Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - November 19, 2018
-
Battle Lines Drawn for Wheeler Confirmation Fight
Nov 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus and Hannah Northey
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler could have a tough confirmation fight on his hands. -
Wheeler Won’t Be Only One Awaiting Senate Approval for EPA Job
Nov 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Andrew Wheeler might soon get the official nod to head the EPA, but he’ll join a line of Trump administration nominees awaiting Senate approval for other agency positions. -
Trump Says He’ll Nominate Andrew Wheeler to Head the E.P.A.
Nov 16, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
President Trump on Friday said he intends to nominate Andrew R. Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, to be the permanent administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Trump to Nominate Former Coal Lobbyist Andrew Wheeler as Next EPA Administrator
Nov 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump said he plans to nominate Andrew Wheeler, acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be the EPA's Senate-confirmed administrator. -
Chemical Companies Back Brexit Divorce Deal
Nov 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ali Qassim
Chemical manufacturers plan to lobby lawmakers to support the U.K.’s divorce agreement with the European Union to ensure frictionless trade post-Brexit, the head of the Chemical Industries Association said. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Pulls SNURs, Highlighting Controversy Over New Chemicals Program
Nov 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has withdrawn a direct final rule that included significant new use rules (SNURs) on 28 new chemicals, after receiving adverse comments from industry, environmental and animal welfare groups, forcing the agency to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking and underscoring broad disagreements over the agency's new chemicals program. -
EPA Publishes First Draft TSCA Chemical Risk Evaluation
Nov 16, 2018 | The National Law Review
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on November 15, 2018, announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the first draft chemical risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). -
Tennessee Mother Plans to Sue Epa over Son's Death from Hazardous Chemical
Nov 19, 2018 | The Tennessean
By Kelly Fisher
A Tennessee mother is taking steps to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for apparently failing to finalize a ban on a chemical that killed her 21-year-old son last year. -
Health Goal for GenX in Drinking Water Could Be Reduced; EPA Accepting Public Comment on Draft Toxicity Report
Nov 19, 2018 | The Progressive Pulse
By Lisa Sorg
More people living near the Chemours plant could qualify for alternate water supplies if the EPA’s initial findings on the toxicity of GenX, released last week, are finalized. -
EPA Finds Replacements for Toxic 'Teflon' Chemicals Toxic
Nov 16, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Anna Reade
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released draft toxicity assessments for GenX chemicals and PFBS, both members of a larger group of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). -
Drinking Water Lawsuit Imminent Over Blown EPA Deadlines
Nov 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A group of environmentalists is preparing a lawsuit against the EPA over what it says are blown deadlines to look at industrial chemicals and other contaminants in drinking water. -
Divergent EU Penalties Forming ‘Holes' in Chemicals Law Enforcement
Nov 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The lack of harmonised penalties for infringements of EU chemicals laws between member states is granting manufacturers outside the European Union opportunities to market their substances illegally. -
Big Oil’s shale revival prompts industry doubts: Fuel for Thought
Nov 19, 2018 | Platts
By Nick Coleman
Oil and gas majors have brushed themselves off after the industrywide downturn and are back on their feet trying to mimic the success of smaller companies in US shale. -
Supermajors Take over Shale Field Built by Independents
Nov 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The world's biggest oil companies are flocking to drill into the shale below the Permian Basin oil field, and the sharp drop in prices isn't likely to slow them down. -
The EPA Gave Its Website a Pro-Fracking Makeover
Nov 16, 2018 | Motherboard
By Sarah Emerson
In January this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revamped its webpage on fracking. The page now promotes the interests of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of scientific knowledge and public transparency. -
(ACC Mentioned) CFATS Reauthorization Should Not Be a Partisan Issue
Nov 19, 2018 | SecurityInfoWatch
By Michael Kennedy
With a contentious election behind us, the Chemical Security Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program will sunset unless Congress rallies consensus before Jan. 19, 2019. -
DHS Officials Rally Around Pipeline Cyber Plan
Nov 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Senior Department of Homeland Security officials threw their weight behind a new pipeline cybersecurity initiative Friday, voicing confidence that the voluntary effort wouldn't overlook gaps in the industry's defenses. -
Climate Issues Fire Up House Democrats as Rift on Panel Emerges
Nov 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A rift is emerging among old-guard Democrats and the party’s new arrivals on how the House should address climate change. -
Democrats' State-Level Gains May Test EPA's 'Federalism' In Trump Era
Nov 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Democrats' state-level gains are likely to drive new efforts to strengthen climate, water and other rules in the face of the Trump EPA's deregulatory agenda -- potentially easing environmentalists' concerns about the agency's push to shift more responsibility to states and testing the Trump administration's commitment to cooperative federalism, sources say. -
Is a Carbon Tax Part of the Green New Deal?
Nov 19, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
The grand vision of the Green New Deal has turned into a rallying cry for young progressives, but amid the enthusiasm for solar panels and guaranteed jobs, there remain questions about how it would work, how it would be funded and whether it's the best way to fight climate change. -
Calif., Mass. Oppose Trump Plan to Rollback HFC Climate Rules
Nov 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Terrence Dopp
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey are leading a coalition of several U.S. states against EPA’s plan to rollback refrigerant management rules that arose from the agency’s Obama-era Climate Action Plan.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Battle Lines Drawn for Wheeler Confirmation Fight
Nov 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus and Hannah Northey
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler could have a tough confirmation fight on his hands.
Environmental groups came out against Wheeler's expected nomination for the top job at EPA within minutes of President Trump announcing his plans today to pick Wheeler at a Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony at the White House.
In a statement, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said Wheeler was too tied to industry and not right to lead EPA.
"He should be swiftly rejected by any senator who cares about protecting the health of their constituents," Brune said.
Other green groups also voiced their opposition to Wheeler.
"As acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler has pushed policies that would damage our health and environment. He doesn't deserve a promotion," said Ana Unruh Cohen, managing director for government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Wheeler was confirmed as deputy administrator for EPA in April by the Senate. He became acting chief in July after former Administrator Scott Pruitt stepped down while battling ethics allegations.
Wheeler soon won over the president.
"Acting administrator, who I will tell you is going to be made permanent, he's done a fantastic job and I want to congratulate him," Trump said earlier today about Wheeler (Greenwire, Nov. 16).
Although Wheeler has received praise from Trump, Democrats were more resistant to his being picked as EPA administrator. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Wheeler has not done as well as past EPA chiefs during Republican administrations.
"Compared to Administrator Pruitt, Mr. Wheeler is better. Compared to Administrators [William] Ruckelshaus or [Christine Todd] Whitman, he's not doing nearly as well," Carper said.
"If the president intends to nominate Andrew Wheeler to be the administrator of EPA, then Mr. Wheeler must come before our committee so that members can look at his record as acting administrator objectively to see if any improvements have been made at the agency since he took the helm," Carper added.
Wheeler's critics are expected to attack his past lobbying record before he joined EPA under the Trump administration, including his representation of coal giant Murray Energy Corp. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who also sits on the EPW Committee, said, "Andrew Wheeler is a member of the coal industry's hall of fame, making him public enemy No. 1 for public health."
Meanwhile, conservatives began to line up behind his nomination.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Wheeler was "the perfect choice" to lead the agency in a tweetthis afternoon. Wheeler was a longtime aide to Inhofe, including when the latter served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Others will likely soon follow suit.
At Wheeler's first hearing on Capitol Hill as acting EPA chief this August, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) encouraged Trump to nominate Wheeler for the top job. The chairman of the EPW panel said then that Wheeler would make an "excellent administrator" (Greenwire, Aug. 1).
Industry groups are also expected to support Wheeler's nomination, which should move through the Republican-controlled Senate. Scott Segal, an energy lawyer and lobbyist at Bracewell LLP, said the acting EPA chief was qualified for the top job.
"Andrew Wheeler's background shows that he has the capacity to advance an appropriate balance of energy, environmental and economic considerations in a manner consistent with open administrative process and respect for rule of law. He's a good pick to lead the agency," Segal said.
Mike McKenna, a Republican energy strategist and lobbyist, said he expects Senate Democrats to oppose the nomination in what amounts to "kabuki theater" on Capitol Hill but that Wheeler will likely be confirmed. McKenna also said Wheeler will be instrumental in pushing through the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
"He's much more likely to make the kind of regulatory and structural changes in the environmental arena than most other people," said McKenna.
Nick Loris, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he also expects Wheeler to face tough questions about his lobbying ties at a confirmation hearing but no surprises to surface. If Wheeler is confirmed, Loris said he expects him to continue rolling back and reforming EPA rules and to implement long-term systemic changes at the agency that make it more difficult to undo the administration's regulatory reforms.
"I think it's a great choice, he's someone who certainly has been a policy nerd for a long time and has a good understanding of the issues, which wasn't always the case with some appointees before," said Loris. "I think having that policy depth is nice to have at the top. It can give more credibility of the agency and, culturally, it's a good fit."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/16/stories/1060106525
-
Wheeler Won’t Be Only One Awaiting Senate Approval for EPA Job
Nov 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Andrew Wheeler might soon get the official nod to head the EPA, but he’ll join a line of Trump administration nominees awaiting Senate approval for other agency positions.
President Donald Trump said Nov. 16 he intends to make Wheeler the Environmental Protection Agency’s permanent administrator.
Wheeler—a former industry lobbyist and long-time Republican staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee—moved from the EPA’s No. 2 slot to its acting head in July after former Administrator Scott Pruitt was ousted in an ethical cloud.
Trump didn’t specify when he intends to formally nominate Wheeler, who can continue in the acting position through the beginning of 2019 under the 1998 Vacancies Reform Act.
But Wheeler’s pending nomination will add to a backlog of EPA nominees who are either waiting on a confirmation vote or a hearing. Those not confirmed by year’s end will have to be renominated by the White House when the new Congress is seated in January, restarting the confirmation process.
Peter Wright, tapped to lead the EPA’s land management office, and W. Charles McIntosh, slated to head the international and tribal affairs shop, were both nominated in March. The Senate environment committee cleared their nominations on a party line vote in August, but neither has come to the floor for a vote by the full Senate.
Trump in August nominated Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to head the EPA’s toxics office, which has jurisdiction over the implementation of the nation’s primary chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee set Dunn’s confirmation hearing for Nov. 29, according to the committee website.
Confirmation PathThe office of Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who chairs the Senate environment committee, didn’t respond to a request for comment on how quickly Republicans intend to try to move pending EPA nominees.
Despite continued Republican Senate control, Democrats could drag out the process, Brent Fewell, founder of the Earth and Water Law Group, told Bloomberg Environment.
“I think it would be in the best interest of the agency to have a permanent administrator,” said Fewell, who served in the EPA’s water and congressional relations offices during the George W. Bush administration. “I’m hopeful that Democrats will understand that.”
But Democrats want to scrutinize the EPA’s policies and operations since Wheeler took over. Wheeler has made efforts to boost the morale of EPA staff and increase the public presence of the agency. But environmental groups argue his methodical approach to policy makes him more likely than Pruitt to do damage to Obama-era climate, air, and other policies.
“If the President intends to nominate Andrew Wheeler to be the Administrator of EPA, then Mr. Wheeler must come before our committee so that members can look at his record as Acting Administrator objectively to see if any improvements have been made at the agency since he took the helm,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the Senate environment committee’s ranking member, said in a statement.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/wheeler-wont-be-only-one-awaiting-senate-approval-for-epa-job-1
-
Trump Says He’ll Nominate Andrew Wheeler to Head the E.P.A.
Nov 16, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
President Trump on Friday said he intends to nominate Andrew R. Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, to be the permanent administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The E.P.A. has been at the center of the Trump administration’s agenda to reduce the regulations on industry, and Mr. Wheeler has been instrumental in seeing through rollbacks of major environmental policies. The changes include proposals to weaken the Obama administration’s signature policies to combat climate change, including a sweeping regulation on emissions from coal-fired power plants and a rule reining in pollution from vehicle tailpipes.
Mr. Trump made the announcement about Mr. Wheeler while leading a Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony at the White House. Referring to Mr. Wheeler, he said, “Acting administrator, who I tell you is going to be made permanent, he’s done a fantastic job and I want to congratulate him.”
In an interview at E.P.A. headquarters earlier in the day, Mr. Wheeler, who has served as acting head of the agency since Scott Pruitt resigned in July amid federal ethics inquiries, said he wanted the job.
“At this point, yes, I would like to be nominated to be the administrator,” Mr. Wheeler said in the interview, before Mr. Trump’s announcement. “I think I’m making a difference. This is a transitional time for the agency. We’ve started a number of initiatives that I’d like to see through to conclusion.”
Mr. Wheeler joined the E.P.A. in April as deputy administrator. After Mr. Pruitt’s departure, Mr. Trump appointed him to lead the agency on an interim basis.
Since then, Mr. Wheeler has distinguished himself among top officials in the Trump administration for his low-key, under-the-radar style, even as he has worked diligently and methodically to advance Mr. Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
While Mr. Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general, gained notice for his political ambition and close ties to the president, he also faced allegations that he used his office to seek special favors, such as employment opportunities for his wife, and that he overspent on personal security and travel.
And while Mr. Pruitt won Mr. Trump’s praise for putting forth dozens of policy moves designed to tear down former President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda, many of those have since been challenged or struck down by the courts.Editors’ PicksThis Town Once Feared the 10-Story Waves. Then the Extreme Surfers Showed Up.China’s Women-Only Subway Cars, Where Men Rush InHow a Common Interview Question Hurts Women
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Wheeler, on the other hand, has led the professional life of a technocrat, avoiding the limelight in favor of carefully advancing his boss’s agenda. Both his supporters and critics say Mr. Wheeler’s history as a coal lobbyist, former E.P.A. official and senior Senate staffer could make him far more formidable at effectively advancing Mr. Trump’s deregulation policies, while avoiding the political spotlight or ethical pitfalls that derailed his predecessor.
“I would say he’s been absolutely as relentless and faithful to the agenda as Pruitt was,” said Joseph Goffman, who previously served as chief counsel to E.P.A.’s air chief in the Obama administration.
Mr. Wheeler began his career at the E.P.A. in the 1990s before working in the Senate for more than a decade with James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma. Senator Inhofe is one of the most prominent members of Congress who denies the established science of human-caused climate change.
Mr. Wheeler later became a lobbyist at the Faegre Baker Daniels consulting firm, where his top client was the coal magnate Robert E. Murray, chief executive of the Murray Energy. Over a period of eight years, Mr. Murray paid Mr. Wheeler’s firm more than $2.7 million.
Mr. Murray, a champion of the coal industry and a strong supporter of Mr. Trump, lobbied senior officials at the White House last year with a wish list of actions he wanted to see the administration take. The items included withdrawing to the Paris climate agreement and rolling back Mr. Obama’s signature climate change regulation, the Clean Power Plan, which was designed to reduce planet-warming emissions from coal plants and encourage renewable energy.
During Mr. Wheeler’s confirmation hearing to be E.P.A. deputy administrator, and later when he became acting administrator, he acknowledged working with Mr. Murray to fight the Clean Power Plan. But he said he had no substantive involvement with the memos that Mr. Murray wrote outlining his regulatory wish list. Mr. Wheeler also said he did not lobby E.P.A. on Mr. Murray’s behalf after the 2016 election, knowing he might join the Trump administration.
Senator Inhofe said this week that, should Mr. Wheeler be nominated to lead the agency, he would expect the confirmation to be straightforward. “I know there is no opposition to him,” the senator said. “He is of course the favorite of the president, and of mine.”What on Earth Is Going On?
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get our latest stories and insights about climate change — along with answers to your questions and tips on how to help.SIGN UP
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Wheeler won Senate confirmation to the No. 2 position at the agency on a mostly party-line vote, with three Democrats supporting him. It is not clear that he will have unanimous Republican support to be administrator.
Some environmentalists said Friday that Mr. Wheeler’s past lobbying on behalf of the coal industry should disqualify him from leading an agency with a mission of protecting human health and the environment. Some Democrats in the Senate have also expressed reservations.
Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the leading Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees the E.P.A., said this week that, while he liked Mr. Wheeler and considered him an improvement over Mr. Pruitt, he was not ready to support his formal ascent to head of the agency.
“We need to make progress, especially in reducing the carbon sources from the biggest source in the environment, the mobile fleet,” Senator Carper said, referring to the E.P.A. plan to loosen auto emissions standards.
Mr. Wheeler in the Friday morning interview cited the plan to relax auto emissions rules as one that he wanted to see through as administrator, as well as his replacement of the Clean Power Plan for coal-fired power plants, and a clean-water rule that clarifies which wetlands and small waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act.
When Mr. Wheeler joined the E.P.A., he found an agency in turmoil. Morale was at a low and career biologists, chemists and others were leaving.
Mr. Pruitt’s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, declined to comment.
Mr. Wheeler’s first move as acting administrator was to cast off Mr. Pruitt’s personal security team. He also made a point of inviting career employees into policy briefings, and visiting all 10 of the agency’s regional offices, something Mr. Pruitt did not do.
The shadow of Mr. Pruitt still looms over Mr. Wheeler, who said in the interview Friday that he preferred not to discuss his former boss. “I try not to talk about Scott Pruitt or the differences between us,” he said. But, he added, “I get a lot of thank-yous from the staff just for being with them, talking to them.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/climate/trump-andrew-wheeler-epa.html?
-
Trump to Nominate Former Coal Lobbyist Andrew Wheeler as Next EPA Administrator
Nov 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump said he plans to nominate Andrew Wheeler, acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be the EPA's Senate-confirmed administrator.
Trump made the announcement Friday during a White House ceremony for Medal of Freedom recipients.
He said Wheeler “is going to be made permanent,” adding that “he’s done a fantastic job and I want to congratulate him.”
“Congratulations, Andrew,” Trump said.ADVERTISEMENT
Before becoming administrator, Trump will have to submit Wheeler's nomination to the Senate. A majority of senators would then need to confirm Wheeler.
Wheeler became acting administrator in July, when then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt resigned amid numerous spending and ethics scandals. Wheeler at the time was the EPA’s deputy administrator, a Senate-confirmed position he assumed in April.
Before working for the government, Wheeler was a lobbyist and lawyer for energy companies such as coal mining giant Murray Energy Corp.
Earlier in his career, Wheeler worked as a senior aide to Sen. James Inhofe(R-Okla.), who previously led the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He started out his career at the EPA, working as a career employee on toxic substances policy.
The White House did not return a request for comment or to clarify Trump’s remarks, nor did the EPA.
Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — which would handle the initial hearing and vote on Wheeler's nomination — didn't completely write off Wheeler as a potential administrator.
Carper has made known his preference for Wheeler over Pruitt. The senator said Wheeler is worse at the job than past Republican administrators William Ruckelshaus and Christine Todd Whitman.
"If the president intends to nominate Andrew Wheeler to be the Administrator of EPA, then Mr. Wheeler must come before our committee so that members can look at his record as acting administrator objectively to see if any improvements have been made at the agency since he took the helm," he said in a statement.
Wheeler has brought a quieter voice than Pruitt to the EPA and has avoided the nearly constant scandals that dogged Pruitt in his final six months in office, but he has still aggressively pursued a deregulatory agenda.
He has overseen some of the most consequential EPA actions on behalf of Trump, such as rolling out proposals to roll back or repeal limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, car fuel efficiency standards and limits on methane pollution from oil and natural gas drillers.
“When President Trump called me to ask me to assume the duties of the acting administrator, he asked me to continue to clean up the air, clean up the water and continue deregulation in order to spur economic growth,” Wheeler told reporters in July when announcing a new report on air pollution.
Wheeler has faced many of the same policy-driven criticisms that Pruitt did from environmental groups, who contend that he is carrying out the agenda of polluting industries like coal and oil at the expense of public health.
The Sierra Club slammed Wheeler on Friday, saying that he should not be confirmed.
"Putting a coal lobbyist like Andrew Wheeler in charge of the EPA is like giving a thief the keys to a bank vault," said Michael Brune, the group's executive director. "There shouldn’t be a single day when the Administrator of the EPA schemes with corporate polluters to attack public health, but Wheeler has made it a regular habit because he is unable to give up his corporate polluter ties."
Trump hinted in October that he could nominate Wheeler for the post, saying at another White House event, “He’s acting, but he’s doing well, right? So maybe he won’t be so acting so long.”
He also has the support of the head of the committee that would be responsible for his confirmation.
Sen. John BarrassoJOHN ANTHONY BARRASSOTrump to nominate former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler as next EPA administratorThe Hill's Morning Report — Presented by T-Mobile — House, Senate leaders named as Pelosi lobbies for support to be SpeakerThe Hill's 12:30 Report — Sponsored by Delta Air Lines — Leadership elections in Congress | Freshman lawmakers arrive | Trump argues he can restrict reporter accessMORE (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in August, at Wheeler’s first hearing since becoming acting EPA chief, that he “would make an excellent administrator,” and encouraged Trump to tap him.
Wheeler was confirmed as deputy administrator by a vote of 53-45. Only three Democrats voted “yes”: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Donnelly(Ind.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.). Donnelly and Heitkamp both lost in last week’s midterm elections.
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act usually prohibits nominees from working in an acting capacity in the position they were nominated in, which would prohibit Wheeler from being acting administrator from the time he is nominated until he is confirmed.
But, according to a former senior EPA official, the law carves out an exemption for officials who have been confirmed by the Senate to be the deputy of the position they act in, which would apply to Wheeler.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/417159-trump-to-nominate-acting-epa-chief-wheeler-for-senate-confirmation
-
Chemical Companies Back Brexit Divorce Deal
Nov 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ali Qassim
Chemical manufacturers plan to lobby lawmakers to support the U.K.’s divorce agreement with the European Union to ensure frictionless trade post-Brexit, the head of the Chemical Industries Association said.
Chemical companies also will push to remain under the bloc’s REACH chemicals law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), industry association President Tom Crotty said at the group’s annual conference held Nov.15 in London.
The companies plan to alert lawmakers ahead of a landmark parliamentary vote slated for early December.
The draft EU Withdrawal Agreement Prime Minister Theresa May unveiled Nov. 14 guarantees that U.K.-based chemical companies can continue to have tariff-free access to the EU until at least the end of 2020.
But what’s crucially missing from the 585-page document is any text confirming that chemical companies would still be subject to REACH, Crotty said.
Under these EU REACH rules—which U.K. businesses have been complying with for more than a decade—companies can license their products in exchange for sharing information and communicating safe use of their products.
No Deal Scenario Called ‘Unthinkable’“Brexit is something we didn’t want but we’ve got it and this deal is our best option,” Crotty, who is also a director at U.K.-based multinational chemicals company INEOS, said.
“The alternative is unthinkable,” he added, referring to May’s option of leaving the EU in a no deal scenario under which chemical firms’ existing certificates to trade within the bloc would be invalidated.
“Nobody wants the tiresome cost and time that’s needed to re-register your products. Everyone’s trying to minimize the bureaucracy around that,” Steve Foots, group chief executive of Croda International PLC, said.
Mark Williams, vice president of SABIC U.K. Petrochemicals Ltd, also supports May’s proposals to remain temporarily in the EU Customs Union because it “at least gets us on the way to frictionless trade.”
Firms such as SABIC—whose 100 to 200 trucks filled with polymers cross the English Channel every day—can’t afford the delays and checks on customs points under a no deal. “That’s not sustainable,” Williams said.
Nevertheless, the draft deal falls short of including free movement of services, Mike Houghton, managing director, process industries and drives, at Germany’s Siemens PLC, said. He pointed out that chemical companies “are moving from supplying products to supplying services. It will be a real challenge if we can’t sort out a future trade deal for services.”
Despite these misgivings, Jeremy Cape, a tax and public policy partner in the London offices of Squire Patton Boggs LLP admits the threat of the no deal option looms large in the sector’s response to the deal.
“The draft might not be popular, but if it gets through the House of Parliament, it gets us through the transition” to the end of 2020, giving the industry some breathing space to work out future trading arrangements.
Besides, the EU “says that’s all you’ve got” he said.
Lobbying Ahead of VoteAhead of a vote, ndividual chemical makers should try to overcome their traditional reluctance to get involved with politics and “stick their head about the parapet,” Crotty said.
As an industry group representing both chemical and pharmaceutical firms, the Chemical Industries Association will work the U.K.’s business lobby the Confederation of British Industry “to wage a pretty quick campaign to identify who are the politicians we should be talking to,” Crotty said.
May must garner support from 320 out of 650 parliamentarians, but pro-Brexit lawmakers have said they will fight the proposals because they give the EU too much control over U.K. rules.
Meanwhile, pro-EU parliamentarians from all parties say the proposals fail to provide sufficient certainty to businesses about a permanent Customs Union or long-term regulatory alignment.
Can U.K. Remain in Chemical Club?A related concern is whether the U.K. can remain a member of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Steve Elliott, the Chemical Industries Association’s chief executive, said.
Susannah Storey, director general of the Department for Exiting the EU, said the government is wedded to the U.K. obtaining an associate membership of the Helsinki-based agency as it “will help supply chains and ensure frictionless trade.”
Currently, only EU members are part of ECHA. Asked by several delegates for more assurances, she said the government plans to unveil more details about the U.K.’s future participation in ECHA the week starting Nov. 19.
But Marco Mensink, director general of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), was less-convinced.
“We are far from that point. Your government official, will all due respect, was over-optimistic,” he said.
The withdrawal agreements are “just divorce clauses, how we split the banking account, but no agreement on future trade,” he said. CEFIC speaks for chemical companies that make up 14.7 percent of world chemical production.
CEFIC has been lobbying EU lawmakers—including running an advertising campaign in Brussels—to include the U.K. in ECHA once it has left the EU.
“We all agree a smarter future is to allow the U.K. within REACH. To renegotiate this is our priority,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-companies-back-brexit-divorce-deal
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Pulls SNURs, Highlighting Controversy Over New Chemicals Program
Nov 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has withdrawn a direct final rule that included significant new use rules (SNURs) on 28 new chemicals, after receiving adverse comments from industry, environmental and animal welfare groups, forcing the agency to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking and underscoring broad disagreements over the agency's new chemicals program.
EPA announced in a Nov. 16 Federal Register notice that it is withdrawing the direct final rule it issued Sept. 17 that sought to quickly approve new chemical uses in the face of adverse comments from a wide range of groups, including the American Chemistry Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an animal welfare advocacy group.
“EPA received adverse comments and a request to extend the comment period regarding the SNURs identified in the direct final rule. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing the direct final rule SNURs identified in this document, as required under the direct final rulemaking procedures,” the notice says.
As required by the Administrative Procedure Act, the agency will now take comment on a proposed version of the now-withdrawn direct final rule, which also appeared in the Federal Register Sept. 17, and respond to the criticisms it has faced in a lengthier process and one that also opens a path to possible litigation over the new chemicals program. “EPA will address all adverse public comments in a subsequent final rule, based on the proposed rule,” the notice says.
Since the enactment of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reforms in 2016, EPA has struggled to implement requirements governing new chemicals -- substances that are not on the TSCA inventory of chemicals that were on the market when the law was first enacted in 1976 and those EPA has since added to the inventory.
After the law was enacted, EPA was slow to review hundreds of new substances for which industry sought approval, resulting in a backlog that the agency said was due to the law's new review standard.
To speed approvals, the agency crafted a framework for reviewing substances that sought to speed issuance of SNURs -- tools EPA can use to regulate chemical uses that it deems may present concerns. EPA can issue a SNUR only on a use of chemical that is not already occurring. Anyone seeking to introduce a new use would need to notify EPA before doing so, allowing the agency to review that use and determine if it meets the TSCA unreasonable risk standard.
But environmentalists sued, arguing that the framework inappropriately narrows the scope of new chemical reviews to only the intended uses of a new chemical, while punting other reasonably anticipated uses to a SNUR. They also raised concerns that the draft framework allowed the agency to drop use of enforcement orders as an interim step to prevent some unapproved uses before issuance of a lengthy SNUR.
While environmentalists eventually dropped the suit, the agency has been unclear how it would proceed, though it has issued a host of SNURs, including some that appeared to follow the framework approach.
'Ongoing Uses'
While industry groups have generally been concerned about the slow pace of EPA's approvals, even industry groups are raising concerns with the direct final rule.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), in its Oct. 17 comments, critiques what it describes as EPA's lack of clarity, suggesting that some of the chemical uses it proposes to SNUR are existing -- and therefore cannot be the subject of a SNUR.
“EPA should clarify the proposed and direct final SNURs to the extent it is basing them on concerns with excess or residual isocyanate monomers,” the trade association argues.
“EPA appears to be basing the proposed SNURs on the potential for the hazards or risks of excess or residual isocyanate monomer in mixture with this isocyanate-based polymer or prepolymer. These isocyanate monomers are existing chemicals with many ongoing uses, including use as a monomer or use in excess or residual monomer. EPA has not transparently identified those monomers as being subject to the proposed SNURs. EPA may not use its SNUR authority to address ongoing uses of the isocyanate monomers.”
ACC says that this is not the first SNUR the agency has drafted for this type of chemical, that in fact EPA has issued more than 40 SNURs on chemicals “with essentially the same ambiguous explanation provided as its rationale. ACC has previously commented on a number of former [pre-manufacture notice (PMN)] chemicals, urging the Agency to clarify its scientific basis or bases for the SNURs. Unfortunately, EPA has failed to respond to any of ACC’s previous comments.”
More broadly, ACC urges EPA to update its 1997 guidance on chemical categories to provide better advice to companies proposing new chemicals for EPA's review.
“EPA should provide a more detailed explanation of the basis for its concerns about diisocyanates. EPA has acknowledged that its current (2010) explanation of those concerns (not revised since 1997) is outdated, but has not taken steps to update its guidance. EPA should revise and update the chemical categories document because industry has nothing else but that 1997 summary upon which to rely as it prepares PMNs.”
ACC also suggests that EPA has an improper basis for the SNUR, basing it “on the hazards and risks of excess and residual monomers rather than on the identified polymers or prepolymers. If so, EPA must use its TSCA section 6 authority to address its concerns with the existing monomers; not section 5 by imposing restrictions on the new polymer in order to address its concerns about ongoing uses of the monomer. The monomer itself is not identified as a SNUR chemical. Monomers are separate and distinct from the polymers from which they are made.”
And Thomas Berger, a partner with the law firm Keller & Heckman, in an Oct. 17 letter requests that EPA “reopen” the comment period for the SNUR proposed for one of the 28 chemicals. Berger represents the submitter of one of the 28 chemicals, and he asks for the reopening “so that we may submit more detailed information regarding the physical-chemical properties of this substance relevant to the proposed SNUR and the underlying section 5(e) order.”
Policy 'Deviations'
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in its Oct. 17 comments, raises a host of completely different objections with EPA's SNURs, arguing that they constitute “deviations from existing policy and failures to comply with TSCA requirements or conform with EPA guidance.” the group writes. “Even though these comments are adverse, EDF supports EPA’s promulgation of SNURs for all of the chemical substances.”
Among its many objections, EDF says that EPA has deviated from its past policy for testing persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances, though the agency has failed to adequately justify this change as required by well-established court precedents. The criticism refers to a perfluorinated chemical that is among the 28.
EDF also charges that EPA has instituted an ad hoc testing policy change without acknowledging it has done so and without meeting TSCA’s requirements, is not meeting its own generic naming instructions and “should generally designate as a significant new use any use of a chemical substance other than the uses EPA evaluated in its PMN review and determined are not likely to present an unreasonable risk.”
But EDF says that some of the 28 SNURs included in the now-withdrawn direct final rule, “do not include designation of any use that would require notification. The group says this is “especially concerning because EPA identified a number of health concerns for each of these chemicals.”
However, EDF says, “It is not clear . . . whether EPA assessed any uses other than the specific uses identified by the . . . submitters. Here again, barring such a broader assessment and associated determination, EPA needs to require notification for any use other than the specific use identified in the PMN.”
EDF acknowledges that EPA includes some notification triggers based on manufacturing uses that could result in certain airborne exposures, or other triggers, with which the group agrees. But while it “supports inclusion of these notification triggers, EPA must also require notification for any use of the chemical for which EPA has not conducted an assessment of the risks posed by such use.”
Meanwhile, PCRM, the animal welfare advocacy group, also raises concerns with testing language in the SNURs, though from a different perspective. In its Oct. 17 comments PCRM questions the justification EPA provides for the triggering language for testing for “twelve substances for which the PMN submitters are prohibited from manufacturing their PMN substances beyond specified time or volume limits unless they conduct testing on vertebrate animals.”
PCRM cites in its critique revised TSCA section 4(a)(3), which requires that EPA provide a “statement of need” for any new testing it seeks involving vertebrate animals. While EPA provides a generic statement to this effect, PCRM argues that EPA should make a specific statement for each such decision.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-pulls-snurs-highlighting-controversy-over-new-chemicals-program
-
EPA Publishes First Draft TSCA Chemical Risk Evaluation
Nov 16, 2018 | The National Law Review
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on November 15, 2018, announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the first draft chemical risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). The draft risk evaluation for Colour Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet 29 is intended to determine whether C.I. Pigment Violet 29 presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. According to the notice, EPA is also submitting these same documents to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) to peer review the draft risk evaluation. EPA intends to publish a separate Federal Register notice containing the peer review meeting details. Comments on the draft risk evaluation are due January 14, 2019. EPA will provide all comments submitted on the draft risk evaluation to the TSCA SACC peer review panel, which will have the opportunity to consider the comments during its discussions.Background
As reported in our June 5, 2018, memorandum, “EPA Takes ‘Three Important Steps’ Intended to Ensure Chemical Safety,” on June 1, 2018, EPA released the problem formulation documents for the first ten chemicals selected for review under Lautenberg, including C.I. Pigment Violet 29. The problem formulation document for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 states that based on limited releases, low potential for environmental and human exposures, and a low toxicity profile for mammals and aquatic species, it concludes that further analysis of these exposure pathways to workers, consumers, the general population, and environmental receptors is not warranted for C.I. Pigment Violet 29.Draft Risk Evaluation
The draft risk evaluation states that EPA considered all reasonably available data for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 to make a determination of whether the risk it poses is unreasonable. EPA “concludes that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment, without considering costs or other non-risk factors, including no unreasonable risk to potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant, under the conditions of use.”
As part of the risk evaluation, EPA conducted a qualitative assessment of potential environmental, consumer, and general population exposures. According to the draft risk evaluation, the assessment is based on a consideration of the physical-chemical properties of C.I. Pigment Violet 29, which includes low solubility, low vapor pressure, low bioaccumulation potential, and poor absorption across all routes of exposure, as well as manufacturing information, which indicates that environmental releases from the conditions of use are limited. EPA also conducted a quantitative screening-level assessment of occupational exposure using a high end estimate of inhalation and dermal exposure. The draft risk evaluation states that qualitative and quantitative considerations of physical chemical data, environmental fate data, manufacturing, and use information indicate that exposures of C.I. Pigment Violet 29 are expected to be limited for the conditions of use of C.I. Pigment Violet 29.
The draft risk evaluation states that reasonably available data indicate that no effects were observed in environmental hazard testing with aquatic species up to the limit of solubility of the chemical, and low hazard was reported for all routes of exposure in human health testing. Human health testing reported that no adverse effects were observed for all routes of exposure (oral, dermal, and inhalation) and that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 is negative for genotoxicity. Structural activity relationships (SAR) considerations support EPA’s conclusion that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 is unlikely to be a carcinogen. Environmental hazard data available for fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants reported that no effects were observed up to the limit of solubility of the chemical. Based on human health and environmental toxicity testing, “EPA concludes that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 presents a low hazard to human health and the environment.”
EPA states that it uses “reasonably available information, in a fit for purpose approach, to develop risk evaluations that rely on the best available science.” EPA obtained full study reports associated with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) robust summaries (some of which are also presented in summary format in U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Additive Petition 8B4626) and used them to make a preliminary determination of hazard during problem formulation. While the supporting materials contain information protected as confidential business information (CBI), 20 of the 24 studies have been submitted to and summarized by ECHA, and the ECHA robust summaries are publicly available. According to the draft risk evaluation, EPA reviewed the full study reports and confirmed that the results are consistent with the physical and chemical characteristics, environmental fate characteristics, and the determination of low environmental and human health hazards as presented in the ECHA robust summaries. EPA assessed the quality of the methods and reporting of results of the individual studies using the evaluation strategies described in its Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations and concluded that they are of high or medium quality. In addition, EPA determined that the information presented in the full study reports is consistent with the robust summaries in the publicly available ECHA database.
The draft risk evaluation states:
In summary, based on reviewing the reasonably available information indicating a low hazard to human health and environmental receptors, low solubility, low vapor pressure, low bioaccumulation potential, low absorption, limited environmental releases and low potential for resulting exposures, the EPA concludes that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment under the conditions of use. As per the EPA’s final rule, Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act (82 FR 33726), the EPA is taking comment on, and will also obtain peer review on, the draft risk evaluation for C.I. Pigment Violet 29.Next Steps
EPA announced that it intends to publish a Federal Register notice providing details on the TSCA SACC peer review meeting. The notice will also explain the process for submitting information and views to the peer review panel. EPA will consider the public comments on the draft risk evaluation submitted in response to the November 15, 2018, Federal Register notice, along with peer reviewer comments and recommendations, to prepare the final risk evaluation. EPA plans to issue the final risk evaluations for the other nine chemicals by December 2019.Commentary
We commend EPA for its timely issuance of the first draft risk evaluation under new TSCA. We also note the forthcoming first meeting of the SACC and look forward to seeing how it operates. Based on our review of the draft risk evaluation, it appears to cover all of the key elements required to be evaluated under the new law. Assuming that the available information is presented accurately and completely, we see little basis for questioning the conclusion that the substance does not present an unreasonable risk. It will be interesting to see how the draft, specifically its approach and conclusions, fare through the public comment and peer review processes.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-publishes-first-draft-tsca-chemical-risk-evaluation
-
Tennessee Mother Plans to Sue Epa over Son's Death from Hazardous Chemical
Nov 19, 2018 | The Tennessean
By Kelly Fisher
A Tennessee mother is taking steps to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for apparently failing to finalize a ban on a chemical that killed her 21-year-old son last year.
Wendy Hartley “joined forces” with several other parties and submitted a notice of intent to file suitagainst the EPA on Oct. 31, aiming to push the agency to ban methylene chloride. The notice is addressed to acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
“EPA has historically been the subject of a number of lawsuits and we will review this one as well, but in the meantime the agency will continue to work towards a solution," an EPA spokesperson said in an email. "EPA is currently evaluating the proposal and regulation of this substance and its uses to determine the appropriate regulation and to ensure the rule’s legal defensibility.”
Hartley is named on the notice with the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Vermont Public Interest Research Group and Lauren Atkins, another mother whose son died after inhaling methylene chloride while using a paint removal product. They’re represented by Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz and Eve C. Gartner of Earthjustice and Robert M. Sussman of Sussman and Associates.
Kevin Hartley, who graduated from Sycamore High School, died in April 2017. He collapsed and went into cardiac arrest before he was found unresponsive at work.
“It should’ve been banned a long time ago,” Wendy Hartley said of methylene chloride. “Kevin is not the first Tennessean to have died because of (it). …This should not keep happening.”Dangers of methylene chloride
The Oct. 31 notice states that 1.3 million Americans are at risk from exposure to methylene chloride paint removers in their homes and workplaces annually, citing the EPA.
“EPA’s failure to finalize a proposed ban on (methylene chloride) — a toxin that EPA has found to present an unreasonable risk of cancer, heart failure, and sudden death — violates that statutory obligation,” the notice states, referring to the Toxic Substances Control Act. “A common ingredient in paint removers, (methylene chloride) is known to cause asphyxiation from acute exposure and is responsible for more than 60 reported deaths, as well as incapacitation, loss of consciousness, and coma.”
Some retailers — including Lowe’s, Walmart, Home Depot and Sherwin Williams — have already announced on their own they would stop selling methylene chloride paint removal products, according to the notice, which also states that the EPA has recognized that the chemical is hazardous.Failure to act
Hartley and another mother whose son died after inhaling the chemical met with then-Administrator Scott Pruitt in May, and Hartley said although she felt Pruitt “actually listened” to their concerns, there hasn’t been any progress to ban methylene chloride since.
The EPA announced in a May 10 news release that it would take action on the paint-stripping chemical. That release states that the agency addressed paint-stripping uses in a risk assessment in 2014. The EPA proposed banning commercial and consumer use for methylene chloride in January 2017, and in June of that year, announced it would not re-evaluate uses of the chemical.
The release stated that the EPA “intends to finalize the methylene chloride rulemaking,” it is “not re-evaluating the paint stripping uses of methylene chloride and is relying on its previous risk assessments,” and is “working to send the finalized rulemaking to (the Office of Management and Budget) shortly.”
But no draft has been submitted, nor has a final rule been published since then, the notice states.
The Toxic Substances Control Act requires the EPA has at least 60 days’ notice before the parties move forward, according to a Safer Chemicals Healthy Families news release. Hartley said the parties have not heard anything from the EPA, and she doesn’t expect to hear anything “until day 59.”Putting faces to the story
“Once I understood how severe and how dangerous this chemical was, I had reached out and pretty much said, 'Whatever you need … if I’m able to, I’ll do it,' ” Hartley said of her determination to get the chemical banned. She said it’s one thing for environmental groups to push for it, but it’s another thing to “put a face to the story” by sharing what happened to her son.
The first time Hartley had even heard of methylene chloride was seeing it on her son’s death certificate.
“Three heartbroken, pissed-off moms together … can do a lot,” Hartley said. “I always just thought if it was on my store shelf (it) should be safe for me to use."
She said it’s “easier” knowing that her son was an organ donor, and that sharing his story could help save more lives.
“I want to help save more lives,” Hartley said. “I’ve hugged two mothers that have lost their sons (and) don’t want to hug any more … because the EPA failed to act.”
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/cheatham/2018/11/16/methylene-chloride-deaths-epa-tennessee-lawsuit/2026240002/
-
Nov 19, 2018 | The Progressive Pulse
By Lisa Sorg
More people living near the Chemours plant could qualify for alternate water supplies if the EPA’s initial findings on the toxicity of GenX, released last week, are finalized.
The basis for the potential switch is the EPA’s draft report proposing a chronic reference dose for GenX that translates to a health goal of 110 parts per trillion in drinking water. (The EPA is taking public comment on the draft. Scroll down for instructions.)
A chronic reference dose is the daily amount of GenX a person can be exposed to for decades without suffering adverse health effects. A health goal is non-enforceable but is widely used by states and tribal nations to issue recommendations. North Carolina’s provisional health goal for GenX in drinking water is 140 ppt.
In the Wilmington area, concentrations of GenX in drinking water are already below 110 ppt.
However, some people who live near the Chemours plant are on private wells that have tested between 110 ppt and 140 ppt. Those households could switch to bottled water, whole-house filters or connection to a public water system. Chemours would be responsible for the cost of installing or connecting those systems.
The wells of 225 households in that area have already tested above 140 ppt.
The plant is near the Cumberland-Bladen county line along NC Highway 87. A spinoff of DuPont, Chemours and its parent company have discharged GenX and other per- and poly-fluorinated compounds into the Cape Fear River, soil and groundwater — as well as emitted into the air — for about 30 years. Those contaminants entered public drinking water supplies in New Hanover and Brunswick counties, and the private wells of dozens of residents living near the plant.
Detlef Knappe, an NC State University professor and a leading scientist in the field of emerging contaminants, said the EPA’s reference dose for GenX is slightly more protective than the one used by DHHS. However, several factors can affect an individual’s total exposure to GenX: The person’s weight, amount of water consumed per day, and the percentage of exposure that comes from drinking water. GenX is also found in non-stick coatings, such as Teflon, as well as pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags and fast-food wrappers. A common estimate is that people receive 20 percent of their exposure to GenX via drinking water.
Bottle-fed infants are particularly vulnerable because they drink a lot of water relative to their small body weight. DHHS based its calculations for a provisional health goal on the potential risks to that population. With the reference dose EPA proposed yesterday, the same assumptions would lead to a health goal of 110 ppt, Knappe said.
A DHHS spokesperson said the agency will continue to use the 140 ppt provisional health goal until the EPA releases its final reference dose. At that time, the spokesperson said, “we will revisit our provisional health goal for GenX.”
The state Science Advisory Board has agreed with DHHS’s calculations and methodology.
If the EPA’s draft findings stand, said Knappe, who is a member of the Science Advisory Board, “I would expect DHHS to lower the health goal” to 110 ppt.
Animal studies have shown that GenX can harm the kidneys, blood, immune system, developing fetus and the liver. Data, the EPA says, also suggests the chemical can cause cancer.
Last week, NC State scientists Jane Hoppin, Nadine Kotlarz and Knappe released results of a study analyzing levels of about a dozen PFAS — per- and poly-fluorinated compounds — in the blood of 345 Wilmington residents, both children and adults. GenX was not detected but other new and known PFAS were: Nafion byproduct 2 (98 percent of residents sampled) PFO4DA (98 percent), and Hydro-EVE (76 percent). Some of these compounds haven’t been widely found elsewhere.
Concentrations of PFOA, which has been phased out, but lingers in the environment, were higher in Wilmington residents’ blood than the national average: 4.4 parts per billion, compared with 1.5 ppb.
Earlier this year, DHHS conducted a smaller study, sampling the blood of 30 adults living near the Chemours plant. GenX was not found, but all study participants had some level of PFHxS in their blood. It is often found in carpet and firefighting foam.
Also detected in all blood samples were the compounds n-PFOA, n-PFOS, and Sm-PFOS — variations of C8, which is no longer being produced. Among those enrolled in the DHHS study, the highest level of n-PFOS was 34.6 parts per billion. In the general US population, it was 14 ppb. People who drank from wells near DuPont’s notorious plant in Parkersburg, WV, had median levels of 38 ppb.
The EPA also issued a reference dose for PFBS, which can be found in drinking water, dust, carpet and carpet cleaners, floor wax, and food packaging. PFBS is “substantially less toxic” than PFOS, PFOA and GenX, Knappe said.
Last August, the EPA held a listening and information session in Fayetteville about GenX and other PFAS. At that meeting, dozens of residents demanded that the EPA and the state environmental officials more aggressively regulate these compounds — and punish polluters, like Chemours.
Emily Donovan of Clean Cape Fear asked federal officials at that meeting to consider the health effects on those residents who “have been chronically exposed.”
“How much is safe to drink if we’ve been drinking the water for 40 years?”
In a press release, the EPA said it relied on the “best available science, including input from independent peer reviewers” to propose the reference dose. The agency also engaged with federal and state partners throughout the development of the draft assessments. When issued, these toxicity assessments may be used, along with specific exposure and other relevant information to determine, under the appropriate regulations and statutes, if and when it is necessary to take action to address potential risk associated with human exposures to these PFAS chemicals.”
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2018/11/19/health-goal-for-genx-in-drinking-water-could-be-reduced/
-
EPA Finds Replacements for Toxic 'Teflon' Chemicals Toxic
Nov 16, 2018 | EcoWatch
By Anna Reade
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released draft toxicity assessments for GenX chemicals and PFBS, both members of a larger group of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). GenX and PFBS are being used as replacement chemicals for PFOA and PFOS, the original Teflon chemicals that were forced off the market due to their decades-long persistence in the environment and their link to serious health harms in exposed people and wildlife.
EPA's assessment confirms what many have feared—taking PFOA and PFOS off the market and out of products has only led to industry replacing them with related PFAS chemicals that pose similar risks—a "regrettable substitution."
PFAS chemicals have been used for decades to provide non-stick, stain- and water-resistant properties to products such as carpet, furniture, cookware and food packaging. They are also used in fire-fighting foams and industrially as surfactants, emulsifiers, and coatings. PFAS are lab-made, meaning they don't occur naturally. And they are extremely resistant to degradation in our environment. Some PFAS have been shown to build up in our bodies for years. PFAS chemicals have been linked to many different health effects including; kidney and testicular cancer, immune system dysfunction, developmental and reproductive harm, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, and liver damage.
After decades of use, PFAS chemicals have poisoned our air, water, soil, and food. As a result, the blood of virtually all Americans is contaminated with these toxic chemicals. Some communities are struggling with drinking water tainted with PFAS levels hundreds to thousands of times higher than EPA's 'do not exceed' health advisory limit for PFOA and PFOS. And EPA's advisory does not even reflect the most recent science on PFAS. A recent CDC report generated health thresholds approximately 10 times stricter than the EPA's.
In response to public pressure due to growing concerns about the health effects of PFOA and PFOS, industry voluntarily phased them out but unfortunately replaced them with alternative, often shorter chain versions of PFAS chemicals such as GenX and PFBS. Because short-chain PFAS are thought to be eliminated from our bodies faster than legacy PFAS, it was argued that they were safe. But the more these alternative PFAS chemicals are studied, the more evident it becomes that this is not the case.What EPA Found
The EPA report confirmed that GenX is associated with harmful effects on the kidney, blood, immune system, liver and development. The EPA also linked it to an elevated risk of cancer (suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential). EPA's proposed health threshold, called a reference dose, for GenX is in the same range as EPA's reference dose for PFOA (0.00008 mg/kg/day for GenX versus 0.00002 mg/kg/day for PFOA).
Although EPA's proposed reference dose for PFBS suggests it is not as toxic as PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS and GenX, the EPA still found that PFBS is associated with harmful effects on the thyroid and kidney, reproduction and development.
It is extremely concerning that GenX and PFBS are both linked to similar health harms as the chemicals they have replaced.
GenX and PFBS are often found as a mixture with other PFAS in the environment. Because they are associated with similar health harms, their effects could be additive. Additionally, as pointed out in the 2014 Helsingørstatement by experts in the field, "The levels of some fluorinated alternatives or their degradation products, such as perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) … have been shown to be rising in recent years in the environment and human tissue..." Rising levels of highly toxic chemicals in our bodies and our environment is a clear call for regulatory agencies like EPA to take health-protective action.
EPA's draft assessments provide more evidence that we need to regulate the whole class of chemicals. If we regulate only a handful of PFAS, there will be swift regrettable substitution with other, similarly toxic PFAS—creating a "whack a mole" problem in which we fail to ever establish effective safeguards to limit this growing class of dangerous chemicals.The Report–Initial Thoughts
EPA found data supporting similar health effects as PFOA and PFOS, but their proposed reference dose only examines GenX or PFBS toxicity in isolation. Data shows we are being exposed to multiple PFAS at a time, so we should consider toxicity from exposure to multiple PFAS at a time.
For GenX, the evaluation of studies was called "arbitrary" by an external reviewer of the report. Another reviewer highlighted the lack of rigorous animal and human studies published in well-regarded journals. As a result, there was a heavy reliance on DuPont studies, most of which were not published in peer-reviewed journals. This could be problematic given the evidence that industry-sponsored studies are often biased to favor the regulatory approval of their products (see recent examples here, here, here, and here).
Uncertainties in data were not properly acknowledged. Uncertainty factors are used by agencies to account for any uncertainties encountered in generating health thresholds. To "apply" them, the health threshold is divided by uncertainty factors, which lowers the health threshold to a more protective level. The greater the uncertainty factor applied, the lower and more protective the final health threshold becomes.
For example, the EPA use a 3x uncertainty factor for database limitations for GenX. However, lack of data on known sensitive health effects for other PFAS, such as harm to the immune system, should warrant a larger uncertainty factor for database limitations. In fact, the CDC added a 10x uncertainty factor for database limitations for two related PFAS, PFHxS and PFNA, because there was a lack of data on immunotoxicity and development, which they have determined are very sensitive health effects for PFAS.
NRDC also recommends applying another 10x uncertainty factor to protect fetuses, infants, and children—the group most vulnerable to the effects of PFAS exposure—as is required for pesticides under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), where exposures during early life may be particularly harmful.
If the proper level of uncertainty was acknowledged, the reference dose for GenX would be at least 10 times stricter.
The EPA is seeking public input on its draft assessments for the next 60 days. NRDC will be submitting detailed scientific and legal comments, encouraging EPA to take meaningful action to protect human health and wildlife from this family of toxic chemicals.
https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-finds-replacements-for-toxic-teflon-chemicals-toxic-2620083129.html
-
Drinking Water Lawsuit Imminent Over Blown EPA Deadlines
Nov 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A group of environmentalists is preparing a lawsuit against the EPA over what it says are blown deadlines to look at industrial chemicals and other contaminants in drinking water.
The environmentalists said in a Nov. 16 letter that they will file a lawsuit early next year if the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t set new legally binding thresholds for more than a dozen drinking water contaminants.
These contaminants include hexavalent chromium, the chemical that the film “Erin Brockovich” was about, as well as the solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE, and perchloroethylenethe, the dry-cleaning fluid known as PERC.
Federal drinking water law requires the EPA to revisit its existing drinking water regulations at least once every six years. Its most recent six-year deadline for TCE and PERC, for example, was in 2016, and the agency still hasn’t taken any actions on the two chemicals, according to environmentalists.
New drinking water regulations for any contaminant can impose costs on water utilities and, in turn, those utilities’ customers. Utilities may need to install technologies or build infrastructure to meet the agency’s stricter safety thresholds.
The eventual lawsuit could also impose huge costs on the EPA itself if the environmentalists acquire a court order forcing the agency to reexamine all of its drinking water regulations, Tracy Mehan, head of government affairs with the utility industry group American Water Works Association, said.
“I think the big question we all have to face is where does EPA get resources to do all this work?” Mehan said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
But the environmentalists pushing the EPA in this instance say they have the law on their side—specifically the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
“EPA has a clear legal obligation to monitor and regulate contaminants, including carcinogens, in our drinking water,” said Marc Yaggi, executive director of the Waterkeeper Alliance Inc., which joins Waterkeepers Chesapeake Inc. and California Coastkeeper in the lawsuit. “It is not optional.”
The EPA didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/drinking-water-lawsuit-imminent-over-blown-epa-deadlines-1
-
Divergent EU Penalties Forming ‘Holes' in Chemicals Law Enforcement
Nov 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The lack of harmonised penalties for infringements of EU chemicals laws between member states is granting manufacturers outside the European Union opportunities to market their substances illegally.
That was one of the messages from a European Commission conference on REACH, CLP and biocides enforcement conference held last week in Brussels.
According to Erwin Annys, REACH director at Cefic, these manufacturers have a "strategic" plan whereby they will "deliberately" select the country that has the lowest penalty for infringements and import their illegal substances or products containing unlawful chemicals.
In Cyprus, for example, companies are "trying to cheat the system" by bringing in false certificates and analysis from laboratories that do not exist, Cyprus's Department of Labour Inspection’s Tasoula Kyprianidou-Leontidou said.
The issue of sanctions, she noted, is very important. "You cannot have variation of sanctions amongst member states," otherwise there will be "holes" in the system.
However, she went on to say that the problem is not necessarily sanctions themselves but the way they are imposed and how "flexible" authorities are at country level.Harmonisation?
One way to prevent this, Tatiana Santos from NGO the European Environmental Bureau said, is by harmonising enforcement measures and sanctions at EU level.
It is "not fair", she said, that a company is treated differently for the same infringement in separate EU countries. There is a "general lack of consistency" and the level of penalties and methods of enforcement "substantially vary from one country to another". This is "very problematic" when it comes to trying to ensure a level playing field, she added.
However, Echa’s Johan Nouwen said he is not sure "uniform" enforcement is the right way to go. "Of course it’s nice if the penalties would be the same everywhere, but on the other hand we need to accept it is a little unfair that in a poor country the penalty would be the same as in a rich country."
That would be "unequal treatment", he said, adding that one kind of measure in one member state is "not necessarily effective" in another.
He, Mr Annys and Roberto Scazzola from international soap and detergents trade body Aise said that "cultural differences" must also be taken into account.
Sanctions should be "proportionate and support a smooth enforcement of a very complex legislation", Mr Scazzola argued. "We are front runners globally; we have the most ambitious set of regulations worldwide. This comes with a price and the price is complexity."‘Naming and shaming’
Both Echa and national enforcement authorities "normally prioritises soft" measures, Ms Santos said. These include:administrative orders; andverbal or written advice.
As they "are not being dissuasive enough", she said, it is time to move to tougher punishment, such as ‘naming and shaming’ a non-compliant company.
Industry, however, is hesitant to endorse the practice. "What is commonly done already, for instance in the UK, is something that is absolutely not accepted for the moment in Germany," Mr Annys said. However, the possibility of the EU collectively evaluating this move should not be excluded, he added. "But for the moment it is clearly something which is premature."
Mr Scazzola said he is "not sure" that this practice would trigger the best response and questioned if consumers would visit the Echa website to check the names of non-compliant companies.
But, Ms Santo said, consumers "have a right to know" which companies are illegally putting chemicals on the market.
There is no one solution for all enforcement and sanctions problems, Mr Annys said, and urged the chemicals community to be "realistic". Stakeholders need to explore how they can "combine different ways of looking at" the issue.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72120/divergent-eu-penalties-forming-holes-in-chemicals-law-enforcement
-
Big Oil’s shale revival prompts industry doubts: Fuel for Thought
Nov 19, 2018 | Platts
By Nick Coleman
Oil and gas majors have brushed themselves off after the industrywide downturn and are back on their feet trying to mimic the success of smaller companies in US shale. But many doubters still question whether Big Oil is up to the task after failing at earlier attempts in such plays.
The setbacks to global majors’ shale efforts earlier in the decade were well-publicized. Several invested heavily in shale gas before prices collapsed, as more nimble rivals charged into liquids-rich plays.
Shell shared in the pain with a $2 billion write-down in 2013 and is among the majors persisting in shale plays. The company plans to more than double its Permian Basin output by 2020 to 200,000 b/d of oil equivalent, with just a third of production being crude and the rest lower-value gas and gas liquids.
Upstream director Andy Brown said in August that Shell had the ability to be a “top shales player.”
Other majors recently made investments to grow their shale footprint.
BP CEO Bob Dudley said last month his company’s Lower 48 unit, focused on shale, would “work magic” on the assets it bought from miner BHP for $10.5 billion, and ExxonMobil has also declared lofty goals after buying new acreage in January aimed at invigorating a shale unit widely seen as a disappointment.SHALE SPECIFICS
But skeptics argue the majors’ strengths in operating big, long-term projects–preferably offshore and away from population centers–don’t equate to success in shale, where winning depends on speed, adaptability and local knowledge.
Other challenges include logistical complications, such as dealing with large quantities of water produced in shale operations. Trucking water from shale sites — some of it contaminated or even radioactive — is also becoming a big issue as traffic accidents and pollution take their toll.
Some say the majors may also struggle with the business of buying and selling land to refine their portfolios, a skill synonymous with American Energy Partners’ former CEO Aubrey McClendon.
Several majors have tried giving their shale units arm’s-length independence to handle such specific challenges, but those moves were not fruitful.
Shell shut its “unconventional resources directorate” in 2016 after unsuccessfully trying to transplant shale capability overseas, and ExxonMobil has re-integrated its XTO shale unit, acquired in a $41 billion deal in 2009.
Scott Sheffield, Pioneer Natural Resources chairman, told S&P Global Platts in August that he questioned the majors’ ability to compete in shale. He said Shell had not been producing from shale plays long enough to be able to determine if it was successful, and other majors’ activity is still lagging the smaller, more experienced shale producers.
“If the majors start drilling wells much faster than the independents, we should be able to see that in the data, but, so far, we’re not seeing it,” Sheffield said.
But there has been progress.
ExxonMobil says it increased its Permian and Bakken oil and gas output by 34% on the year in the third quarter, with Permian production reaching 170,000 boe/d.
Sheffield said Norway’s Equinor seemed to be doing a “decent” job with its Marcellus and Utica shale gas, despite an $860 million write-down last year relating to issues with well spacing and productivity at its Eagle Ford assets.
Sheffield also praised the development of BP’s Lower 48 unit under David Lawler, brother of Chesapeake Energy CEO Doug Lawler, but added BP may still need to buy more acreage.
Shell’s shale goals reach beyond the US and encompass Canada’s Montney tight gas, which will supply its LNG Canada project, and Argentina’s Vaca Muerta, where Brown said it was beating the competition.
But the pace of these companies’ shale activities pales against their smaller, dedicated rivals. EOG Resources expects to complete 720 wells this year, and Pioneer aims to bring on stream 250-275 wells.IDENTITY CRISISBernard Duroc-Danner, former head of service company Weatherford, said that the majors should benefit from their scientific approach, or what he called the “purposeful pursuit of information,” but were still struggling to define themselves in the face of the twin challenges of shale and resource nationalism.
He likened their shale efforts to teaching an elephant to dance, saying “they are the wrong owners because of their mass, the way they do things.”
Duroc-Danner also highlighted the reputational risks of shale production, saying that in the “local towns in Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, people are going to be really upset about the accidents and the [number] of trucks going back and forth.”
The majors will also need to learn how to manage a rising stock of depleted wells producing a trickle of oil in their “nursing home” phase as they near the end of their lives, he said.
“The decline rate in a normal well in the Middle East or places in Latin America is just a gentle decline,” he said. But in shale, “every year you drill, you expand production, [and] 18 months later, it joins the nursing home. What happens when these fine companies end up with a huge stock of these?”
“Yes, they will run the completion and fracking business more efficiently, if they allow people in the field to get their way. For the rest, they will inherit the liability, potentially the political exposure; they will inherit the nursing homes.”
Some executives shared the doubts.
ENI CEO Claudio Descalzi has dismissed shale as beyond his company’s competence.
Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne has suggested that his company was still bruised by its shale forays. In August, he said the challenge was not just the cost of investing, at this point, but in recruiting the right people.
“My peers who are investing [in shale] have a right to do it,” Pouyanne said. “It’s more a question of competitive advantage. It’s clearly capital intensive, and it’s a question of human resources.”
https://blogs.platts.com/2018/11/19/big-oil-shale-revival-prompts-industry-doubts/
-
Supermajors Take over Shale Field Built by Independents
Nov 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The world's biggest oil companies are flocking to drill into the shale below the Permian Basin oil field, and the sharp drop in prices isn't likely to slow them down.
The supermajor oil companies have been spending billions of dollars to buy acreage in the field, which covers 75,000 square miles in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. In July, BP PLC offered $10.5 billion to buy an Australian mining conglomerate's U.S. shale portfolio, and its earnings jumped so much since then that it offered to make the purchase entirely in cash.
Last week, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the two biggest U.S. oil companies, were reportedly interested in buying Endeavor Energy Resources LP, a privately held company that has drilling rights on 329,000 acres, Bloomberg News reported.
"The move now is toward becoming players of scale, the large players take control if you like," said Greig Aitken, director of merger and acquisition research for Wood Mackenzie.
The Permian is one of the oldest oil fields in the U.S., with production dating to the 1920s. It was largely written off as a depleted field by the turn of the century. About 10 years ago, a handful of independent companies began using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to tap into layers of shale located below the old production zones.
Since then, production has nearly tripled to 2.1 million barrels a day, according to the Texas Railroad Commission. That's almost three-fourths of the state's overall oil production.
The basin became even more attractive when oil prices crashed in 2014; it was one of the few areas in the U.S. where oil production was still profitable.
Output from the Permian helped boost third-quarter earnings for both Exxon and Chevron. Chevron pumped the equivalent of 338,000 barrels a day from the Permian, up 80 percent from last year.
Prices have fallen by almost one-fourth since then, to about $57 a barrel Friday, but the companies are likely to remain enthusiastic about the Permian.
For one thing, their size gives them a built-in advantage over the smaller companies that pioneered the new shale fields. The smaller companies are more susceptible to rising labor prices and localized price constraints that have cropped up because of pipeline shortages.
The larger oil companies own not only the production fields, but also the pipelines and the refineries. So they avoid the transportation constraints and can turn a profit in their refineries by processing low-cost crude.
Exxon reported that the constraints on crude prices in the Permian and other regions cost it $170 million in the third quarter compared with the fourth quarter. But the company offset that shortfall by earning an additional $280 million downstream in its refining system.
That puts the company in a position to profit whichever way prices move, Senior Vice President Jack Williams told analysts on a conference call.
"We'll either accrue that value with higher crude prices at the wellhead or we'll accrue that value through our midstream and downstream," he said.
Exxon plans to expand its refining operations in Texas and Louisiana from 450,000 barrels a day to 750,000 barrels a day, the company said. Chevron is at least exploring the idea of expanding its Gulf Coast refining operations, although Executive Vice President Pierre Breber told analysts, "Any acquisition has to be at the right price."
Both of the American supermajors are likely to keep looking for acreage to buy, said Artem Abramov, vice president of shale analysis at the consulting firm Rystad Energy. And they're unlikely to walk away from the basin even if prices rise.
"They have already invested a lot into infrastructure and processing facilities," he said. "It won't make sense from their perspective to delay production growth and activity."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/19/stories/1060106559
-
The EPA Gave Its Website a Pro-Fracking Makeover
Nov 16, 2018 | Motherboard
By Sarah Emerson
In January this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revamped its webpage on fracking. The page now promotes the interests of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of scientific knowledge and public transparency.
These edits were documented by the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, a coalition that has tracked changes made to federal environmental websites during the Trump administration. The president has vowed to ease restrictions on fracking as part of his fossil fuel-heavy economic plan.
Once titled “Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing,” the single page is now called “Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Development.” It informs the public of the EPA’s role in fracking, a technique for extracting natural gas by drilling down and injecting a pressurized mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into the rock.
“‘Hydraulic fracturing,’ easily gives way to the popular and colloquial ‘fracking,’ which is an ugly sounding word—used in place of swears in Battlestar Galactica for a reason,” Gwen Arnold, assistant professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis, told Motherboard in an email. “The oil and gas industry prefers the ‘unconventional’ phrasing because it helps link fracking to conventional oil and gas drilling."
The EPA did not respond to Motherboard’s questions regarding why this page was so heavily changed.
Some of the most significant changes to the page emphasize the economic benefits of fracking while obscuring its known risks, such as air pollution and drinking water contamination—findings the EPA’s own scientists stressed in the months preceding President Trump’s inauguration.
“[This is] one among many instances wherein the administration has deemphasized or questioned the importance or credibility of scientific knowledge and scientists,” Arnold said, noting President Trump’s “scientists on both sides” refrain regarding climate change and other environmental issues.
The EPA removed text about air pollution standards from the page, and links to press and compliance materials. One section’s title was subtly changed from “Addressing air quality impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing activities” to “Addressing air quality impacts.”
In another section, new information was added about industry stakeholders which “represent the engine of the American economy in order to explore significant opportunities for environmental improvement.” The page also now includes letters from oil and gas associations to former EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt, urging him to roll back EPA enforcement of certain oil and gas operators.
Some paragraphs were wholesale removed, such as one that said the EPA is working to improve our scientific understanding of fracking, and another that underscored the need to carefully manage natural gas development in tandem with its rapid development.
One section also notably removed a sub-section called “Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Mixtures.” Previously, this page disclosed the use of chemicals used during fracking and communicated issues such as outreach, peer review, and transparency with the public.
“Public health advocates say that understanding the impacts that fracking is having on environmental health begins with actually understanding what chemicals fracking is putting into the environment,” Arnold said. “[Fracking companies] do not want to disclose the chemicals or their concentrations [or] ratios because they say that this is proprietary information and disclosing it would remove [or] reduce their competitive advantage.”
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvqkd3/the-epa-gave-its-website-a-pro-fracking-makeover
-
(ACC Mentioned) CFATS Reauthorization Should Not Be a Partisan Issue
Nov 19, 2018 | SecurityInfoWatch
By Michael Kennedy
With a contentious election behind us, the Chemical Security Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program will sunset unless Congress rallies consensus before Jan. 19, 2019. Two bills in both the Senate and House aim to reform the program, but this has stoked a partisan debate. With the House turning over to Democratic control, can a deal be struck continuing the program? For how long? And, what changes will the reform language bring to the program?
First, to pass a reformed CFATS program, given the legislative calendar, a consensus among lawmakers from both parties would be the clearest path. Here is a timeline of events for the current reauthorization proposals being considered by Congress:
Sept. 4, 2018: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), introduced S. 3405, the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorists Attacks Act of 2018 (S.3405).
Sept. 26, 2018: S. 3405 was unanimously reported out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs by voice vote.
Sept. 28, 2018: Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) introduced H.R.6992 - Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2018, a bipartisan House companion.
Oct. 23, 2018: Sen. Johnson and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) draft a letter to other homeland security committees vowing: “If Congress fails to reform the CFATS program, we believe the program should expire and not continue to be reauthorized via annual appropriations.”
Now, with little time left, Johnson has to rally the Senate towards unanimously consent. Under this process, the Senate cloakrooms notify senators of upcoming bills that may be considered under unanimous consent to provide them with a final opportunity to object. The plot thickens with ranking member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) losing her re-election bid, but the Democrats winning the House.
If this fails, the program still needs to be funded. “Plan B” would entail a straight multi-year reauthorization of anywhere to from 3 to 5 years, however; the political winds might shift toward reauthorization for 12 months, thus kicking the can down the alley.
Impact on Security Contractors and Consultants
If passed in current form, the provisions of both bills will clearly impact facilities and security contractors. In terms of vetting employees, the current language indicates that DHS’s personnel surety program only be applied to the higher risk facilities (Tier 1 &2) meaning that a majority of facilities, roughly 1,000 to 2000 sites across the nation, would not be required to perform enhanced screening of their employees.
Under the current CFATS program, all covered facilities must submit for approval to DHS a security plan (Site Security Plan [SSP]) containing security measures that sufficiently meet all the Risk-Based Performance Standards (RBPS). RBPS 12–Personnel Surety requires facilities to account for four types of background checks on facility personnel and unescorted visitors who have or are seeking access to restricted areas and critical assets at high-risk chemical facilities. These checks include measures designed to: i) Verify and validate identity ii) Check criminal history iii) Verify and validate legal authorization to work, and iv) Identify people with terrorist ties. The proposed reform language would only apply to Tier I & II, however; the lower tiers might have the option of electing to use the PSP program down the road.
Secondly, facilities that subscribe to “recognition programs” (such as Responsible Care, Responsible Distribution etc.) will be awarded lower tiers and limited inspections according to the proposed reforms. The cascading effect of lower tiers could also limit perimeter protections, technological installations and security plans. However, this likely falls on DHS to promulgate regulations.
The decrease in inspections could also impact security consultants. Limiting inspection sounds good on paper, but what if a facility needs to prove to the agency that a chemical is or is not present on the site? Because many of these recognition programs, commonly referred to as industry stewardship programs, are closed to the public, security consultants could be forced to work closer with or even become dues paying members of various trade organizations, such as the American Chemistry Council, Association of Chemical Distributors, Agricultural Retailers, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and the Fertilizer Institute – all of which support the measures – in order to access these programs and properly advise their clients.
In sum, the CFATS program is ripe for reform, but it is still inconclusive as to what reforms are needed and how this will pan out in implementation. Congress should consider working with each other towards a solution and not exposing our nation’s critical infrastructure to a terrorist attack, but it has to happen before January. Bottom line: don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good.
https://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/12436920/cfats-reauthorization-should-not-be-a-partisan-issue
-
DHS Officials Rally Around Pipeline Cyber Plan
Nov 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Senior Department of Homeland Security officials threw their weight behind a new pipeline cybersecurity initiative Friday, voicing confidence that the voluntary effort wouldn't overlook gaps in the industry's defenses.
"We're not going to get out and touch every single pipeline out there, because there are tens of thousands [of miles] of pipelines," said Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at DHS.
Instead, he said the agency would locate the most important pipelines — such as those whose loss could cause cascading impacts on the power grid or other sectors — and focus on protecting those. "Those folks have already come forward, and we've got some of our teams out in the field conducting those analyses," Krebs told reporters on the sidelines of a cybersecurity conference at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "So we're feeling pretty good about the initial determination of highest risk."
Krebs acknowledged that "those [companies] that are more mature tend to want to work with us more. Coincidentally, that maturity is also associated with the highest risk."
Officials at some energy agencies and organizations, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corp., have called for closer scrutiny of the pipeline industry as natural gas has become an increasingly vital fuel source for America's bulk power grid.
Physical and cybersecurity in the pipeline industry is overseen by DHS's Transportation Security Administration, an agency better known and better funded for its role in the nation's airports. The pipeline initiative is aimed at backing up TSA's staff of six pipeline security specialists with extra employees from Krebs's agency, CISA, as well as experts from the Department of Energy.
The initiative relies on the voluntary cooperation of major pipeline companies and industry groups, meaning energy companies that opt not to work with DHS face no regulatory repercussions. By contrast, the bulk electric sector in the U.S. is bound to follow NERC's Critical Infrastructure Protection standards, which include detailed cybersecurity specifications and carry up to $1 million daily fines for violators.
"We don't have perfect visibility into our infrastructure, of course, and so we always have to have that in mind," said Jeanette Manfra, undersecretary for cybersecurity at CISA. "Increasingly, we have better visibility through these partnerships."
Representatives from the oil and gas industry have vocally defended the voluntary system of oversight through TSA.
"Just because we haven't been regulated as much as the electricity sector, just because policymakers or agencies don't have as much of a window into what our companies do — that doesn't mean that there are differences in terms of the level of sophistication" of cyber defenses, said Aaron Padilla, senior adviser for international policy at the American Petroleum Institute. "I would put our member companies up against any other companies in any other sector in terms of the sophistication in cybersecurity."
Friday's conference offered an update on several DHS efforts to lock down interconnected U.S. critical infrastructure. This summer, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen unveiled a "National Risk Management Center" at DHS, aimed at identifying the most crucial networks in need of extra defense in the fight against hackers. DHS officials reported that an initial list of highest-risk critical infrastructure systems would be complete by the end of this year.
"Nation states such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are playing the long game to degrade our critical infrastructure, and we need to respond strategically," Nielsen said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/19/stories/1060106563
-
Climate Issues Fire Up House Democrats as Rift on Panel Emerges
Nov 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A rift is emerging among old-guard Democrats and the party’s new arrivals on how the House should address climate change.
The split largely pits generally younger members, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who want to create a new climate committee that will pursue a more ambitious climate agenda, and those who say the heavy lifting belongs in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Incoming Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to fend off this push for a wholly new climate committee, but found unexpected backing Nov. 16 from the committee’s outgoing Republican chairman.
“I think it’s a real slap in Frank Pallone’s face,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who currently holds the gavel, told reporters Nov. 16, and a “slap in the face to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and our jurisdiction.”
House Republicans aren’t likely to see eye-to-eye with Democrats on climate legislation. And any significant climate legislation is likely to be only a trial run for 2020 and beyond, given Republicans will still control the Senate in the next Congress, and President Donald Trump is unlikely to back Democratic-backed bills.
Committee Democrats Cool to IdeaMany Energy and Commerce Democrats, who have waited in the wings after eight years of Republican House control for a chance to legislate, aren’t warm to the idea of giving up a chunk of their jurisdiction to a newly created committee.
“I really believe we have the jurisdiction,” Rep. Doris Matsui (Calif.), a senior Energy and Commerce committee Democrat, told Bloomberg Environment.
“I think the idea is fine” to create a new panel to throw a spotlight on the climate challenge, “but we want to have the legislation, and that should come through the committee,” Matsui said.
Launching a select climate committee in the 116th Congress is actually the brainchild of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who vowed just before the Nov. 6 election she’d resurrect the panel she launched in 2007 as House Speaker, one that was scrapped by a Republican majority in 2011.
Pelosi is fighting to return as speaker in 2019, but her defeat wouldn’t necessarily sink the climate panel, as many of the same voices calling for new leadership in the House also want a new climate committee—just one with power to write legislation.
Ocasio-Cortez, a new member from New York, joined climate activists at a Nov. 13 protest outside Pelosi’s office and backed their calls for a quicker transformation to clean energy and action on climate. She is also backing a “green new deal"—one that includes a more powerful select climate panel than Pelosi is proposing.
But some energy committee Democrats say Pelosi has already proven she takes climate change seriously, noting she passed cap-and-trade legislation in 2009 over heated Republican objections, only to watch the bill collapse in the Senate a year later.
“The issue of climate change is at the top of our agenda,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), another Democratic committee member, told reporters. “And her agenda.”
10-Year Climate TransformationThe plan would empower a new Select Committee on a Green New Deal to draft legislation “for the transition of the United States economy to become carbon neutral and to significantly draw down and capture greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans"—all within the next decade.
Ocasio-Cortez, who toppled the fourth-ranking Democrat, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), in their June primary, urged Democratic colleagues in a closed-door meeting Nov. 15 to back a more forceful climate panel.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), an energy committee member, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 16 that Ocasio-Cortez “just re-emphasized what she had said during her campaign and what others have said, which is that climate change must be a priority in the next Congress.”
Ocasio-Cortez couldn’t be reached for comment. But in a Nov. 15 tweet, she pushed back against a news report that the exchange with Pallone was heated.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/climate-issues-fire-up-house-democrats-as-rift-on-panel-emerges
-
Democrats' State-Level Gains May Test EPA's 'Federalism' In Trump Era
Nov 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Democrats' state-level gains are likely to drive new efforts to strengthen climate, water and other rules in the face of the Trump EPA's deregulatory agenda -- potentially easing environmentalists' concerns about the agency's push to shift more responsibility to states and testing the Trump administration's commitment to cooperative federalism, sources say.
One industry attorney says that Democratic gains in statehouses could ease environmentalists' opposition to the Trump administration's push for increased cooperative federalism, because more states on the receiving end of increased autonomy will be Democratic-led and therefore perceived as more likely to vigorously enforce environmental laws.
“The more of those states are run by Democrats, the more likely that sort of devolution could actually be successful,” the source says. While politicians of every stripe embrace greater autonomy, the source adds that in Democratic states, environmentalists are less apt to oppose cooperative federalism “as some collusive deal with Trump, so you could actually see some success there."
Such an outcome could be paradoxical given environmentalists' concerns about Trump administration efforts to ease oversight of state environmental programs.
The agency under both former Administrator Scott Pruitt and acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has embraced calls by states for a greater emphasis on cooperative federalism, including a request from the Environmental Council of the States for EPA to audit state permitting and enforcement programs rather than reviewing individual actions.
Late last month, Wheeler issued a memo to the agency's regional offices pushing deference to state decisionmaking, and calling intervention a “last option."
Environmentalists, who see the policy as part of Trump administration rollbacks, have criticized the streamlined approach as ignoring statutory mandates to review some permits.
And a second industry attorney -- echoing concerns from Democrats and environmentalists -- says policies in Democratic-led states could test the Trump administration's commitment to cooperative federalism, as states advance environmental policies that clash with its deregulatory agenda.
“The rub is going to be if states start taking actions that are contrary to what EPA wants by way of policy,” the source says.
As an example, the source cites conflict over California's regulation of vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as EPA moves to weaken the Obama administration's vehicle GHG rules governing model years 2017 -- 2025.
Democrats like Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) have long criticized Pruitt and other officials, charging they have a “double standard” that provides a rhetorical commitment to states' rights even though they oppose stricter state standards.
“What we've heard all day is how much you support states' rights. Now, when it comes to the rights of Massachusetts, California and other states to reduce carbon pollution, you say you're going to review that,” Markey told Pruitt at his confirmation hearing.
Midwestern States
As state-level Democrats step up their efforts to strengthen their environmental policies, such opportunities for clashes with the Trump administration appear likely to increase -- especially in midwestern states, where Democrats made significant gains but which are also crucial in the upcoming 2020 presidential elections.
In all, Democrats picked up governorships in seven states -- Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin -- and flipped attorneys generals (AG) posts in four states -- Colorado, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Democrats also made significant gains in state legislative chambers, picking up 300 seats that gave them control of seven new chambers, though Republicans still control 61 of 98 state chambers, according to The Hill and other sources.
The gains in the Midwest -- where Democrats picked up four governorships -- could be especially significant because they are expected to push for stricter environmental rules than what their GOP predecessors may have sought.
Howard Learner, of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, which is based in the Midwest, says new Democratic governors and AGs represent a fundamental transformation for the region that will lead to increased enforcement of clean air and water laws, as well as new clean energy proposals to limit the effects of climate change.
“I see a number of the new governors and new AGs stepping up with much more vigorous but appropriate environmental enforcement of our core environmental laws, and there will be a race to the top for accelerating clean energy solutions to our climate problems,” Learner says.
And Judith Enck, EPA's Region 2 Administrator during the Obama administration, who now advises the Center for Climate Integrity, says the new AGs will play an especially important role.
“The single most important role for state AGs right now is to stand up to these regulatory roll backs that will inevitably damage the health of their constituents and the quality of our environment,” she says.
She says Democratic AGs should target planned and proposed deregulatory actions, including rollbacks of Obama-era Clean Power Plan and fuel economy standards, as well as facility safety and farmworker protection measures.
Enck says that Democrats' flipping of four AGs offices brings “more firepower” for challenging Trump administration rollbacks in court. While the Democratic AGs in Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Nevada will likely support existing opposition to Trump policies, they will also look to stake out new avenues of opposition.
And she says that while Xavier Becerra, who was appointed California AG last year, has been a leading opponent of Trump administration roll backs, she hopes that his first election to that position will embolden his approach.
Enck said she would like for Becerra to follow the lead of several eastern states in pursuing litigation against fossil fuel companies to seek damages for climate change.
“They're going to have to do some important work in California on climate change because taxpayers can not continue to foot the bill for the damage caused by climate change,” she said. “Either polluters pay or taxpayers pay or some combination of the two. Right now it's just taxpayers footing the bill."
Noting that Democrats gained governor or AG offices in states that have faced significant water contamination or supply challenges, Enck says Democratic officials will likely press for policies aimed at improving access to clean water, including new limits on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), after states have unsuccessfully urgedthe Trump administration to set a nationwide limit for certain of the substances.
“The common thread here is water,” Enck says, noting Democratic gains in Michigan and Nevada, among others. “These are all impacted by toxic contamination or climate change, so I think all of these AGs have an opportunity to distinguish themselves on the environmental issues that are the most important in their respective states.”
Carbon Pricing
Democrats' state-level advances also have numerous observers expecting a push in state legislators next year for carbon pricing policies, despite the recent failure of a Washington state ballot initiative that would have imposed the nation's first carbon tax.
Observers say that a multi-state approach could boost efforts to advance a carbon tax, and that lawmakers in eight northeastern states, including New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts are planning to introduce carbon pricing measures.
The rejection of the Washington ballot initiative “shifts the limelight to legislative approaches,” Michael Green with Climate Xchange, a Boston think tank, told Reuters.
But efforts to decarbonize state economies will not be limited solely to legislatures. Several newly elected Democratic governors have already made clear they plan to push for a significant ramp up in renewable energy.
Colorado Gov.-elect Jared Polis (D) campaigned on a goal of reaching 100 percent renewable energy by 2040, which would be one of the most aggressive renewables requirement in the continental United States.
Incoming Democratic governors in Connecticut and Main have also targeted 100 percent renewables by 2050, while Nevada state lawmakers appear likely to raise a goal of 25 percent renewables to 50 percent or higher after voters approved a ballot measure, according to Clearview Energy Partners LLC.
In New Mexico, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) plans to bring together industry and environmentalists to craft a rule limiting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, an effort aimed at replicating Colorado's existing approach, though Grisham says she hopes to do it “even better.”
“I have already signaled, well before I was elected, that I want to take that kind of a platform,” she told MSNBC, adding that the state would “fight” Trump administration efforts to expand drilling on federal land.
Learner says he expects to see a similar “race to the top” for clean energy policies in the Midwest where Democrats picked up governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Kansas.
“We see a lot of opportunities for midwestern states and cities in moving forward and accelerating clean energy development and environmental innovations at a time when the federal government is stepping back,” he said, adding that greater collaboration among Democratic-led states is likely. “The best defense is a good offense.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-state-level-gains-may-test-epas-federalism-trump-era
-
Is a Carbon Tax Part of the Green New Deal?
Nov 19, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
The grand vision of the Green New Deal has turned into a rallying cry for young progressives, but amid the enthusiasm for solar panels and guaranteed jobs, there remain questions about how it would work, how it would be funded and whether it's the best way to fight climate change.
Enter the possibility of a carbon tax.
The phrase doesn't appear in the green jobs plan trumpeted last week by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her allies on the left. Nor was it the prime driver of a recent protest outside the office of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
But a leader of the Sunrise Movement said in an interview Friday that he was open to the idea of incorporating a carbon tax into a Green New Deal — a notable acknowledgement given the environmental group's role in promoting the plan and organizing the Pelosi protest.
"I think it's possible for that to be a part of this," said Evan Weber, co-founder and national political director of the youth-powered Sunrise Movement.
Still, he added, it would have to be written in such a way that a carbon tax wouldn't unfairly impact low-income residents, who — along with everyone else — could face higher costs for electricity and gasoline.
"Our concerns with a carbon tax would be ensuring that the people least responsible for climate change are not shouldering most of the burden for it," he said.
By itself, this kind of openness to the possibility of a carbon tax isn't significant.
The Sunrise Movement still is very much the new kid on the block in the environmental activist world, and its recent push for a Green New Deal still has to catch fire with most Democrats, let alone congressional Republicans.
But it underscores, perhaps, the ongoing problems and possibilities now facing climate activists.
On the positive side, a marriage of carbon taxes and a Green New Deal has the potential to make a real dent in global warming, said Chris Busch, research director at Energy Innovation, a California firm that analyzes climate policies.
"They may not be so much in opposition as potentially aligned, even if the carbon tax can be politically more challenging," Busch said. "I think there are actually synergies, and maybe that's a hopeful message."
Specifically, revenue generated from a carbon tax could be used to help fund the wholesale transformation of the U.S. economy envisioned by Ocasio-Cortez and others.
Right now, their plan calls on the U.S. to ultimately generate 100 percent of its power from renewable sources and to facilitate energy-efficient upgrades to "every residential and industrial building," according to the proposal.
In addition, it sees a Green New Deal as a vehicle to "virtually eliminate poverty in the United States" partly through a "job guarantee program."
The proposal is squishy, however, on how to pay for these lofty goals.
The plan pushed by the Sunrise Movement hands the ball to the federal government — which would be in charge of the "majority of financing," according to the proposal — but it doesn't prescribe a specific method of payment.
And that's where efforts to promote a Green New Deal run into problems, with or without a carbon tax.
Republicans have largely ignored climate change during their two-year hold on Congress and the White House, and there's little chance they'll make it more of a priority come January when Democrats take control of the House (Climatewire, Aug. 24).
Much of the counterargument comes down to money.
Republicans have resisted government efforts to regulate solutions to global warming — such as President Obama's Clean Power Plan — on fears it would hurt U.S. businesses. In the same vein, it's unlikely they would support the use of tax dollars to pay for the wholesale solution prescribed by Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement.
Tying a carbon tax to the Green New Deal opens up a lane of possibility, but that approach has its pitfalls.
For one, even carbon tax supporters are divided on the best way to use the revenue — which past estimates have suggested could top $1 trillion over a decade.
The Climate Leadership Council, which is supported by fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., wants a carbon tax. But under its plan, the money generated by the fee would be returned to U.S. taxpayers.
The thinking is that this method is the most politically viable, as it puts money in voters' pockets, while ensuring the policy goes into effect.
A carbon tax is the "most efficient and effective way to transition to a low-carbon economy," said Greg Bertelsen of the Climate Leadership Council.
Another carbon tax advocate, the conservative Alliance for Market Solutions, put out a paper in October that argued the best use of the revenue would be an extension of the tax bill the Republican-controlled Congress passed last year (Climatewire, Oct. 18).
Neither group raised the idea of a Green New Deal, though the Alliance for Market Solutions did look broadly at the benefits of investing in public infrastructure.
This, then, is where Ocasio-Cortez and her allies have some choices to make.
Political leaders in both parties have said that infrastructure spending could be an area of compromise in the next Congress and, in a bill such as that, they could score some small wins for climate change — such as investments in the renewable energy industry.
There's little chance, however, of using that legislation as a vehicle for a massive Green New Deal.
Another option is allying with the carbon-tax crowd, but that too could require some dealmaking — and not just about revenue. In exchange for a carbon tax, some advocates of that approach want companies that emit greenhouse gases to be protected from lawsuits over climate change. That's a major ask of progressive groups.
A third choice is that climate activists try to take over the Democratic Party and then, in turn, move to enact a Green New Deal the next time Democrats win Congress and the White House, whenever that might be.
There is some precedent.
The 2009 stimulus package enacted by President Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress included a $90 billion boost to the clean energy industry.
Plus, it may be less difficult to persuade congressional Democrats to support such an approach.
Though Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) have taken different sides in the ongoing fight over whether House Democrats should create a separate climate change committee, Pallone — the expected next chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee — told protesters Friday that a Green New Deal was something he could support.
"I think we're going to move on that very aggressively," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/11/19/stories/1060106545
-
Calif., Mass. Oppose Trump Plan to Rollback HFC Climate Rules
Nov 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Terrence Dopp
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey are leading a coalition of several U.S. states against EPA’s plan to rollback refrigerant management rules that arose from the agency’s Obama-era Climate Action Plan.
EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler is “failing to oversee the use of harmful chemicals that will dramatically increase emissions and accelerate climate change,” Becerra said in a statement announcing the filing of formal comments against the proposal.
EPA in 2015 issued a final rule to curb certain “climate-damaging” hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The chemicals—used in refrigeration, air-conditioning and other equipment—are potent greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change with global warming potentials thousands of times greater than that of carbon dioxide, according to the agency.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/calif-mass-oppose-trump-plan-to-rollback-hfc-climate-rules
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested