes would inflate, arms flailing, signaling to engineers working thousands of feet away.
“We’re proving that when everything possible goes wrong, there’s still something you can do and we have tools to save the power grid,” said Mr. Weiss.
One conclusion from the exercise: Forensic teams often devote too much time to the most visible problems, leaving them unprepared for bigger issues such as wiper malware that can erase all the progress they make, he said.
“If they’re not looking left and right and are just focusing on what’s going on today, they’re going to miss things,” he said.
Some test findings will be published and already DARPA has discovered a few ways to tweak security tools to save time during a crisis, he said. For example, researchers lost about half of a day at one point because they misinterpreted normal grid behavior as a sign of a cyberattack. He wouldn’t provide details.
DARPA plans to host another exercise on the island in May or June to involve more participants, including utility operators and others who haven’t yet used the security tools. The next one, he said, will be tougher.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-researchers-simulate-power-grid-cyberattack-find-holes-in-response-plan-1541785202?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=8
-
Combustible Dust Comments Due to CSB Soon
Nov 12, 2018 | Occupational Health & Safety
Comments in response to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board's recent "Call to Action: Combustible Dust" are due by Nov. 26 The board issued it as part of its investigation into the May 2017 Didion Milling explosion, seeking comments on the management and control of combustible dust from companies, regulators, inspectors, safety training providers, researchers, unions, and workers exposed to dust-related hazards.
Combustible dust incidents continue to affect companies in a wide range of industries, including motor vehicle manufacturing, food products, chemical manufacturing, and lumber and wood products.
"Our dust investigations have identified the understanding of dust hazards and the ability to determine a safe dust level in the workplace as common challenges," said CSB Interim Executive Kristen Kulinowski in late October. "While there is a shared understanding of the hazards of dust, our investigations have found that efforts to manage those hazards have often failed to prevent a catastrophic explosion. To uncover why that is, we are initiating this Call to Action to gather insights and feedback from those most directly involved with combustible dust hazards."
The agency wants input on a variety of issues, including recognizing and measuring unsafe levels of dust in the workplace, managing responsibilities and expectations that sometimes are at odds with each other (such as performing mechanical integrity preventative maintenance while simultaneously striving to minimize dust releases in a work environment), and the methods for communicating the low-frequency but high-consequence hazards of combustible dust in actionable terms for employees who are working in and overseeing these environments.
Comments can be emailed to combustibledust@csb.gov now until Nov. 26. CSB indicated it intends to use the information it receives to explore new opportunities for safety improvements.
The Didion Milling incident on May 31, 2017, involved one ore more explosions of corn dust at the Didion Milling facility in Cambria, Wis. Five of the 19 employees working on the night of the incident were killed and the others were injured. "Our investigation of the Didion incident continues, and we are analyzing evidence to understand the specifics leading up to the tragic event. However, this investigation reinforces what we are seeing across many industries—that there needs to be a more inclusive approach to creating and maintaining a safe work environment amid processes that inherently produce dust," CSB Investigator Cheryl MacKenzie said.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2018/11/12/comdust-comments-due-soon.aspx
-
Refiners Get 30 Days to Cut Air Pollution From Startups, Shutdowns
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Petroleum refineries built on or before June 30, 2014, will have just one month to meet toxic air pollution limits for maintenance vents used as operations are started up or shut down for inspection and repairs. Pollution generally peaks during startup and shutdown processes from such facilities.
The Environmental Protection Agency had proposed giving them until Jan. 30, 2019, in response to requests from refinery trade groups, but reversed itself in a Nov. 8 rule. The final deadline to meet the limits will be 30 days from when the rule is published in the Federal Register.
The EPA decided the vents are used infrequently and the necessary changes could be made quickly. The vents are used only during startup, shutdown, maintenance, or inspection when equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed, or placed into service, according to the EPA rule (RIN:2060-AT50).
The EPA set toxic pollution standards for petroleum refineries in 2015. Those facilities originally had until Aug. 1, 2017, to meet the standards, but the EPA chose to reconsider portions of the hazardous air pollution requirements.
The American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers asked for the extension to Jan. 30, 2019.
“We thought the deadline should be extended to Jan. 30, and still believe that to be the case. The fact that the EPA has given some extension is a positive step,” Howard Feldman, the institute’s senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 8.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the rule in Texas, noting it would reduce annual compliance burdens by $12 million.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/refiners-get-30-days-to-cut-air-pollution-from-startups-shutdowns
-
Democrats Likely To Use CRA As Messaging Tool To Fight EPA Rollbacks
Nov 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
House Democrats are expected to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) -- the law historically used by Republicans to rescind swaths of the Obama administration's regulatory agenda -- as a political weapon to challenge the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts at EPA and other agencies when they formally assume control of the chamber in 2019.
While Democrats next year will still lack the Senate and White House control necessary to enact CRA repeal of pending Trump administration deregulatory rules, the law could allow House Democrats to force votes on an array of pending Trump EPA proposals once they work their way through the regulatory process, including controversial climate and other measures Democrats have already suggested as possible CRA targets.
And that could force Republican lawmakers to choose between resisting or defending the proposals -- while shoring up support for Democrats among environmentally minded constituencies in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election.
“I think that is going to be a tactic that is used quite often,” says Cliff Rothenstein, a former Democratic Hill staffer and Clinton-era appointee at EPA, who is now a government affairs advisor at K&L Gates.
Speaking on a Nov. 8 post-election webinar hosted by the investor sustainability group CERES, Rothenstein said that likely Democratic targets will be the replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan, the pending proposal to relax fuel economy standards and “some other selected regulations.”
While Democrats have not yet signaled what deregulatory measures they plan to target under the CRA, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) suggested during an Aug. 21 press conference that they could use “legislative tools including the [CRA]” to target the administration's pending rollback of power plant GHG standards.
He cited such an approach as one of a number of ways for Democrats to raise public awareness and help build litigation arguments against the rollback.
Democratic use of the statute would be somewhat of an about-face from when House and Senate Republicans, together with President Donald Trump, used the CRA in 2017 to target an array of Obama administration rules governing the environment, worker safety and a host of other issues -- sometimes with mixed results.
The law generally requires agencies to submit rules to Congress for review, which allows lawmakers to pass resolutions -- which are privileged in the Senate and require only a majority vote -- to revoke them, within 60 legislative days of their enactment. Once rules are repealed, agencies cannot craft “substantially similar” measures without approval from Congress.
In the wake of the Trump-era CRA rollbacks, environmentalists and others are challenging some of lawmakers' decisions to rescind Obama era rules by charging that the law is unconstitutional.
Give such concerns, Democrats and their supporters have used the law sparingly, if at all. During the Bush administration, they threatened to use the law to block EPA's rule delaying implementation of Clinton-era standards for arsenic in drinking water -- though the action was eventually reversed after the House voted to defund it.
Messaging Tool
Democrats have already stepped up threats to use the authority on Trump administration regulations, with lawmakers introducing -- or threatening to introduce -- several disapproval resolutions.
For example, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), whose re-election prospects remain uncertain, threatened to introduce a CRA disapproval resolution to block the Trump administration from rolling back Obama-era offshore drilling rules that were developed in the wake of the massive 2010 BP spill, though Nelson dropped the effort after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke pledged to bar drilling off of Florida's coast.
Markey, joined by 48 other Democrats, also introduced a resolution seeking to block the Federal Communications Commission's rule that rolled back Obama-era net neutrality rules, though the Senate never voted on the measure.
And last month, the Senate defeated on a 50-50 vote a CRA resolution, sponsored by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and 47 other Democrats, that sought to rescind a rule issued jointly by several Trump administration agencies that expands access to short-term, limited-duration health insurance coverage.
With the CRA clearly on the minds of at least some Democrats prior to the election, they appear likely in 2019 to step up their use of the authority under a scenario where House Democrats will be in a position to employ the CRA knowing that the Trump administration would surely veto -- and Republican Senate likely block -- approval of such resolutions.
And that makes it a political opportunity to bludgeon the Trump administration and their GOP supporters over proposals that industry and the White House may favor, but that key Democratic constituencies or even the broader public oppose.
“It will have to be messaging because they won't be able to get into the Senate and the president certainly won't sign it,” Rothenstein said.
House Democrats remain vague for now on their precise Hill agenda in 2019.
But Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who is slated to lead the Energy and Commerce Committee next year, in a Nov. 7 statement pledged “vigorous oversight” and promised proposals to “restore environmental protections gutted over the last two years.”
As such, the CRA could be a useful political tool that intersects with such oversight efforts, raising public awareness and forcing House votes on controversial relaxation of environmental standards.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-likely-use-cra-messaging-tool-fight-epa-rollbacks
-
EPA Draft Memo Would Expand Area Exempt from Air Quality Monitoring
Nov 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
A draft EPA memo open for public comment could expand the areas exempt from ambient air quality monitoring for pollutants like particulate matter and carbon monoxide.
EPA policy says that outdoors areas that are owned and controlled by pollution emitters like power plants, refineries and paper mills and that are not accessible to the general public are exempt from air quality monitoring requirements. A 1980 policy memo said that such areas must be separated via a physical barrier such as a wall, fence or even natural barriers such as a steep cliff.
But in its draft seven-page memo, EPA says industry groups have found that requirement too restricting.
Instead, the agency proposed that areas can be exempted from monitoring if they rely on sufficient deterrents such as "video surveillance and monitoring, clear signage, routine security patrols, drones, and other potential future technologies."
Every facility is different and so a barrier's sufficiency must be decided on a case-by-case basis, EPA said. But the memo would make it easier to avoid monitoring air quality in areas close to smokestacks and other pollution sources.
WHAT'S NEXT: The memo says the revised policy is not a regulation or final agency action open to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. However, EPA said it will take public comment here through Dec. 21.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Floats Redefinition of 'Ambient Air'
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
In another bid to speed approval of industry permits, EPA is re-airing its regulatory definition of "ambient air."
Currently defined as "that portion of the atmosphere, to which the general public has access," ambient air exempts outdoor areas over land that's owned or controlled by a pollution source, to which "public access is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers," under an interpretation dating back to 1980.
But in newly released draft guidance, EPA cites unspecified stakeholders who argue that this interpretation is overly restrictive for purposes of carrying out air quality analyses needed when applying for Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program.
The broader interpretation laid out in the unsigned memo says public access may be deterred by other barriers, including drones, security patrols and "rugged terrain."
Accordingly, EPA wants to replace "a fence or other physical barriers" with a more expansive rendering: "measures, which may include physical barriers, that are effective in deterring or precluding access to the land by the general public."
Abstract as the proposed change might sound, it was welcomed today as a practical improvement by the head of the American Forest and Paper Association.
"By clarifying where the public is truly exposed, EPA eliminates many hypothetical modeling scenarios that can bog down projects unnecessarily," Donna Harman, the association's president and CEO, said in a statement.
Harman said past assessments have been done for areas where the public doesn't have legal access. "This action," she said, "takes a long-overdue first step toward ensuring real-world air quality modeling is used to determine any air quality impacts from a project."
While the guidance doesn't include an analysis of the potential impact, EPA predicts the proposed change will furnish more flexibility in deciding the location of modeling receptors used in air quality analyses while "maintaining public health protection."
With no public announcement, the agency posted the draft guidance online late this week. Spokesman John Konkus didn't reply to a request for confirmation of the exact day.
The agency is asking "interested stakeholders" to furnish comments by Dec. 21. Although the revised guidance doesn't qualify as a regulation requiring advance public notice, EPA expects state and local air agencies to adopt the policy when issuing Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits, according to the memo.
Under the New Source Review program, those pre-construction permits are needed when a power plant or other major industrial facility embarks on a significant expansion or upgrade expected to lead to more pollution in areas that currently meet national ambient air quality standards.https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/09/stories/1060105915
-
Taking Shortcuts Won't Protect Our Families from Air Pollution
Nov 9, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Elena Craft
We know that air pollution is bad for our families. Science makes that abundantly clear. Studies, for example, show that mercury can damage the nervous system of children and fetuses, while ground-level ozone, or smog, can trigger asthma attacks.
Even pollution levels below those generally considered safe increase the risk for premature death, according to a study of more than 60 million Medicare recipients published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2017.
Remarkably, when faced with evidence that pollution kills, the Trump administration has attacked science rather than do the necessary work to protect public health and save lives. This excising of science deeply concerns me, as a mother and scientist.
Trump’s EPA has done it under the guise of “streamlining the system” – an overhaul that diminishes the role of academic, peer-reviewed science in policymaking. The changes adopted by this administration include significantly altering or disbanding scientific panels and limiting the types of research that the agency can take into account when developing new safeguards.
Is that streamlining the system? No. It sounds to me like taking shortcuts to undermine a process rooted in science and clearly stated in the Clean Air Act of 1970. The apparent goal is to complete reviews of ozone and particulate matter that diminish the characterization of the pollutants as harmful before Trump’s term ends in 2021.
What’s more, Trump’s EPA – first under Scott Pruitt, who resigned presumably because of the overwhelming outcry resulting from a series of ethical lapses, and now under Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist – has asked members of the recently revamped Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC, to consider the economic consequences of tighter limits on air pollution. One problem with this is that CASAC members are not economists – a distinction that the administration does not seem to appreciate.
Making matters worse, it is not clear that some of CASAC’s new members understand the science. Their opinions about air pollution’s impact on human health reside on the fringes of the scientific literature and crumble under scrutiny.
Among the new appointees is Sabine Lange, a toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or TCEQ. In 2015, she presented an oversimplified analysis of the science and economics of the federal ozone standard. She focused on smog’s effect on healthy people and effectively ignored the most vulnerable populations, like seniors, children, and people with asthma.
Lange also co-authored a recent study claiming that the estimated net benefits of cutting the ozone standard from its current 70 parts per billion to 65 ppb are far less than EPA’s previous forecast. The analysis nitpicks individual studies rather than addresses conclusions from the full body of literature. The American Petroleum Institute also has used her analysis as a reason for weakening the standard.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration does not seem to care about protecting the health of our families. It has not taken one meaningful step to reduce air pollution, which is responsible for one in nine deaths worldwide. In fact, it has done more to exacerbate the problem through its recent actions. Here are some examples:Making it easier for oil and gas operations to release methane, among the most potent greenhouse gases.Granting a loophole that will allow the manufacturing of diesel freight trucks that produce more air pollution than those with modern emissions controls.Weakening full-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.
Despite the Trump administration’s actions, I remain hopeful. The World Health Organization recently hosted its first international summit on air pollution, and cities everywhere are taking aggressive action to address this stubborn problem.
Houston, for example, is using municipal vehicles in partnership with the telematics company Geotab, TDE Technologies, and EDF to test a cost-effective, scalable model for mapping air pollution at a hyperlocal level. In London, Mayor Sadiq Khan launched a new street-by-street monitoring system to improve air quality.
It is through these innovative approaches that we will be able to breathe easier. It certainly will not because of Trump’s anti-science administration.
http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairmatters/2018/11/09/taking-shortcuts-wont-protect-our-families-from-air-pollution/
-
Environmentalists, Power Sector Wage 11th-Hour Effort To Preserve MATS
Nov 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists and the power sector are waging an 11th-hour effort calling on the White House and EPA to preserve the Obama-era mercury emissions rule for utilities, with environmentalists aiming to keep the rule intact while utilities that have invested millions of dollars to comply want it retained with changes to ease some requirements.
In a slew of recent meetings with agency and White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials, groups including the American Lung Association, Clean Air Task Force, Sierra Club, investor-owned utility group Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and power company Exelon have outlined their varied arguments for keeping the rule in place, and to oppose any attempt to “de-list” power plants from regulation under Clean Air Act section 112.
“Nobody, as far as I know, is lobbying for EPA to de-list the source category,” one industry source says of the arguments raised by supporters of the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) rule.
The Obama administration issued MATS under section 112 following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that scrapped the President George W. Bush EPA's attempt to regulate utility air toxics with a section 111(d) emissions trading program. Utilities then sued over the Obama EPA's finding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant air toxics under section 112. The Supreme Court ultimately faulted the agency for not considering costs in the review, so EPA revised the finding to include cost considerations.
Many observers expected that the updated finding -- which still found MATS appropriate and necessary -- would end the years-long fight over the rule, because by that time most utilities had already spent millions of dollars to come into compliance, and the compliance deadlines for reducing emissions had passed.
However, once EPA Office of Air & Radiation Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum was confirmed by the Senate, he launched a reconsideration of the rule, including the underlying cost-benefit finding.
EPA on Oct. 5 then sent for mandatory OMB pre-publication review its notice of proposed rulemaking addressing both the MATS cost review and a Clean Air Act-mandated residual risk and technology review (RTR). The air law requires the agency to assess its sector air toxics rules eight years after their implementation to determine whether it should impose stricter emissions limits or air quality control technology mandates.
Wehrum has publicly debated whether to scrap the cost review and MATS entirely as a “satisfying” move, or retain it because even some of its staunchest industry critics have spent millions in compliance costs. Wehrum suggested that if the agency pursues the latter approach, it could use the RTR process to weaken some of the rule's mandates -- although environmentalists claim RTRs cannot be used to weaken rules.
OMB's website says the proposed reconsideration of MATS is slated for publication in the Federal Register this month, and ahead of its release groups are meeting with EPA and OMB to sway its content.
Several sources say that there is pressure from major industry groups and also from environmentalists for EPA to keep MATS, although industry groups are pressing for some additional compliance flexibility as part of the RTR process, while environmentalists generally want the rule to remain untouched.
Environmentalists' Meetings
For example, groups including American Lung Association, Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and others have met with OMB and EPA recently.
All of those groups are pressing for the appropriate and necessary finding to be left intact, along with MATS, according to sources who attended some of those meetings.
One environmentalist says, “We told OMB that the draft proposal is transparently an attempt to undo the MATS protections.” If “EPA reverses the appropriate and necessary finding, but declines to repeal the standards, that will function as a hand-off to private litigants like Murray Energy,” the source says, referring to the power company that has been a leading critic of Obama EPA power sector rules like MATS and the Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule.
“We asked whether the administration would defend standards that it has concluded are not appropriate, and how it would do so,” the source says -- but as is typical, OMB officials at the meeting did not respond.
The groups cited studies on the health harms of undoing MATS. “We explained that undoing these protections would dramatically increase emissions of highly toxic pollution and cause thousands of people to die needlessly every year. We emphasized that the people who suffer will disproportionately be people of color,” the source says.
Environmentalists also discussed a long-running fight over MATS that focuses on the Obama EPA's decision to rely on “co-benefits” of reducing non-hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions to justify MATS, even though those pollutants are not regulated under section 112. Critics of MATS say that if EPA ignores consideration of these co-benefits then the agency cannot justify its implementation costs, so the rule is not appropriate and necessary.
But supporters of MATS pushed back on this argument in their meetings with OMB and EPA officials. “We said that EPA is trying to rig the process to justify an action that will do more harm than good, by failing to count the health harms that would result from repeal that have been quantified and monetized, and simultaneously failing to quantify and monetize the health harms that it agrees do count,” the source says.
Sources say that the Trump EPA may be more concerned with establishing a precedent of not counting co-benefits, such as those of reducing particulate matter, than with eliminating MATS. Hence environmental groups still have much to fight for with respect to the appropriate and necessary finding, even if MATS survives.
Even if EPA scraps the cost review justifying MATS, Wehrum could potentially still avoid eliminating the MATS rule itself by citing the D.C. Circuit ruling that scrapped the Bush-era mercury emissions trading program, because the decision sets a high bar for de-listing power plants from regulation under section 112. As a result, Wehrum could claim the agency is bound by court precedent to keep MATS, which regulates utility HAPs under section 112.
Utilities' Meetings
Major industry groups, meanwhile, are pressing to keep MATS. EEI met with OMB and EPA officials recently and pressed the same points it made earlier with other utility sector groups and trade unions, an EEI spokesman says.
EEI and other groups in a July 10 letter to Wehrum detailed the investments industry has already made in MATS compliance, asking EPA to retain MATS, without taking a position on the cost finding.
The groups “urge EPA to move forward with an RTR for power plants under [air law] section 112 and to leave the underlying MATS rule in place and effective. We also urge EPA to consider potential technical revisions to MATS -- such as considering whether performance tests could be performed less frequently if units are running less frequently -- while still ensuring that the standards are being achieved,” according to the letter.
Other groups that have met with OMB and EPA include the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing investor-owned utilities and currently co-chaired by officials from Southern Company and Duke Energy.
UARG is a frequent litigant against EPA power sector rules and strongly opposed MATS. However, industry sources say that like EEI, UARG is unlikely to press for MATS to be scrapped outright this time.
Sources say that the most likely source of pressure to eliminate MATS, both in comments to EPA and in any subsequent litigation, would be coal sector companies like Murray Energy, and possibly conservative think tanks.
The free-market think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute and a coal industry coalition have warned that a Clean Air Act bar on regulating the same industry sectors under both section 112 and section 111(d) will create a legal crisis that forces EPA to choose between its section 111(d) Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) proposal to regulate greenhouse gases and replace the CPP, or preserving MATS.
The “section 112 exclusion” differs between House-passed and Senate-passed amendments that were never fully reconciled in the enacted air law language, where the House describes the exclusion in terms of industry sectors, and the Senate in terms of regulated pollutants.
But the industry source says that EPA will stick to the Obama EPA's interpretation that the Senate language applies, which means ACE and MATS can co-exist. The argument has been tried before as a method to scrap the CPP, without success, and that rule was ultimately stayed by the Supreme Court for other reasons.
“Everyone who attended the day-long oral arguments over the CPP” in the D.C. Circuit “came away with the very strong impression that the 112 exclusion argument was not at all persuasive,” the source says.
Meanwhile, utility Exelon, which relies heavily on nuclear and natural gas power, met with OMB Nov. 1 and pressed its case to preserve MATS, a rule it has supported from the beginning in part because its power plants are not challenged by compliance with the rule, and therefore stood to gain some competitive advantage over coal-fired utilities.
The company submitted documents to OMB to press its case, including an Aug. 24 letter from Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, and Lamar Alexander (R-TN). The letter urges EPA to preserve MATS, citing the earlier letter from ELI and others.
Attendees at that meeting also handed OMB a June 29 letter from ADA Carbon Solutions, a supplier of mercury removal equipment for power plants, urging EPA to also “not disturb” the Obama EPA's supplemental cost finding.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-power-sector-wage-11th-hour-effort-preserve-mats
-
State Department Gets U.N. Climate Report Lawsuit Tossed
Nov 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Daniel Seiden
The State Department convinced a federal court to dismiss claims that it failed to comply with reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Center for Biological Diversity wasn’t able to show that the department’s failure to timely submit two reports required by that U.N. treaty caused an injury a court could fix, ruled Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“Not every disagreement merits a lawsuit,” but the Center may try again with an amended complaint within 30 days, he said in the Nov. 8 ruling.
The inability to obtain information that a defendant is required to make public can cause an injury, but the Center failed to allege that the department is required to make those U.N. reports publicly available, the court said.
The Center seeks to enforce a deadline provision that contains no disclosure requirement, the court said.
The case is Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of State, D.D.C., No. 18-563, 11/8/18
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/state-department-gets-un-climate-report-lawsuit-tossed
-
Kids' Climate Trial Faces Another Delay
Nov 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
Landmark litigation brought by 21 youth plaintiffs seeking to force the federal government to address climate change has been delayed yet again, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily stayed a pending trial to consider a Trump administration petition for the district court to dismiss the case.
In a Nov. 8 order, the 9th Circuit set a 15-day deadline for parties in Juliana, et al. v. United States -- pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon -- to respond to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Nov. 5 writ of mandamus seeking dismissal of the case.
“Trial is stayed pending this court's consideration of this petition for writ of mandamus,” the order states.
The order also gives the Oregon district court 15 days to “address the petition if it so desires.” DOJ is then allowed to file a reply to the parties' answers within five days of the answers being filed.
“In addition, the parties, within 15 days after the date of this order, shall file a joint report on the status of discovery and any relevant pretrial matters,” the order states.
The order marks the second time over the past few months that the trial has been delayed. Earlier this year, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily delayed the case while he considered a similar motion from DOJ. But the Supreme Court later rejected DOJ's petition, though it left the door open to the government renewing its prior efforts to block the case in the 9th Circuit.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs downplayed the latest delay and indicated the parties will continue preparing for a trial that was slated to have begun Oct. 29.
In a Nov. 8 statement, Our Children's Trust says the 9th Circuit's order “only placed a stay on trial -- trial preparations will continue for the youth plaintiffs and the federal government defendants.”
In addition, the group says that during a Nov. 8 status conference, Judge Ann Aiken, who is overseeing the suit in the federal court in Oregon, “indicated she would promptly issue a trial date once the Ninth Circuit lifts the temporary stay it placed on trial. The judge also told the parties that she would schedule the pre-trial conference as soon as the trial date gets scheduled.”
Julia Olson, Our Children's Trust chief counsel, said the district court “told us to continue getting our work done for trial so that we are all ready when the Ninth Circuit rules. That’s exactly what we will do. And our briefs to the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit on mandamus will show that there is no basis to grant the Government’s request of an appeal before final judgment. As one of our talented law clerks said today, we are in the world of ‘uncivil procedure.’”
The group adds that the lawsuit is not about the government’s failure to act on climate, but that the government, “through its affirmative actions in creating a national energy system that causes climate change, is depriving [the youth] of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/kids-climate-trial-faces-another-delay
-
Business Group Sues UCLA for Info on Climate Litigation
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Anne C. Mulkern
Conservative business group Competitive Enterprise Institute today sued UCLA for information connected to investigations into oil companies and climate change.
CEI, represented by Government Accountability & Oversight, filed the claim in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. It claims UCLA law school professors Ann Carlson and Cara Horowitz participated in "secret" briefings in a campaign to find funders to pursue actions against "major carbon producers."
CEI said it filed California Public Records Act requests for correspondence over two months in 2016 involving Horowitz and Carlson. It did not receive a response from UCLA, the suit said.
"Public records show that Professor Horowitz participated in an April 25, 2016 briefing at Harvard Law School on 'Potential Causes of Action Against Major Carbon Producers: Scientific, Legal and Historical Perspectives,' attended by other academics, environmentalist pressure group activists, private attorneys and public employees of various state attorney general offices," one of the records requests said.
The professors, it claims, are among those "urging state attorneys general to institute legal actions against traditional energy industry participants or political opponents of the 'climate' policy agenda." Other names in the request are the Union of Concerned Scientists and Matthew Pawa.
Pawa is an attorney with Hagens Berman. The firm is representing several cities that are suing the largest oil companies — Chevron Corp., BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC — for funds to pay for sea-level rise damages. The firm's clients include San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., and King County, Wash.
The suit said Pawa briefed numerous state attorneys general before a 2016 news conference "announcing their efforts to pursue parties over climate change." Those attorneys general included New York's Eric Schneiderman, who has since left the post, along with attorneys general from Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland and California.
The oil industry's allies claim the suits came out of a 2012 meeting in the San Diego suburb of La Jolla. They say Pawa briefed green groups and others on next steps after legislation to enact cap and trade at the federal level failed in Congress.
The presentation suggested they could find sympathetic state attorneys general who would subpoena internal oil company documents, according to the suit.
Exxon has called Pawa an "architect" of the strategy to sue oil companies for climate damages, in the vein of earlier suits against tobacco companies (Climatewire, April 10).
The public records suit asks the court to compel UCLA to respond to the requests and turn over documents.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/09/stories/1060105913
-
Calif. Dems Protest Closure of DOJ Environment Office
Nov 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Debra Kahn
Congressional Democrats are opposing the Trump administration's plans to shutter the Justice Department's environmental office in San Francisco.
California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, as well as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark yesterday questioning the move. DOJ plans to close the Environment and Natural Resources Division's office in San Francisco, which houses 14 permanent employees, by September 2019, E&E News reported last week (Greenwire, Nov. 2).
"This appears to be part of a broader agenda to undermine enforcement of environmental laws in the United States — and particularly in California — and we request a copy of any analyses that support the planned closure," they wrote, citing the shrinking of U.S. EPA's workforce in San Francisco as well.
DOJ said the closure would save ENRD $7 million over a 10-year lease term. The lease for the downtown office space expires in 2020, and the agency plans to terminate it 11 months early, around Sept. 30, 2019. ENRD is giving San Francisco employees until Feb. 1 to decide whether they're willing to move to DOJ offices in Denver or Washington, D.C.
Feinstein, Harris and Pelosi wrote they were "skeptical that closure is the only option" and suggested DOJ try to find office space in less expensive regions of the Bay Area, including Richmond, Oakland and Walnut Creek, where ENRD "could continue to rent office space at rates comparable to Washington, D.C., or Denver."
The lawmakers asked for information on the analysis of the planned closure by Nov. 30, including whether DOJ had considered the increased cost of lodging, travel and relocation expenses for employees, as well as a briefing on the planned closure by early December.
A DOJ spokesman said the agency had received the letter and was reviewing it. Spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said DOJ had compared current and anticipated costs of the San Francisco office with "opportunities for greater efficiencies associated with consolidation at our larger field office in Denver."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/09/stories/1060105903
-
What Do the 2018 Midterms Say About Climate Action in the U.S.?
Nov 9, 2018 | National Geographic
OVER THE PAST few years, as hurricanes have sent floods through North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, and megafires have burned across the West, the reality of climate change has snapped into focus for many people in the U.S.
On Tuesday, the U.S. midterm elections gave voters a chance to weigh in on environmental and climate issues—and they sent a very mixed message.
Many of the candidates who won, from local-level positions to governorships, specifically addressed climate and environmental issues in their campaigns. But several ambitious climate-focused ballot initiatives were rejected—often, paradoxically, in states where the climate-friendly candidates claimed victory.
Here are some of the key outcomes.Congressional oversight will change
Democratic candidates won at least 30 new seats in the House of Representatives—a few races are still undecided as of November 9—giving them control of the House for the first time since 2010.TODAY’SPOPULAR STORIES
SCIENCE & INNOVATIONAncient DNA reveals complex migrations of the first Americans
ANIMALSHow the ultimate shark photo went viral
ANIMALSViral bear video shows dark side of filming animals with drones
Over the past two years, the Trump Administration has suspended, weakened, or replaced important environmental policies and regulations, such as the EPA’s rules on mercury and and other toxic air pollutants, or the Department of the Interior’s enforcement of parts of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Now that Democrats have control of the House, “we expect to see intense oversight of the executive actions at the EPA and [the Department of the] Interior,” says Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.
Get more of the inspiring photos and stories we're known for, plus special offers.
By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to news, offers, and information from National Geographic Partners and our partners. Click here to visit our Privacy Policy. Easy unsubscribe links are provided in every email.
Already, leaders of House committees are contemplating hearings into the rolled-back EPA regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act and into President Trump’s decision to shrink the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase/Escalante National Monuments.
[Read about the Bears Ears National Monument.]Talking about climate again
Democratic control of the House will also mean control of key committees influencing climate and environmental issues, most notably the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology. One of the biggest changes, says Vicki Arroyo, the executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center, will be “the ability to have meaningful discourse on climate change, both the science and what do we do about it” in the halls of Congress.
Republican climate skeptics have led the science committee since 2011. The outgoing chairman, Lamar Smith (R-TX), frequently attacked climate scientists, tried to decrease funding for climate science research, and intervened in climate-related grant decisions.
In contrast, the likely incoming chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), has affirmed her interest in “address[ing] the challenge of climate change, starting with acknowledging it is real, seeking to understand what climate science is telling us, and working to understand the ways we can mitigate it.”A boost to state action
Many successful gubernatorial candidates made climate change or clean-energy policy part of their campaign platforms. Democrats won in Maine, Nevada, and New Mexico—states whose legislatures had approved forceful renewable-energy policies in the past, only to have them vetoed by Republican governors. Their new leadership makes it more likely that such policies will be approved in their states going forward, says Leah Stokes, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Meanwhile, some Republican governors who were re-elected, like Massachusetts’s Charlie Baker, Maryland’s Larry Hogan, and Vermont’s Phil Scott, have supported climate projects such as a carbon cap-and trade program operating in nine eastern states.
The newly elected governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and New Mexico all pledged to join the United States Climate Alliance, a group of governors who have committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their states in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement. And now Democrats will hold trifectas—i.e. they will control both the governor’s office and both houses of the legislature—in 14 states, which bodes well for getting climate legislation passed.What do voters want?
Climate-related questions showed up directly as ballot initiatives from Florida to Washington State. The results, according to Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo, a political scientist at Christopher Newport University in Virginia, were “decidedly mixed.” 0:00|2:19MILLENNIALS FOR CARBON PRICINGNikki Reed discovers that a movement calling for a price on carbon is spreading, and millennials are at the forefront.
In Washington State, voters rejected an initiative that would have imposed the U.S.’s first-ever carbon fee on greenhouse gas emissions. (California and nine northeastern states impose a price on carbon through so-called cap-and-trade programs.) The program would have funneled the proceeds—estimated at more than $1 billion a year by 2023—back into projects that would reduce the state’s emissions. It garnered a broad coalition, but fossil fuel companies poured more than $30 million into ads and outreach opposing the initiative, and it lost by a large margin.
This failure does not spell the end of carbon pricing schemes, though, which many policy experts and economists think are essential for decreasing global carbon emissions. Public opinion polls show that well over 50 percent of U.S. voters support some kind of carbon tax.
[Learn how carbon taxes work]
Arizona and Nevada both fielded ballot initiatives that would aggressively increase the fraction of power generated from renewable sources, aiming to hit 50 percent by 2030. Nevada voters overwhelmingly supported their initiative, while Arizonans rejected theirs. The Arizona public utility—which would have been in charge of making the switch to renewable power—strongly opposed the measure.
In Florida, a ballot initiative to permanently ban offshore oil drilling passed resoundingly. (Strangely, it was bundled with a ban on vaping—that is, using smokeless tobacco products—indoors.)
In contrast, a Colorado initiative that would have required oil and gas developments to stay more than 2,500 feet away from buildings or protected lands failed to pass. The rule would have greatly limited fracking in the state and was strongly opposed by energy companies.
At the same time, Colorado voters elected a Democratic governor, Jared Polis, who wants the state to get 100 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2040.
Renewable energy remains popular nationwide, and many of the candidates that won campaigned on clean-energy agendas, says Karpinski, of the League of Conservation Voters. And in states where Democrats now hold governorships as well as the state legislatures, renewable energy is an easy target for new policy.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-environment-midterm-elections-vote-voters/
-
I’m An Environmentalist Opposed to Single-Use Straws. My Disability Has Challenged My Views.
Nov 9, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Laura Kiesel
Two years ago, I was chewing a tortilla chip when I heard a loud crackle of bone and a distinct pop, followed by a shrill ringing in my ear. By the time I pushed my jaw back into position, the swelling had already started.
I had seriously sprained my jaw, a problem that my doctor attributed toEhler-Danlos syndrome, a connective tissue disease that means I am deficient in collagen, which keeps our bones and joints in place. For the next few days, I could barely open my mouth, eating only soft foods like mashed potatoes and porridge. I had to sip smoothies and other beverages through a straw.
About US logo (N/A)This new dependency on straws created another challenge for me. As a committed environmentalist for most of my adult life, I had been blogging about the evils of single-use straws for years. I habitually rejected them at restaurants, long before it became the trendy thing to do.
So I tried my reusable straws, which are made of hard plastic or stainless steel. While they worked well enough, the sharp edges nicked my lips and clinked painfully against my gritted teeth. I’ve sprained my jaw only once more since then, and both times, the straws only added to my pain.
The experience pit my views as an environmentalist against the needs of my disability. I was at the center of a debate that has spurred severalcities and companies to institute plastic straw bans this year, including Starbucks and Delta. Those bans have often come up against vocal objections from people with physical disabilities who are dependent on straws to feed and hydrate themselves.
But as my illness has progressed, I’ve come to more fully understand how straws can be crucial for many people. Yet I still believe there is some room for compromise on the straw issue that can address environmental concerns while also taking into consideration the needs of the disabled.
My commitment to environmentalism stems from my childhood, growing up in an impoverished community of color in New York City. My neighborhood, Sunset Park, was notorious for environmental pollution, especially from plastic. In fact, a 2016 op-ed penned by the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance supported a nickel fee on plastic bags to reduce the waste processed at transfer facilities in several low-income neighborhoods, including mine. Families residing in these neighborhoods suffered from high rates of asthma and other diseases as a result.
As a child in Sunset Park, I often had to stand by helplessly while I witnessed cousins, and later my brother and mother, gasping for air with bulging eyes while grasping desperately for their inhalers. Some of my relatives and neighbors became afflicted with rare and aggressive cancers or other progressive diseases, some of which claimed them way too young. I developed a severe form of endometriosis, a disease that is reportedly impacted — and some suspect caused — by an overexposure to environmental toxins, including those found in plastic.
The irony shouldn’t be lost that, while many disabled people need certain plastic products like straws to meet their basic health needs, plastic pollution might play a contributing role in the development of certain disabling medical conditions. For me, using plastic generally is not in the best interest of my fragile health because it potentiallyintroduces more endocrine-disrupting chemicals into my body, which can exacerbate endometriosis. I already can’t have biological children and live in severe daily pain because of both this disease and Ehler-Danlos syndrome. And I hate the idea that more people will suffer like this without an immediate environmental intervention.
The problem could become more critical now that China is no longer accepting our plastic trash. If we don’t significantly scale back production and use of single-use plastics, we will simply be shifting the negative health impacts of disposing of and processing that plastic from poor people overseas onto poor people in our own country.
Yet, in the rush to make a symbolic gesture to tackle plastic waste, some companies like Starbucks and municipalities like Seattle initially overlooked the needs of people in the disability community when they instituted their straw bans, failing to provide adequate alternatives for those who need them. That not only risks backlash against such environmental efforts, but harms vulnerable people who need straws to survive.
There is a better way to address this problem. Instead of outright or full-scale bans, we can crack down on recreational uses of straws by mandating “ask first” policies at restaurants and eateries. This could substantially reduce our collective consumption of straws — by as much as 50 percent to 90 percent, according to some estimates — while ensuring access for those who need them for medical purposes.
We can also develop better reusable straw options made of more sustainable and flexible materials, like silicone, that would better meet the needs of some disabled folks than most current alternatives.
And it’s important to remember that, while straws are a part of the plastic problem, they are a relatively small part-- especially compared to products like plastic packaging, fishing gear and single use bags. As such, banning campaigns might be more effectively concentrated in those areas.
I am fortunate that the times I have needed straws for medical reasons have been minimal, though that may change in the future. In the meantime, I believe we have the capacity to come up with innovative solutions that can both accommodate the health needs of the disabled while also protecting poor communities from the environmental fallout of plastic waste.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/09/im-an-environmentalist-opposed-single-use-straws-my-disability-has-challenged-my-views/?utm_term=.10f71c4734c9
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested