Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/20/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business Warns Steel Tariffs Could Hurt USCMA Passage
Nov 20, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Sean Higgins
A coalition of 34 business groups warned the Trump administration Monday that keeping in place its steel and aluminum tariffs against Canada and Mexico could imperil passage of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate EPW Sets Hearing on Dunn's Nomination as EPA Toxics Chief
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) plans to hold a Nov. 29 hearing to consider EPA Region 1 Administrator Alexandra Dapolito Dunn's nomination to the head the agency's toxics office, teeing up a confirmation vote by the full chamber... -
(ACC Mentioned) RFS Battle Is on
Nov 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Afternoon Energy
By David Beavers and Maya Parthasarathy
...The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will consider Alexandra Dunn’s nomination to be assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention when it returns from the Thanksgiving holiday... -
Industry Groups Call for Lifting of 232 Tariffs on Canada, Mexico; Oppose Quotas
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside US Trade
Industry groups are urging the Trump administration to lift steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico without replacing them with quotas. -
Senators Urge Product-Exclusion Process for $200 Billion 301 Tariff Tranche
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside US Trade
A bipartisan group of senators is calling on the Trump administration to establish a process for excluding key Chinese products from the latest round of Section 301 tariffs. -
Criminal Indictment Prompts EPA Southeast Region Chief to Resign (1)
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
The head of the EPA’s southeastern regional office resigned days after an Alabama grand jury indicted him on state ethics charges, an agency spokesman confirmed Nov. 19. -
5 Trends in Sustainable Retail Promoting Chemical Safety
Nov 20, 2018 | GreenBiz
By Mike Schade and Mike Belliveau
Scientists have linked exposure to toxic chemicals commonly found in our homes and the food we eat to serious diseases, learning disabilities and early death. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Intervenors Oppose Environmentalists' Suit over DSW Rule
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
Industry parties intervening in litigation brought by environmentalists over EPA's revised definition of solid waste (DSW) rule are urging a federal appellate court to dismiss the case for a variety of reasons, including the court's lack of jurisdiction and that it already resolved... -
(ACC Mentioned) Inside 3M's Fight to Thwart a Massive Pollution Tab
Nov 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
Chemical industry giant 3M is waging an aggressive campaign to stave off new regulations and potentially billions of dollars in damages stemming from a contamination crisis that has fouled tens of millions of Americans’ drinking water. -
EPA Advisers Seek Broad Plan to Help Local Governments Target PFAS
Nov 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A local government advisory panel to EPA is urging the agency to provide leadership to communities on a “coordinated and comprehensive” approach of regulatory actions and other steps to address perfluorinated chemicals... -
NRDC Agrees to EPA Extension of Perchlorate Water Standard Deadline
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists have grudgingly agreed to EPA's request to extend until April a court-ordered deadline for proposing a health-based drinking water goal for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate, acknowledging that EPA has yet to craft such a standard... -
'This Product Contains Chemicals Known ... to Cause Cancer': How to Navigate Prop 65's Scary Warnings While Toy Shopping
Nov 19, 2018 | Yahoo News
By Korin Miller
There’s nothing like toy shopping online for your kids when you’re hit with an ominous warning: “This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.” -
Global Study Finds Mercury in Skin-Lightening Creams
Nov 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
A global study by NGO coalition the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) has found "dangerous" levels of mercury in skin-lightening creams in several countries. -
This Space Startup Could Lace Atmosphere With Toxic Mercury
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Elgin
Underneath its Silicon Valley sheen, Apollo Fusion Inc. may be keeping a toxic secret. -
EU Parliament Shuns High Pops Limit Proposal in Recycled Plastic
Nov 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
On 15 November, MEPs voted 567 in favour of the recast, with 23 against and 27 abstentions. But they turned down several amendments added to it later, including an attempt to set a derogation limit 100 times higher on decaBDE and four similar POPs in mixture... -
Increased Oil, Gas Production Boosts Interior Lands Revenue by $400M in 2017
Nov 19, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Increased oil and natural gas production, as well as regulatory reform and other factors, led to a $400 million surge in economic output on federal lands during the first year of the Trump administration, according to a report by the Interior Department. -
Permian Shale Companies Pledge $100M to West Texas, New Mexico
Nov 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Seventeen energy companies operating in West Texas' booming Permian Basin said they're pledging more than $100 million to help improve roads, schools, health care, housing and workforce training. -
Arkema’s Wishes Granted as Regulator Widens Use of Plastic Pipes
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Arkema Inc., Ube Industries Ltd., and Evonik Industries AG stand to benefit from new federal regulations allowing more of the companies’ plastic pipe products to transport natural gas. -
North Dakota Oil Industry Pushing to Loosen Crude Oil Safety Rules
Nov 19, 2018 | Insurance Journal
North Dakota oil industry leaders are pushing to loosen the state’s oil conditioning regulations, but an environmental group is arguing to tighten rules. -
Dems Demand Answers About Disbanded Advisory Group
Nov 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
More than a dozen Senate Democrats are asking acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler to fully explain his recent decision to disband an entire air quality advisory panel. -
EPA Defends CASAC from Critics' Attacks on NAAQS Reviews
Nov 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is defending its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) from some critics' claims that the panel lacks the ability to thoroughly oversee EPA's reviews of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter (PM)... -
‘Insane’ California Air Topped World Health Standard by 60 Times
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian K. Sullivan
California’s air exceeded world health standards by 60 times last week, and conditions Nov. 19 continued to top safe thresholds with the deadliest blaze ever in the state is about 65 percent contained. -
Zinke Blames ‘Environmental Radicals’ for Deadly California Fires
Nov 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke blamed “environmental radicals” for the California wildfires that have killed at least 77 people, saying they stop forest management practices that could have prevented the fires. -
‘Like a Terror Movie’: How Climate Change Will Cause More Simultaneous Disasters
Nov 20, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
Global warming is posing such wide-ranging risks to humanity, involving so many types of phenomena, that by the end of this century some parts of the world could face as many as six climate-related crises at the same time, researchers say. -
'Up to the Courts': The 50-State Climate Change Strategy
Nov 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
In the summer of 2011, Des Moines teenager Glori Dei Filippone sued state agencies in Iowa over climate change. -
Architect of Failed Climate Bill Finds Hope for Future
Nov 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
One of the architects of the most sweeping climate policy ever passed is watching the current political moment with an equal mixture of dread and hope.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business Warns Steel Tariffs Could Hurt USCMA Passage
Nov 20, 2018 | Washington Examiner
By Sean Higgins
A coalition of 34 business groups warned the Trump administration Monday that keeping in place its steel and aluminum tariffs against Canada and Mexico could imperil passage of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade.
"[T]he continuation of these tariffs with respect to Mexico and Canada will create impediments to Congressional passage of the USMCA implementing bill given concerns expressed by members of Congress about the use of these tariffs with respect to our two closest allies," the business groups said in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. "The business community supports the removal of this potential impediment to Congressional approval of the USMCA."
Signatories to the letter included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, the National Retail Federation, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The groups said they backed the USMCA deal itself, calling it "a chance for all sectors of the U.S. economy" to benefit.
The groups also warned that they were "strongly" opposed to replacing tariffs with a quota system that would limit the amount of goods allowed into the U.S.
The Trump administration initially granted Canada and Mexico exemptions to its tariffs of 25 percent for steel imports and 10 percent for aluminum ones, but removed them in June as part of an effort to pressure the countries during the USMCA talks. The countries have argued that since those talks are now complete, there is no need to maintain the tariffs, which are technically a separate matter from the trade deal. The U.S. has so far balked at restoring the exemptions, fearing that that would allow China, the tariffs' main target, to harm the U.S. steel industry.
Congress is expected to take up the USMCA deal for a vote next year. The deal could have a rocky reception. Lawmakers like Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., have called on the administration to restore the exemptions for Canada and Mexico. Democrats and their allies have also warned that they will reject it if the deal doesn't include stronger enforcement provisions. Some GOP lawmakers have expressed concerns over its anti-discrimination language.
Business groups have been pressuring the administration to retire the exemptions as well, saying they're doing more harm than good. "They have raised costs significantly for a wide array of industries — including autos, machinery and equipment, chemicals, energy production, construction, medical devices, food products and household goods," the groups wrote in Monday's letter. "This endangers the jobs of millions of workers in those industries, who collectively represent a far greater share of the American workforce than those who benefit from the restrictions."
Though the letter was sent to the U.S. Trade Representative's office, the steel and aluminum tariffs were officially imposed by the Commerce Department. Spokespeople for both the trade representative's office and the Commerce Department could not be reached for comment.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/business-warns-steel-tariffs-could-hurt-usmca-passage
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate EPW Sets Hearing on Dunn's Nomination as EPA Toxics Chief
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) plans to hold a Nov. 29 hearing to consider EPA Region 1 Administrator Alexandra Dapolito Dunn's nomination to the head the agency's toxics office, teeing up a confirmation vote by the full chamber before the end of the lame-duck session.
EPW quietly added the hearing to its online calendar last week, setting up a quick timeline for Dunn's confirmation since any nominee reviewed in the lame-duck session must be confirmed before the 116th Congress begins on Jan. 3.
Any outstanding nominations at the end of the year are returned to the White House and must start over with a new hearing.
But speedy confirmation seems easily achievable for Dunn, whom observers say is a non-controversial candidate -- in contrast to the White House's prior pick for the job, Michael Dourson, who withdrew after Democrats and a handful of Republicans objected to his industry ties.
In contrast to Dourson's industry background, Dunn joined EPA following two stints as the executive director of groups that represent state environmental regulators across the country.
“She has demonstrated her ability to work both sides of the aisle [and] she has the ability to work with multiple stakeholders,” David Fischer, a partner at IBEX partners and formerly a long-time staffer at the American Chemistry Council, told Inside EPA.
Prior to joining the Trump EPA in 2017, Dunn served as executive director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of the States which represents state environment commissioners, and before that in the same roles for the Association of Clean Water Administrators representing state clean-water regulators.
If confirmed, Dunn will be the top political appointee in EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, taking the reins on implementation of the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act -- which is sure to be a major focus of both the agency and the new House Democratic majority in the next Congress.
She will be taking over in that role from Nancy Beck, the former chemical industry lobbyist who has served as deputy assistant administrator and has become a lightning rod for Trump administration critics concerned about industry influence at the agency.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-epw-sets-hearing-dunns-nomination-epa-toxics-chief
-
(ACC Mentioned) RFS Battle Is on
Nov 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Afternoon Energy
By David Beavers and Maya Parthasarathy
With help from Anthony Adragna
RFS BATTLE IS ON: With EPA expected to announce as soon as this month its plans to reconsider how much corn ethanol and other biofuels must be blended into the nation's gasoline supply under the Renewable Fuel Standard, the powerful American Petroleum Institute has the agency in its lobbying cross-hairs, reports Pro’s Eric Wolff. The laws that established the RFS set specific requirements for biofuel blending each year. If EPA misses those targets by 20 percent or more for two years in a row, however, the agency can set requirements without reference to the table in the law. This year’s requirements, which must be set before Nov. 30, are expected to trigger the reset provision.
"From our perspective, the short-term ability to fix the RFS, the ball is in the court of EPA and specifically on the reset process that is laid out in the statute,” said Frank Macchiarola, downstream vice president for API. API has previously backed a proposal from Reps. Bill Flores (R-Texas) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) to fix the amount of ethanol in the nation’s fuel system at 9.7 percent, but Congress is unlikely to take up an RFS reform bill anytime soon.
Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, a trade association that represents ethanol producers, voiced support for the RFS. “While biofuel critics spout the same old false claims, we will continue to work with the EPA to keep moving the RFS forward, just as the president has promised,” Skor said in a release. Read more here.
Welcome to Afternoon Energy! We’re your hosts David Beavers and Maya Parthasarathy. Send suggestions, news and tips to dbeavers@politico.com, mparthasarathy@politico.com, mdaily@politico.com and njuliano@politico.com, and keep up with us on Twitter at @davidabeavers, @m_parthas, @dailym1, @nickjuliano, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
PROGRAMMING NOTE: Afternoon Energy is off on Thursday and Friday for Thanksgiving. We’ll be back in your inboxes on Monday, Nov. 26.
ON THE HILL
CHEMICALS NOM GETS A HEARING: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will consider Alexandra Dunn’s nomination to be assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention when it returns from the Thanksgiving holiday, Pro’s Annie Snider reports. Dunn is seen as a centrist pick, following the withdrawal last year of the president’s first nominee, industry consultant Michael Dourson, after several Republicans came out against his nomination. Nancy Beck, the former expert at the American Chemistry Council, has been running the office for the last year and a half. If you go: The hearing will be on Thursday, Nov. 29 at 10:30 a.m. in Dirksen 406.
FEEL THE (CLIMATE) BERN: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will host a livestreamed town hall on climate change next month, reports HuffPost’s Alexander Kaufman, a move that could make the prospective 2020 presidential candidate a leading voice on the issue. “We need millions of people all over this country to stand up and demand fundamental changes in our energy policy in order to protect our kids and our grandchildren and the planet,” Sanders told HuffPost. Read more here.
MOVE IT, TO USE IT: A group of five bipartisan governors sent a letter to congressional leadership urging passage of legislation, the USE IT Act, S. 2602 (115), boosting research and development funding for carbon capture and sequestration technologies this year. “Passage of the USE IT Act furthers the advancement of new, critical technologies that will help develop industries, jobs and markets by transforming carbon emissions into an economic resource,” the governors wrote. Signing the letter are Govs. Matt Mead (R-Wyo.), Steve Bullock (D-Mont.), Mary Fallin (R-Okla.), Gary Herbert (R-Utah) and Jeff Colyer (R-Kan.).
MARK THIS DOWN: Incoming House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings(D-Md.) told MSNBC he planned to use subpoenas only as a last resort if the Trump administration is not cooperative. “I plan to deal with subpoenas in a very careful and deliberate way with standards, and consulting with the minority. … I will not be a Burton,” he said, referring to infamous former Chairman Dan Burton who issued hundreds of unilateral subpoenas during his time with the gavel.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
EPA'S GLENN RESIGNS AFTER INDICTMENT: EPA Region 4 Administrator Trey Glenn resigned Sunday following his indictment on state ethics charges last week, Pro's Anthony Adragna reports. Agency chief of staff Ryan Jackson said Mary Walker, deputy regional administrator for Region 4, would step in as acting regional administrator. An Alabama grand jury on Nov. 13 indicted Glenn for alleged violations of the Alabama Ethics Act, including receiving money on top of his salary and using his office for personal gain. Read more here.
ICYMI: FEDS PINPOINT CAUSE OF MERRIMACK GAS EXPLOSIONS: Federal investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board say they have identified the cause of the Sept. 13 gas explosions in the Merrimack Valley north of Boston that left one dead and more than 20 injured, NPR’s Merrit Kennedy reported last week. “In the Safety Recommendation Report released Wednesday by the National Transportation Safety Board, investigators found that on the day of the explosions, Columbia Gas of Massachusetts had been in the process of installing a new plastic distribution main to replace an old cast-iron one,” Kennedy writes. “But, according to the report, the crew abandoned the old main with regulator-sensing lines still in it.” As a result, Kennedy says, “[w]hen the old main was disconnected and started losing pressure, the regulators kicked in and flooded the new main with high-pressure gas.” Read more here.
Recall: The Senate Commerce Committee is hosting a field hearing on “Pipeline Safety in the Merrimack Valley: Incident Prevention and Response” on Nov. 26.
NY SCHOOLS TO INVEST IN RENEWABLES: A coalition of 21 higher education campuses in New York is hiring a consultant to help make significant investments in renewable electricity, POLITICO New York's Marie J. French reports. SUNY Chancellor Kristina Johnson, a former Obama-era DOE staffer who has made cutting emissions and energy use an important part of her agenda, wants the SUNY campuses to reach 100 percent renewable electricity by 2020. Read more here.
SWAMP WATCH
3M, the industrial and consumer goods manufacturer, hired a team at Invariant to lobby on regulatory and legislative issues touching on chemicals, the environment and health care, according to a disclosure filing. The Vinyl Institute, in a separate filing, hired Hogan Lovells to lobby on water infrastructure and PVC issues — its second lobbyist hired this month. And a pair of energy storage companies hired lobbyists: Washington state-based LAVLE hired Federal Advocates to lobby for “increased naval funding to study alternative energy sources;” and California’s ARES North America hired Strategies 360 to lobby on permitting for energy storage.
MOVERS AND SHAKERS
The Waterways Council today named Peter Stephaich, the chairman and CEO of Campbell Transportation Company, as its new board chairman. Stephaich succeeds Tim Parker, who became board chairman in 2016.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletters/afternoon-energy/2018/11/rfs-battle-is-on-421744
-
Industry Groups Call for Lifting of 232 Tariffs on Canada, Mexico; Oppose Quotas
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside US Trade
Industry groups are urging the Trump administration to lift steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico without replacing them with quotas.
In a Nov. 19 letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, 34 industry groups representing manufacturers, tech companies, agribusiness and others outlined five reasons why they believe the tariffs, in place since June 1, should be lifted. The groups first claim that the tariffs are not in the spirit of the newly concluded U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Also, USMCA already adds a steel and aluminum regional value content for autos.
Section 232 tariffs – as well as related import quotas enacted for some countries – are causing economic harm to U.S. companies, the groups said. “They have raised costs significantly for a wide array of industries – including autos, machinery and equipment, chemicals, energy production, construction, medical devices, food products and household goods,” the letter says. “This endangers the jobs of millions of workers in those industries, who collectively represent a far greater share of the American workforce than those who benefit from the restrictions.”
The tariffs also complicate USMCA’s path to congressional approval, the letter says. “[T]he continuation of these tariffs with respect to Mexico and Canada will create impediments to Congressional passage of the USMCA implementing bill given concerns expressed by members of Congress about the use of these tariffs with respect to our two closest allies,” the groups wrote.
Finally, the billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs Canada and Mexico imposed on the U.S. are also damaging U.S. exporters and put American jobs and competitiveness at risk, the groups claim.
Among the letter’s signatories were the American Automotive Policy Council, National Foreign Trade Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
More from the letter:
We recognize that there are significant problems with overcapacity in the steel and aluminum sector caused mainly by Chinese subsidies and state-owned activities. We strongly support appropriate measures to deal with this problem more effectively, including continued application of our unfair trade laws to Chinese exports and negotiation of global arrangements to deal with overcapacity. However, imposition of national security restrictions on our North American partners should not be part of that solution.
For all the reasons outlined above, it is time to remove the Section 232 tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum exports from Canada and Mexico and allow the U.S. to realize the potential benefits of the USMCA. Our industries want to support this new agreement when it faces Congressional review, but that depends heavily on having an overall package that benefits, rather than harms, our long-term ability to survive in a global economy. We strongly urge you to take these concerns into account and to remove these restrictions prior to signing the final USMCA.
https://insidetrade.com/trade/industry-groups-call-lifting-232-tariffs-canada-mexico-oppose-quotas
-
Senators Urge Product-Exclusion Process for $200 Billion 301 Tariff Tranche
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside US Trade
A bipartisan group of senators is calling on the Trump administration to establish a process for excluding key Chinese products from the latest round of Section 301 tariffs.
The 34 senators wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer last Friday urging him to set up a “tariff exemption process” so that U.S. businesses can “continue to source components and materials from China, particularly when there is no alternate supplier.”
The signatories include several members of the Senate Finance Committee.
The senators note that the administration set up product-exclusion processes for the first two tranches of Section 301 tariffs, covering $50 billion in Chinese goods. The $200 billion round began at 10 percent, but that is slated to rise to 25 percent in January.
A new exclusion process for the $200 billion round should be “straightforward so that firms, including American small businesses, do not have to expend significant resources in order for their requests to be considered,” the letter states. “Not only is the third tranche of section 301 tariffs more than four times the size of the first two lists combined, but it also contains a much higher percentage of consumer goods relative to intermediate and capital goods – including numerous goods that do not benefit from the 'Made in China 2025' policy.”
That policy is one of the key concerns for the Trump administration as it pushes China to change a host of practices it feels harm U.S. businesses.
But industry sources have told Inside U.S. Trade that an exclusion process would be difficult for USTR to open even if it were inclined to do so because the agency would be overwhelmed with requests.
An industry association source suggested that USTR might seek to limit the kinds of requests that could be submitted to stem the flood.
In October, a group of 10 Democratic senators wrote to Lighthizer asking him to “reconsider” his decision not to institute a product-exclusion process for $200 billion tranche.
Before that, industry groups made clear they hoped for an exclusion process as well, predicting that no system would be set up at least for the initial 10 percent tariffs.
https://insidetrade.com/trade/senators-urge-product-exclusion-process-200-billion-301-tariff-tranche
-
Criminal Indictment Prompts EPA Southeast Region Chief to Resign (1)
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
The head of the EPA’s southeastern regional office resigned days after an Alabama grand jury indicted him on state ethics charges, an agency spokesman confirmed Nov. 19.
Trey Glenn, administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 4 in Atlanta, was indicted Nov. 9. The charges appear to be related to his involvement in advocating against adding a contaminated site in Birmingham, Ala., to the federal National Priorities List of Superfund sites. The indictment hasn’t been made public.
Glenn submitted his resignation letter Nov. 18, after 14 months on the job. Mary Walker, deputy regional administrator for Region 4, will step in as acting administrator, according to a memo sent to EPA staff that a spokesman forwarded to Bloomberg Environment.
Walker previously worked as the assistant director and chief operating officer for the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, where she oversaw policy development and rulemaking for all media, permitting, and compliance programs, the email said.
Resignation Follows IndictmentGlenn and a former business partner Willie Scott Phillips Jr. were indicted on charges of using public office for personal gain and accepting items of value from lobbyists or others, the Alabama Ethics Commission said Nov. 13. Glenn also was indicted on conspiracy charges.
The two men previously advised as private consultants on the Birmingham 35th Avenue Superfund Site. The site is the subject of an attempted bribery and public corruption scandal in which a former Alabama state legislator, a coal company executive, and a lawyer have been convicted on federal charges.
Glenn had served as head of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management from 2005 until 2009, and Phillips served on the body that oversees that department, the Alabama Environmental Management Commission, until 2017.
After Glenn left the Alabama department, he and Phillips advised the coal business Drummond Co. and its law firm Balch & Bingham on the Birmingham site. Drummond opposed the site’s addition to the National Priorities List. The EPA identified Drummond subsidiary ABC Coke as one party potentially responsible for the contamination. A priority listing would mean an accelerated federal-led cleanup that could result in cost recovery litigation against Drummond.
The site’s potential listing is still pending. Glenn had temporarily recused himself from decision-making on the site prior to his indictment.
(Updates with additional details on the indictment)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/criminal-indictment-prompts-epa-southeast-region-chief-to-resign-1
-
5 Trends in Sustainable Retail Promoting Chemical Safety
Nov 20, 2018 | GreenBiz
By Mike Schade and Mike Belliveau
Scientists have linked exposure to toxic chemicals commonly found in our homes and the food we eat to serious diseases, learning disabilities and early death. Some physicians have called this a "silent epidemic" because the serious hazards of chemical exposures are so widespread, yet often go unnoticed.
Dangerous chemicals that escape from consumer products and food packaging are one major preventable source of this exposure. Just as we are learning more about how many toxic chemicals our families are exposed to, the federal government is rolling back regulation of those products.Shockingly, a chemical industry lobbyist has been put in charge of the federal government program that is supposed to protect us from toxic chemicals.
Retailers have an important "mind the store" role to play. With great market power comes great responsibility. Retailers are uniquely poised to work with their suppliers to find and replace toxic chemicals in products and packaging with safer substitutes.
In the third annual Who’s Minding the Store? Retailer Report Card, our coalition, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, graded the chemical policies and practices of 40 major retailers that sell products in North America as part of our Mind the Store campaign. The findings reveal that as concern about toxic chemicals grows among consumers and doctors alike, major retailers are making slow but meaningful progress in improving the safety of the products and packaging they sell. However, nearly half of those scored have failed to make the grade.
The report reveals five key trends in the retail chemical sustainability space:
1. Retailers continue to drive toxic chemicals out of consumer products
Many retailers are taking action to reduce or eliminate chemicals of high concern in consumer products.
Ten retailers, led by Lowe’s, have committed to ending the sale of chemical paint strippers containing methylene chloride or N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), most by the end of 2018, at more than 25,000 stores in the United States, Canada, Mexico and other countries. The Mind the Store campaign urged this retail leadership to break the logjam created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it shelved a proposed rule to phase out the deadly chemicals as required by the newly reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. Soon following the leadership ofLowe’s were Sherwin-Williams, The Home Depot, Walmart, True Value, PPG Paints, AutoZone, Kelly-Moore Paints, Canadian Tire and Home Hardware. The most compelling voices for retail leadership came from three families whose loved ones were killed from the use of these products.
The lack of public action by the EPA and W.M. Barr, the nation’s largest paint stripper manufacturer, stands in sharp contrast to this remarkable leadership by retailers.
2. Top retailers continue to strengthen or adopt new chemicals policies
Retailers are steadily improving their chemicals policies and practices for the products and packaging they buy and sell.Twenty-one out of 29 retailers (72 percent) evaluated in 2017 and 2018 improved over the last year.Since 2016, 11 retailers improved their grade from a D-plus to a C-plus.Since 2017, 18 more retailers improved their grade from a D to a D-plus.
Four retailers received the highest grades for their work to protect customers from toxic products and packaging: Apple; Target; Walmart; and IKEA.
Walgreens, Rite Aid and Amazon are the most improved retailers of 2018, each adopting sweeping chemicals policies over the past two months. Walgreens and Rite Aid pledged to eliminate a long list of chemicals of concern in beauty, personal care and household cleaning products. Amazon will encourage suppliers of some private-brand products to restrict dangerous chemicals, the first safer chemical policy of a dedicated e-commerce retailer.
Target, Lowe’s, Costco and Sephora also reported major gains in 2018.
3. Retailers are aligning around a common list of chemicals of concern
In other documented trends, retailers are working to replace entire classes of toxic chemicals with safer alternatives, rather than chasing one chemical at a time. For example, several are phasing out phthalates, parabens, formaldehyde-donors and nonylphenol ethoxylates as chemical classes.
Increasingly, retailers are screening products against long lists of dangerous chemicals. For example, Rite Aid will encourage its suppliers to avoid chemicals of concern included on the authoritative lists referenced by the Beauty and Personal Care (BPC) "stewardship list." Walgreenshas committed to monitoring the same list of chemicals in its beauty and personal care products over time. The authoritative lists that make up the "stewardship list" includes thousands of carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disrupters and other hazardous chemicals derived from six lists developed by authoritative government agencies in California, United States, Europe and other regions.
4. Food retailers seriously lag behind others in reducing chemical hazards
Food retailers are largely failing to adequately protect consumers from chemical hazards such as PFAS and phthalates associated with packaging and other food contact materials.
The average grade from our evaluation of the six restaurant chains, a retail sector scored in this year’s report card for the first time, was a resounding F for failure. Only Panera Bread, the fast-casual food leader, scored any points for having an (undisclosed) restricted substances list for packaging and beginning to work on phasing out PFAS in all of its packaging. Other restaurant chains failed to score any points at all or even respond to their draft grades, including fast-food leader McDonald’s and its competitors Restaurant Brands International (Burger King, Popeyes, Tim Hortons) and Yum! Brands (Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut), coffee leader Starbucks and sandwich king Subway.
5. Too many retailers fail to address the chemical safety of their products
Nineteen of 40 major retailers received a grade of F for failure to announce policies or publicly report progress to assess, reduce or eliminate chemicals of concern in the products or packaging they sell. Twelve retailers scored zero out of a possible 135 points. These retailers serve consumers at tens of thousands of stores in the U.S. and Canada. Yet they have little or no discernible public commitment to the chemical safety of the products and packaging they sell.
Several retail sectors lag behind others in chemical safety policies and practices. The worst performing retail sectors included:Restaurants: F grade average for six retailersDepartment stores: F grade average for four retailersDollar stores: F grade average for three retailersRetailers must step up to safeguard public health
Based on our findings, we recommend that every major retailer in North America should:
1. Policy: Publish a written safer chemicals policy, with senior management and board level engagement and accountability for suppliers, which measures and publicly reports on continuous improvement toward reducing, eliminating and safely substituting replacing toxic chemicals in products and packaging;
2. Goals and metrics: Develop clear public goals with timelines and quantifiable metrics to measure success in eliminating chemicals of concern and reducing retailers’ chemical footprint;
3. Transparency: Embrace "radical transparency" to meet rising consumer demand for full public disclosure of chemical ingredients in products and packaging, public safer chemicals policies and disclosure of both progress and challenges in eliminating harmful chemicals;
4. Avoid regrettable substitution: Develop mechanisms to evaluate the hazards of alternatives to ensure informed substitution; and
5. Foresight: Anticipate being graded in the future on progress made on chemical safety in products and packaging sold at retail, regardless whether your company was included in the Who’s Minding the Store? 2018 Retailer Report Card.
Retailers are on the front lines of consumer discontent with product safety. Much work remains to ensure that unnecessary toxic chemicals are no longer used to make the products and packaging we buy for our families.These companies know that the health and well-being of their customers is far more important than the special interests of chemical corporations. That’s why it’s time for all to mind the store.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/5-trends-sustainable-retail-promoting-chemical-safety
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Intervenors Oppose Environmentalists' Suit over DSW Rule
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
Industry parties intervening in litigation brought by environmentalists over EPA's revised definition of solid waste (DSW) rule are urging a federal appellate court to dismiss the case for a variety of reasons, including the court's lack of jurisdiction and that it already resolved these same legal issues in earlier litigation.
Environmental groups represented by the environmental law firm Earthjustice are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the agency's so-called transfer-based exclusion (TBE) in the rule, which the court reinstated from a 2008 rule, with two additional requirements. The litigation, California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA, was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The DSW rule, promulgated under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), regulates facilities that generate or recycle hazardous secondary materials, aiming in part to ease requirements for recycling of such materials while also preempting so-called sham recycling. The TBE requires generators of hazardous secondary material to make "reasonable efforts" to ensure recyclers meet the requirements of legitimate recycling. EPA issued a revised version of the rule this year in order to implement the D.C. Circuit's July 2017 and March 2018 rulings on an Obama-era rule.
Under those decisions, the court vacated aspects of the EPA's 2015 DSW rule, including its verified recycler exclusion (VRE), except for that exclusion's emergency preparedness requirements and a "contained" standard for managing materials prior to recycling. It replaced the VRE with TBE, a more relaxed Bush-era 2008 exclusion for third-party recyclers of hazardous secondary material that exempts them from stringent regulation as solid or hazardous waste.
But environmentalists sued soon after the new rule was released, contending that hazardous secondary material sent off-site for recycling is being discarded and is therefore waste. They argue that by paying to get rid of "unwanted" secondary hazardous materials, generators are discarding them, therefore meeting the definition of hazardous waste.
In response, the industry intervenors, which represent the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute and several other industry groups, echo similar arguments raised by EPA in a Nov. 6 brief rebutting environmentalists' arguments.
In a Nov. 16 brief filed in the case, intervenor-respondents provide several rationales for dismissal. First, they say, the court should reject the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. They argue that the grounds for the claim were actually present in 2008, and remain unchanged, rejecting the argument that EPA's implementation of the court's 2017 and 2018 decisions in the 2018 rule presents “'after-arising' grounds sufficient to excuse compliance” with a 90-day deadline for filing petitions to review a rule.
“[E]ach of the regulatory interpretations Petitioners challenge here come from the 2008 Rule, which was ripe for challenge in 2008, and, in fact, Petitioner Sierra Club filed such a challenge,” they say.
The intervenors also argue that in the 2017-2018 litigation, the court resolved the legal issues being raised by petitioners here, and therefore the petition is barred.
They explain that in the 2017-2018 decisions, the court recognized that hazardous secondary materials generators “often pay off-site reclaimers, and yet made clear that EPA had been required to promulgate an exclusion for such materials to cure the overbreadth of EPA's existing rules on reclamation,” the industry brief says.
“The Court would not have severed and affirmed provisions of the [VRE] and expressly reinstated the Transfer-Based Exclusion if it had seen any merit in Petitioners' claims,” it adds.
The intervenors also say the litigation lacks merit, noting that while EPA found generators often pay reclaimers to recycle secondary materials into products, “that is a far cry from paying for disposal.” EPA, in following the D.C. Circuit's prior decisions, “reasonably considered payment as one factor . . . in defining the absence of 'discard,'” they say. EPA's RCRA authority only extends to “discarded materials.”
EPA was reasonable in applying the “discard” criterion, and did not act arbitrarily when it declined “to subject secondary materials destined for reclamation to all the requirements applicable to hazardous wastes destined for disposal,” they say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industry-intervenors-oppose-environmentalists-suit-over-dsw-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) Inside 3M's Fight to Thwart a Massive Pollution Tab
Nov 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
Chemical industry giant 3M is waging an aggressive campaign to stave off new regulations and potentially billions of dollars in damages stemming from a contamination crisis that has fouled tens of millions of Americans’ drinking water.
The Minnesota-based company is putting its lobbying muscle to work in Washington and courting the support of state attorneys general as it faces potentially massive financial liability for toxic pollution linked to two of its nonstick and water repellent chemicals, which have turned up in the water supplies of more than 1,500 U.S. communities.
A key component of 3M’s campaign to fend off government action is a new industry advocacy group that began weighing into the debate this summer, arguing that the chemicals don’t pose a health threat — a conclusion that numerous government agencies and independent studies have disputed. The industry group’s efforts to raise doubts about the science have caused alarm among public health watchdogs who call them reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s old playbook.
3M’s combative posture contrasts with a more conciliatory approach taken by other giant companies that have been implicated in the pollution crisis, as well as the industry’s primary lobbying group, the American Chemistry Council. Those organizations have supported federal efforts to evaluate and regulate the chemicals, banking on the Trump administration to deliver industry-friendly rules.
But as the chemicals’ original and biggest manufacturer, 3M faces a different scale of risk.
A glimpse at the scope of its potential liability emerged in February, when 3M reached an $850 million settlement with Minnesota for damage the company’s chemicals caused to the state’s drinking water. New York state soon filed its own lawsuit, and outgoing Republican Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder asked his state’s attorney general to pursue litigation as well. Meanwhile, dozens of other personal injury, class-action and property damage lawsuits are piling up against the company across the country. Altogether, industry experts say the company’s liability could reach the tens of billions of dollars.
Joshua Aguilar, an equity analyst with Morningstar, said analysts view the Minnesota settlement as a one-off event, at least for now, but that the litigation from other states and class-action suits could threaten the company’s value.
“If you have different jurisdictions where this becomes serious, you have to settle one, you have to settle another, it becomes a contagion effect,” he said.
The chemicals, known as PFOA and PFOS, have been used for five decades in products ranging from firefighting foam to Teflon to 3M’s signature Scotchgard. They take years to break down in the environment, giving them the nickname “forever chemicals.” They also accumulate in human bodies, where they have been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, immune disorders and other ailments — and have been found in more than 99 percent of Americans’ blood.
Communities from New York to Michigan to Colorado have been in an uproar as more contaminations have come to light. Earlier this year, POLITICO reportedthat the Trump administration sought to block a federal study finding they pose a danger at lower levels than the EPA previously deemed safe — a conclusion one White House said warned could be “a public relations nightmare.” That study, published by an agency of the CDC, finally came out this summer.
3M did not respond to multiple questions from POLITICO about its political activity and lobbying around the chemicals, which are part of a broader category of substances known as PFAS. But it acknowledged its membership in the new advocacy group, the Responsible Science Policy Coalition, as well as being a member of other business-oriented organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable and the American Chemistry Council.
“3M is a technology and manufacturing company committed to scientific research and environmental stewardship,” company spokesperson Fanna Haile-Selassie said in a statement. She noted that the company, which lobbies on a wide variety of topics from taxes to health care, “voluntarily discloses its political activities and the public policy reasons behind them.”
An industry source with knowledge of the Responsible Science Policy Coalition said 3M is its main backer.
3M’s political action committee poured money into state-level campaigns this year including to attorney general candidates in Michigan, Ohio, California and Alabama — all states with major PFAS contaminations. The company also made its first contributions since at least 2013, totaling more than $36,000, to the Republican Attorneys General Association and its Democratic counterpart. Those groups, in turn, donate millions to their parties’ candidates for state attorney general without disclosing which contributions were directed by which corporate donors.
Some attorneys general have proven receptive to the company's message.
In Alabama, where the chemicals made by 3M’s manufacturing plant in Decatur have contaminated the Tennessee River, a drinking water source for 4.7 million people, the freshly reelected attorney general has refused to join a drinking water utility's lawsuit against the company. GOP Attorney General Steve Marshall received $2,000 from 3M's political action campaign, and RAGA gave $735,000 during his bruising primary — a contribution that both Republicans and Democrats in the state argue violates Alabama’s ban on contributions between political action committees. Records do not indicate whether 3M directed any of its RAGA donations to him.
The northern Alabama water utility that supplies some of the state's poorest communities with water drawn from just downstream of the 3M plant has sued the company over the contamination. The water utility's manager formally requested Marshall’s help in the litigation an Oct. 12 letter, and said that Marshall’s predecessor, former Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, had been collaborating with the water utility on the issue before Strange was appointed to the state’s open U.S. Senate seat in February 2017. But Marshall told a Huntsville television station last month that he is trying to determine whether his office has a role in the contamination case, WHNT-TV reported.
"I'm not the environmental watchdog," he told the station. “My job is to make sure that we enforce the laws and do things that are appropriate for the people of this state.”
Marshall’s office declined to respond to POLITICO’s queries about the campaign contributions or his stance on the lawsuit.
State attorneys general were also the audience for the first public appearance of the Responsible Science Policy Coalition.
The coalition’s lobbyist warned against acting too fast to regulate the chemicals when he spoke on a panel at the Conference of Western Attorneys General in New Mexico in July.
“So much of what you see in emerging chemicals is people jump forward because of public pressure and things like that, make decisions, but then as more science emerges, we realize, ‘Oh, maybe that wasn’t the right decision,’ and it’s very hard to pull things back once you’ve done them,” lobbyist Jonathan Gledhill told the attorneys general, according to a video posted online by the conference.
Representatives of the coalition have also met with several congressional offices and EPA political appointees in recent months, arguing that “the weight of current scientific evidence does not show that PFOS or PFOA cause adverse health effects in humans at current levels of exposure.” That conclusion flies in the face of findings by leading independent scientific researchers, EPA and the CDC.
The lobby group contends it is simply interested in assuring a sound process.
“The Coalition supports EPA’s ongoing efforts to evaluate and develop appropriate regulations and guidance for PFAS and to collaborate on testing, remediation and research that will help assist federal agencies, states and communities to more comprehensively evaluate PFAS occurrences,” coalition attorney James Votaw said in a statement to POLITICO.
But Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the strategy a classic industry approach to delaying and undermining regulations.
“The goal is to stave off regulation by questioning the science,” Halpern said. He likened the new industry group to a similarly named organization, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, that the tobacco industry used in the early 1990s to attack EPA’s findings on secondhand smoke.
Briefing materials from the Responsible Science Policy Coalition obtained by POLITICO feature charts comparing the average concentration of the chemicals in Americans’ blood with the levels at which the chemicals have been found to harm animals in industry-backed studies. The implication is that humans’ exposure is far below the level that causes harm.
But David Savitz, an epidemiologist at Brown University’s School of Public Health, called the approach “disingenuous.” He said scientists recognize that humans’ bodies aren’t the same as those of lab animals, and they adjust the comparisons to account for those differences.
Moreover, he said, looking at the average person’s exposure is misleading because people living near contaminated hotspots, like manufacturing sites or military bases, have far higher risks.
Indeed, 3M’s own internal documents, which were handed to the Minnesota attorney general’s office as part of the lawsuit that settled in February, show that the company has known since the 1970s that the chemicals were toxic, according to reporting by The Intercept.
The coalition’s efforts to question the chemicals’ harm have set off alarm bells on Capitol Hill, where Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, pressed Trump administration officials during a recent hearing to dispute the group’s arguments that the chemicals aren’t linked to illnesses.
“What this country needs is responsible regulation to protect the public’s health and the environment, not more efforts to delay solutions and downplay risks,” Carper said in a statement to POLITICO.
3M’s campaign against government regulation has even caused concern from others within industry. DuPont, which faces major liabilities for PFOA, and the industry’s biggest lobbying group, the American Chemistry Council, have backed EPA’s efforts to evaluate and regulate the chemicals, banking on the Trump administration to write the most industry-friendly regulations that they can hope for.
“You are never going to have a more favorable administration than this administration to set standards,” a person in the industry said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal industry discussions. “It doesn’t get any better than this.”
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt committed to taking the first step toward potentially regulating PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and setting cleanup standards. His successor, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, has reiterated that pledge.
Asked about agency officials’ meetings with 3M and the new coalition, EPA spokeswoman Molly Block said they have met with a “variety” of individuals and officials about the chemicals. She said the agency will issue a plan that outlines short- and long-term steps for dealing with the chemicals.
Still, a version of the strategy 3M is deploying at the national level has already borne fruit in the company’s home state of Minnesota. There, years before this February’s hefty legal settlement, 3M persuaded lawmakers and regulators to pull back from formally declaring the chemicals hazardous — a designation that could have brought even wider-reaching legal consequences.
But now the company is facing a new challenge, from a novel legal technique aimed at short-circuiting 3M’s efforts to question the science.
As part of a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of residents near DuPont’s Teflon manufacturing plant in Parkersburg, W.Va., a decade and a half ago, DuPont agreed to do medical monitoring and to convene an independent science panel to evaluate PFOA’s health effects. Those studies produced the lion’s share of evidence about the chemical’s effects on human health. And crucially, the settlement required that the company not only fund the independent research but be bound by its findings.
This February, that science led to a settlement between DuPont and residents affected by its plant’s water contamination, with the company agreeing to pay $670 million to 3,550 residents.
The Cincinnati attorney behind that suit has since filed a new lawsuit, on behalf of an Ohio firefighter, that seeks to create another independent science panel that would look at PFOA, PFOS and other chemicals in the class, whose findings would bind 3M, DuPont, Chemours and other major manufacturers of the chemicals.
“There is tremendous fear, anxiety, and uncertainty across the country as to the serious public health threat posed by PFAS contamination,” the attorney, Robert Bilott, said in a news release announcing the lawsuit in October. “This lawsuit could provide a mechanism for addressing and resolving those concerns through a truly comprehensive and independent, science-based process paid for by those that actually created the problem — and not by the American taxpayers.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/11/inside-3ms-fight-to-thwart-a-massive-pollution-tab-982475
-
EPA Advisers Seek Broad Plan to Help Local Governments Target PFAS
Nov 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A local government advisory panel to EPA is urging the agency to provide leadership to communities on a “coordinated and comprehensive” approach of regulatory actions and other steps to address perfluorinated chemicals, as communities struggle with the emerging unregulated contaminants in drinking water.
In response to an EPA charge last May to provide advice on the agency's action plan for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) submitted an advisory report Nov. 19 to the agency, calling for EPA leadership and a host of actions, some of which the agency has been weighing, including designating PFAS as hazardous under the Superfund law.
The panel was tasked with providing EPA with input into a national management plan for PFAS. EPA has indicated it aims to complete the plan by the end of this year.
The report references PFAS as an urgent issue for local officials, saying that in general, emerging unregulated contaminants, and specifically PFAS, “are challenging the systems and regulations designed to ensure that citizens have access to clean and safe water.”
“Communities need EPA to provide leadership in coordinating federal and state expertise to develop guidance for local governments and utility system operators,” the report continues. “These issues are urgent and important to local governments.”
In an accompanying letter to Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the panel calls for prioritizing actions based on risk. “We strongly urge EPA to place the highest priority on addressing the most imminent threats and danger to human health in communities at greatest risk.”
This would mean identifying communities near military bases -- which often used firefighting foam containing PFAS -- as well as historical or active large-scale firefighting operation areas such as airports, industrial sites or landfills with a legacy use or known releases, the letter says.
The group in the letter says the second-greatest priority is assessing public drinking water systems, asking the agency to identify and map areas where drinking water exceeds EPA's health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion for two of the most common PFAS.
EPA should also place a priority on dealing with exposures that may not be captured under “the regulatory umbrella for public drinking water systems,” it says. These, for instance, include small communities or communities on well water in high-risk areas.
LGAC also calls for immediate designation of the compounds perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Superfund law -- something EPA is exploring -- and endorses development of a groundwater policy as a “high priority, short term step.” The former would help communities address contamination sources and shift the burden of cleanup from the rate payer to the polluter, the letter says.
EPA has also been working on groundwater cleanup guidance; LGAC says it “is important to move ahead with groundwater policy because migration is one of the ways contamination can spread undetected.”
Interagency Taskforce
In the report, the panel also urges EPA to lead an interagency taskforce to provide a unified federal approach on PFAS, leading to an action plan for federal agencies.
The plan would include partnering with local communities, increasing financial and technical assistance to states, tribes and local governments, helping them identify and clean up PFAS sites and offering health risk education and information to provide prevention and testing guidance to state, tribal and local communities, the report says.
The group also says there is an “urgent need” for an enforceable federal drinking water standard for PFAS -- a measure that some states and communities have long urged. In addition, the agency “should immediately identify effective monitoring strategies for PFAS which should be shared with state, local and tribal partners.”
EPA also needs to further work on laboratory certification programs for the chemicals, LGAC says.
And on the funding front, LGAC says “More sources of funding are needed to address the expanded monitoring that is required for PFAS.” For instance, more funding for private well testing is needed, as such tests have been identified as an unfunded gap in monitoring work.
LGAC also calls for “a clearinghouse of definitive and consistent information regarding PFAS contamination and related health effects.” It notes that communities are struggling with several questions on this, such as how to determine if a community's drinking water or groundwater is contaminated, and what actions should be taken if contamination is found, as well as determining the health effects of exposure.
In the letter, the group also says the agency should continue addressing multiple topics, including “direct engagement with states and tribes on any new PFAS advisories and guidelines; the need for more health effects research for additional PFAS compounds and advancement of analytical methods.”
It adds that “Guidance for wastewater discharges, underground injection control, soil leaching standards and air emissions is also needed. EPA's leadership is crucial to mitigating a building public health crisis that is not easily solvable without coordinated and collaborative action.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-advisers-seek-broad-plan-help-local-governments-target-pfas
-
NRDC Agrees to EPA Extension of Perchlorate Water Standard Deadline
Nov 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists have grudgingly agreed to EPA's request to extend until April a court-ordered deadline for proposing a health-based drinking water goal for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate, acknowledging that EPA has yet to craft such a standard while expressing their frustration with the pace of the agency's efforts.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) writes in a Nov. 16 filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that it “will not oppose Defendants’ motion to modify the consent decree. The proposed perchlorate rule remains unfinished. . . . Thus, enforcing the consent decree’s terms without modification would be futile, and would not serve the public interest."
The group adds, however, that “NRDC’s consent to an extension should not be mistaken for an endorsement of the agency’s efforts to meet the consent decree’s deadline.”
EPA's August request to extend by six months its Oct. 31 court-ordered deadline to propose a perchlorate drinking water standard triggered an automatic extension of three months or until the judge rules. The automatic extension is written into the agency's 2016 consent agreement with NRDC.
The settlement sought to end NRDC's February 2016 suit, which charged that EPA missed a two-year Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) deadline for proposing a national drinking water goal after then-Administrator Lisa Jackson's 2011 determination that perchlorate should be regulated.
Should EPA comply with the settlement and issue a drinking water standard for the substance it would mark the first such limit the agency has issued since Congress amended SDWA in 1996.
But EPA's efforts have been hobbled since then by challenges in expanding a model as directed by agency science advisors, and in seeking peer review of the updated model.
EPA on Aug. 30 sought to amend the settlement agreement and extend the Oct. 31 deadline to April 30, 2019, citing as its reason a longer than anticipated peer review process to complete the model.
The agency attached to its request a deposition from Eric Burneson, chief of the Standards and Risk Management Division within EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The two-step peer review of the biologically-based dose-response model took six months longer than EPA anticipated when it reached the settlement with NRDC, Burneson writes.
NRDC responded with a request for discovery on EPA's request to delay the deadline, arguing it was unable to respond without more information from EPA. The parties agreed for NRDC to depose Burneson in his personal capacity. NRDC cites information from this deposition in its reply.
“The entirety of the delay to date has resulted from EPA’s decision, at the suggestion of its Science Advisory Board [(SAB)], to use a novel modeling approach to deriving a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for perchlorate,” NRDC says.
While EPA correctly notes that SDWA mandates the agency to seek comments from SAB before proposing a new drinking water standard, Congress also expressly admonished that the consultation “shall, under no circumstances, be used to delay final promulgation of any national primary drinking water standard,” NRDC says, quoting from SDWA.
“The years of delay that have been spent developing a model for deriving an MCLG for perchlorate violate both the text and the purpose of this clear directive.”
Nevertheless, NRDC concludes that “[a] six-month extension will provide ample time for the agency to complete remaining drafting, reviews, and revisions on a proposed perchlorate rule. NRDC anticipates the agency will complete its work promptly and publish a proposed perchlorate rule without further delay.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/nrdc-agrees-epa-extension-perchlorate-water-standard-deadline
-
Nov 19, 2018 | Yahoo News
By Korin Miller
There’s nothing like toy shopping online for your kids when you’re hit with an ominous warning: “This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”
What on earth does it mean? And how wary should you be?
The warning stems from California’s Proposition 65 — aka the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — which protects the state’s drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, according to the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
It also warns about products in general that might cause exposure to chemicals identified by the state as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. In 2016, OEHHA adopted new regulations — they went into effect in late August 2018 — that changed the information required on Proposition 65 warnings.
So now parents who live anywhere in the country are seeing them through several major online retailers, which are required to include the warning when a product doesn’t mean OEHHA standards.
That sounds pretty terrifying. How worried about this should you be?
“We shouldn’t ignore warnings, but here in California you walk into a Starbucks and there’s the warning. You walk everywhere and there’s this warning,” Danelle Fisher, chair of pediatrics at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif., tells Yahoo Lifestyle. Prop 65 includes a list of more than 900 chemicals “that have been shown to potentially cause cancer or birth defects,” Fisher says. “That in and of itself makes you jump back.”
Some of those potential harms, says Samara Geller, senior research and database analyst at the Environmental Working Group, “may be associated with cumulative exposure to small doses over time,” while “in other cases, including with certain endocrine disruptors such as BPA, exposure during critical windows of development may impact the growing brain or reproductive system in detrimental ways.”
That said, Fisher notes, “the cancer-causing ability of these chemicals is rare.” Still, she recommends keeping in mind how your child is going to use the toy before you brush off the warning.
“Are they going to put it in their mouth? That’s the most concerning,” she says, noting that “toddlers mouth everything.” Still, she adds, that doesn’t mean that all children are going to develop cancer if they do end up putting one of these toys in their mouth. “Just be aware that it has been identified that one of the chemicals in this product could potentially cause cancer,” she says. “I would just view it as a warning, like anything else.”
If your child is older and you end up purchasing a toy that’s been flagged by the Prop 65 warning, Fisher says you can encourage your little one to wash his or her hands after playing with the toy “if you want to be completely cautious and safe about the warning.”
Still, “I would caution families not to get too concerned about that warning,” Fisher says. “Just think about what your child is going to be doing with the toy and go from there.”
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/product-contains-chemicals-known-cause-cancer-navigate-prop-65s-scary-warnings-toy-shopping-201310147.html
-
Global Study Finds Mercury in Skin-Lightening Creams
Nov 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
A global study by NGO coalition the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) has found "dangerous" levels of mercury in skin-lightening creams in several countries.
Of the 338 such creams it tested from 22 countries between 2017 and 2018, 10% had mercury concentrations ranging from 93 to 16,353 parts per million (ppm).
These levels, the report highlighted, "significantly" exceed not only national laws but also the provisions of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. The treaty, agreed in 2013, will ban the manufacture, import or export of cosmetics with a mercury content above 1ppm after 2020.
Fifteen of the targeted countries have legislation covering skin-lightening creams, and 14 of these "appear to have a ban – via law or otherwise" on mercury content above 1ppm, ZMWG said.
The countries where high levels on mercury were found are:
· Bangladesh;
· Dominican Republic;
· Indonesia;
· Mauritius;
· the Philippines;
· Thailand; and
· Trinidad and Tobago.
‘Skyrocketing’ demand
Skin-lightening creams target the production of the pigment melanin in the skin cells and pose serious risks for human health.
In particular, when mercury is added as an active ingredient, the short- and long-term effects can include damage to the skin, eyes, lungs, kidneys, digestive, immune and nervous systems, the study warned.
However, according to the study, the use of such products is "prevalent" around the globe, and the demand is "skyrocketing".
This is especially the case in Asia, the Middle East and Africa, where sales exceeded US$17.9bn (€15.6bn) in 2017, and are projected to reach $31.2bn by 2024. The creams are mostly used among women but increasingly by men, mainly due to a widespread social stereotyping on the basis of skin colour.
"In light of the increasing demand and the large range of skin-lightening products available, more regulations, guidelines and programmes are needed to curtail this global crisis, along with better enforcement and the use of effective risk communication strategies," ZMWG said.
As a first step, it added, the 34 creams found to exceed the 1ppm mercury limit should be immediately removed from the market.
Towards 2020
The Minamata Convention, which entered into force in August 2017, aims to protect human health and the environment from the hazardous effects of mercury. So far, 98 countries have fully signed up to it.
Ahead of the provisions coming into force, ZMWG issued a number or recommendations, including:
· scaling up efforts to control illegally imported cosmetics – including border controls – and tracking down manufacturers and distributors of high mercury-containing cosmetics;
· improving communication and raising awareness about the risks of toxic cosmetics, and ceasing discriminatory advertising;
· updating listings of illegal products and contributing to a global listing on UN agency and Interpol websites;
· ensuring retailers, including e-shops, remove hazardous or illegal products from sale; and
· putting in place national regulations providing for compulsory labelling of all cosmetics.
The EU adopted its own regulation on mercury on 25 April. It includes a ban on the use of dental amalgam for children under 15, and pregnant or breastfeeding women.
It came into force on 1 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72172/global-study-finds-mercury-in-skin-lightening-creams
-
This Space Startup Could Lace Atmosphere With Toxic Mercury
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Elgin
Underneath its Silicon Valley sheen, Apollo Fusion Inc. may be keeping a toxic secret.
In Mountain View, Calif., a mile from the Google headquarters where its co-founder and several of its scientists used to work, the space startup is trying to develop better, cheaper propulsion systems for a new generation of satellites. Investors led by LinkedIn Corp. co-founder Reid Hoffman handed the two-year-old company $10 million in venture funding earlier this year, on the promise of breakthrough technology that Hoffman has said will “enable the second space race.” But if Apollo sticks with a plan it has shared with some potential customers, the losers may include everyone on Earth.
Apollo Fusion has designed its propulsion systems to use mercury as a fuel, according to four industry insiders with direct knowledge of its technology. NASA began moving away from mercury in the 1970s, owing to concerns about contamination on the ground. Even tiny doses of mercury, a powerful neurotoxin, can impair a person’s cognitive functions, leading to lower IQ, damaged motor skills, and decreased memory. Apollo pitched the toxic element as part of its technology to potential customers as recently as this summer, three of the insiders say. All four spoke on condition of anonymity, because they’d signed nondisclosure agreements. Propulsion experts say mercury is a tempting choice, despite the safety hazards, because its performance is better than that of alternatives like xenon or krypton.
Apollo says it has a contract with one customer and is in discussions with at least two others, but it declined to name them or discuss its designs or environmental concerns. “We don’t comment on our proprietary technology due to competitive risks, either on innovations that we’ve built or things that we’re testing,” co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Michael Cassidy said in an email. “We are also committed to maintaining a low impact on the environment.” Hoffman, who sits on Apollo’s board, said the company is evaluating a number of different technologies. “No decisions have been made,” he said in an email.
U.S. government agencies have sought to reduce national mercury emissions for more than two decades through various rules. The feds limited the chemical’s use in batteries, for example, and require most coal-fired power plants to install scrubbers that remove it from their exhaust. The U.S. is one of 128 countries to sign the Minamata Convention, a treaty aimed at reducing mercury emissions that took effect last year.
So far, though, existing rules don’t do much to cover spacecraft at the outer reaches of the planet’s atmosphere. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration requires space companies to disclose hazardous materials in their payloads, but its oversight doesn’t extend to communications satellites, including the many being proposed for high-speed internet access. Those are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, which does little to monitor the substances shot into space. “It’s a regulatory blind spot big enough to launch a satellite through,” says Kevin Bell, staff counsel at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit advocacy group.
In the 61 years since Sputnik’s launch, more than 8,000 satellites have flown in orbit, most launched by governments. About 2,000 remain operational. Today, private companies promise a surge in relatively tiny models that will fly at lower altitudes and dwarf the total for the first six decades. OneWeb, for instance, plans to send 1,980 satellites into orbit to provide global high-speed internet access, while Elon Musk’s SpaceX plans to launch 4,425 for its own low-cost internet service. All told, companies have filed federal applications to send up more than 20,000 satellites in the next decade, though analysts expect only a fraction to make it to orbit.
If Apollo’s purportedly mercury-driven technology were widely used—by, say, a constellation of 1,000 satellites—the environmental impact could be significant. The amount of propellant in each would depend on various factors, including the satellite’s size, mission, life span, and altitude. A case study on Apollo’s website that the company calls a “representative configuration” ideal for a low-orbit satellite would carry 20 kilograms of an unnamed propellant. Multiply that by 1,000, and the constellation of satellites could use 20,000 kilograms, or 20 metric tons, of mercury, which would be released over the satellites’ estimated five to seven years in orbit. By comparison, the entire U.S. emits about 50 metric tons of mercury each year; the entire population of the world generates about 2,000 metric tons.
Many of the proposed satellites would orbit 300 kilometers to 1,200 km above the Earth. Mercury emitted at those altitudes would mostly remain in the atmosphere and migrate down over several years, eventually returning to the oceans and soil, says Steve Brooks, an associate professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. “It’s a very heavy element that is not going to easily escape the Earth’s gravity,” Brooks says. “Almost all of the mercury that you put up there will find its way back down.”
Apollo was created in 2016 by Cassidy, then a Google vice president, and Benjamin Longmier, a professor of aerospace engineering who previously sold a space-tech company to Apple Inc. The duo initially hoped to make a new breed of safe, cheap nuclear power plants that could be shipped anywhere on Earth. The following year, the company switched gears and began developing its thruster system for satellites. Last December it said its technology could deliver three times more force in the same time as existing technologies, saving companies as much as $250,000 per satellite.
It’s not clear who’s signed a contract with Apollo, but the four industry insiders say the company’s planned use of mercury has been made known in extensive discussions with potential customers, including OneWeb and Planet Labs Inc., which operates about 130 satellites that provide high-resolution Earth images to commercial and government clients. (OneWeb and Planet Labs say they aren’t doing business with Apollo.)
Environmental scientists who’ve been working for years to curtail mercury pollution are frustrated by the potential emergence of a market for mercury propulsion, says Dan Jaffe, a professor of environmental chemistry at the University of Washington at Bothell. “Using a toxic chemical that we’re spending billions of dollars to clean up,” he says, “is probably a dumb idea.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/this-space-startup-could-lace-atmosphere-with-toxic-mercury
-
EU Parliament Shuns High Pops Limit Proposal in Recycled Plastic
Nov 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
European lawmakers have rejected a proposal in a recast of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) Regulation that would have allowed high concentrations of toxic flame retardants, including decaBDE, in plastic toys made from recycled material.
On 15 November, MEPs voted 567 in favour of the recast, with 23 against and 27 abstentions. But they turned down several amendments added to it later, including an attempt to set a derogation limit 100 times higher on decaBDE and four similar POPs in mixtures than the one adopted for the substance on its own.
NGOs campaigned strongly against amendment 30, which called for a 1,000ppm limit on decaBDE substances in their entirety in mixtures or articles. They suggested a more protective standard of 10ppm, after a major study found flame retardants in plastic toys and other articles made from recycled electronic waste.
British independent MEP and rapporteur Julie Girling tabled the amendment, arguing that European plastics recyclers handling electronics or end-of-life vehicles would be hit hard otherwise.
A spokesperson for Ms Girling told Chemical Watch the European Council discussed the outcome of the vote at a meeting on 19 November and the position should be known in "the coming days".
The European Commission, Council and Parliament should then enter into trilogue negotiations in early December, the spokesperson added. If an agreement is not reached before 21 December, the Romanian presidency of the Council will conclude negotiations, once it is established in January.
The MEPs' vote follows strong backing for the recast from Parliament's environment committee (Envi) last month.
NGO reaction
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said it was "satisfied" with the outcome of the vote. "There is a tendency to underestimate the properties of POPs," chemicals project officer Elise Vitali said. "Some, such as decaBDE, have been described as 'less bad' than others, even by [Ms] Girling."
Industry and decision makers "must understand that recycling is not a way out for any toxic materials", Ms Vitali added. "The EU must oppose those trying to introduce derogations leading to toxic contamination of recycled streams by POPs."
The International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen) said the verdict on decaBDE could lead to "an end of toxic recycling" and would also offer stronger protection from hazardous waste dumping in developing countries.
It called on the Council and member states to "confirm and implement" the measures.
Green light
Other amendments to the recast that MEPs endorsed included:
· amendment 26: this allows short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) in high concentrations in the environment. NGOs had called for a 100ppm limit – well below the 10,000ppm POPs content level backed by the EU;
· amendment 4 on Echa’s new tasks: NGOs had said this assigns "inappropriate" responsibilities to the agency outside its mandate and would "severely restrict" member states' ability to nominate POPs; and
· amendment 37: tabled by the European Greens, this introduces a 500mg/kg low POPs content limit for all polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) flame retardants.
The EEB said it was "really concerned" about SCCPs because the agreed limit is "not protective enough". SCCPs are used as flame retardants and softeners in plastics, including children’s products.
In total, fourteen amendments were added at plenary stage – 30 to 43 – and Parliament rejected all except amendment 37. The previous 29 amendments, including those on SCCPs and Echa, had been approved at committee stage.
The recast is set to align the Regulation’s procedures with requirements of the Lisbon Treaty and give Echa new tasks. It also incorporates recent decisions taken within the framework of the Stockholm Convention and the POPs Protocol.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72173/eu-parliament-shuns-high-pops-limit-proposal-in-recycled-plastic
-
Increased Oil, Gas Production Boosts Interior Lands Revenue by $400M in 2017
Nov 19, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Increased oil and natural gas production, as well as regulatory reform and other factors, led to a $400 million surge in economic output on federal lands during the first year of the Trump administration, according to a report by the Interior Department.
According to Interior's Economic Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, economic output increased "for the first time in several years" to $292 billion. The number of jobs supported by federal lands and resources also increased to 1.8 million, an increase of 230,000.
"Anyone who grew up in the West can tell you that federal lands are working lands and, if managed properly, they support jobs and economic activity for communities in industries like recreation, energy, agriculture, and mining," said Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. "The same is true for coastal areas like the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska...
"This report shows that thanks to smart regulatory reforms and increased access, federal lands and waters are once again increasing economic output and creating jobs."
The report found that royalties from oil and gas production on public lands increased by nearly $1 billion in FY2017. Interior received royalties from 869 million bbl of crude oil, 4.6 Tcf of natural gas and 347 million tons of coal. Total onshore and offshore oil and gas production, coupled with coal production on land managed by Interior, supported about $134 billion in economic output and 676,000 jobs, the report said.
Interior added that in FY2017, the energy and minerals sector supported 743,000 jobs, $88.2 billion in additional value and $152 billion in economic output.
During FY2017, more than half of Interior's semi-annual regulatory agenda had been eliminated, resulting in savings of $3.8 billion over time, it said.
Four of the top five states cited in the report for having the largest contribution to the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) are major oil and gas producers. Wyoming topped the list with a $12.7 billion contribution to GDP, followed by Texas ($11.3 billion), New Mexico ($10.1 billion), California ($5.7 billion) and Colorado ($5.6 billion).
The report also found that the number of oil and gas wells on federal and tribal lands had increased by almost 85% between FY2016 and FY2017. The gains were most pronounced in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
"The increase in activity was likely driven in large part by rebounding oil and gas prices, which increased about 25% over the period," Interior said. "In FY2017, federal and tribal well development supported over 100,000 jobs and $7.8 billion in labor income, and contributed approximately $22.5 billion to national economic output."
Interior expects the economic impact from federal lands to increase again in FY2018, citing "expanded access to federal lands, regulatory reform, increased energy production and more projects being approved for development." The department said regulatory reform actions for FY2018 had already resulted in savings of about $2.5 billion in net present value.
According to several media reports, Zinke could be on his way out at Interior. In a weekend interview on Fox News, President Trump said he was considering changing "three or four or five positions" within his cabinet. Although the president did not name Zinke specifically, the Interior secretary's name has floated as a possible change in the wake of a Justice Department investigation and scrutiny by House Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona.
Interior's Inspector General (IG) opened an investigation into Zinke last July, following allegations that Zinke violated conflict of interest laws by cooperating with a Halliburton Co. executive to advance land developments in Zinke's hometown, Whitefish, MT. The IG also reportedly looked into whether the Trump administration's decision last December to reduce the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah from 1.88 million acres to about one million acres was done to benefit a local politician. Zinke reportedly backed the reduction.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116522-increased-oil-gas-production-boosts-interior-lands-revenue-by-400m-in-2017
-
Permian Shale Companies Pledge $100M to West Texas, New Mexico
Nov 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Seventeen energy companies operating in West Texas' booming Permian Basin said they're pledging more than $100 million to help improve roads, schools, health care, housing and workforce training.
The mostly rural region in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico was upended by the oil-drilling resurgence in Permian shale in the last couple of years, and the community services and housing supplies were woefully unprepared for the influx of new people.Recommended Video
The list The Permian Strategic Partnership, which was formed earlier this year, has quickly grown from a handful of companies to 17 and counting. The list includes Big Oil players Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, as well as a bevy of Houston producers such as Occidental Petroleum, EOG Resources, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Apache Corp., and major services providers such as Schlumberger and Halliburton.
The partnership announced its new pledge to serve as seed money for public-private partnerships to help support the necessary growth. After all, the energy companies struggle to operate on dilapidated roads in cities without the necessary housing, health care and schools to accommodate their employees.
For most of this year the Midland-Odessa region has represented the nation's hottest housing market, according to the National Association of Realtors, beating out coastal tech centers like San Francisco and Boston.
The companies announced the initiative Monday in a letter published in the Midland Reporter-Telegram, a sister paper of the Houston Chronicle.
"A once-in-a-generation opportunity has brought us together for a common purpose – to strengthen the communities where we live and work," the partnership said in the announcement.
The plan is, in the coming months, for the partnership to open an office and hire staff to help lead the effort. Early next year, the companies will launch a series of community meetings to invite citizen input and recruit volunteers.
"This will be a long-term process," the announcement stated. "Building new roads, recruiting new doctors and teachers, and developing new neighborhoods will require years of work, substantial resources and sustained cooperation among many entities. But we share a sense of urgency with our communities to find both interim and long-term solutions."
The companies argued that the Permian shale boom is nothing short of remarkable and that then the Permian alone will soon produce the most oil in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Permian already accounts for almost one-third of the United States' record-high oil production.
The announcement also argued that even though oil and gas is cyclical -- indeed, oil prices are down more than 25 percent in the last 45 days -- that technological and efficiency gains are ensuring that the Permian will keep thriving even during downturns for the foreseeable future.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Permian-shale-firms-pledge-100M-to-West-Texas-13405232.php
-
Arkema’s Wishes Granted as Regulator Widens Use of Plastic Pipes
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Arkema Inc., Ube Industries Ltd., and Evonik Industries AG stand to benefit from new federal regulations allowing more of the companies’ plastic pipe products to transport natural gas.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is allowing the use of newer types of plastic pipe to transport natural gas at higher pressures. The agency is updating its regulations to stay current with the new products and emerging uses of plastic pipes.
The final version of the agency’s rule will be published in the Federal Register Nov. 20.
The companies and the American Petroleum Institute, a national oil and natural gas industry association, had petitioned the agency to update its regulations for plastic pipes. In its petition, Arkema noted that specific types of plastic pipe have been safely used since 1999 and that the same types had been used in offshore oil and gas lines, and for gas systems in Australia.
In an earlier draft of the rule, the agency proposed updating requirements for locating and keeping records of plastic pipes. After companies and gas industry associations told the agency it should drop those changes from the final rule, the agency agreed to delay regulations on those aspects until later.
The regulatory changes will go into effect 60 days after the rule (RIN:2137-AE93) is published in the Federal Register.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/arkemas-wishes-granted-as-regulator-widens-use-of-plastic-pipes
-
North Dakota Oil Industry Pushing to Loosen Crude Oil Safety Rules
Nov 19, 2018 | Insurance Journal
North Dakota oil industry leaders are pushing to loosen the state’s oil conditioning regulations, but an environmental group is arguing to tighten rules.
The North Dakota Industrial Commission is considering changing regulations adopted nearly four years ago to make Bakken crude oil safer for rail transportation after fiery train derailments, the Bismarck Tribune reported. Under the regulations, companies must remove the most volatile gases from Bakken crude oil to ensure vapor pressure doesn’t exceed 13.7 pounds per square inch.
Companies must report vapor pressure tests to regulators quarterly.
About 60,000 vapor pressure tests have been submitted, and of those, about one in 1,000 exceeded the threshold, according to North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms.
The commission is looking into reducing how often companies have to submit vapor pressure tests to regulators.
The North Dakota Petroleum Council urged the commission at a hearing on Nov. 13 to change the rules so that tests should be submitted annually, instead of quarterly.
Kari Cutting, the industry group’s vice president, said reducing the amount of data submitted to regulators wouldn’t change the requirement to meet the vapor pressure threshold.
“The intended impact is to allow North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources to focus its efforts where they will be the most effective and increase their enforcement efficiency without reducing the oversight of rail transportation,” Cutting said.
But the Dakota Resource Council says the current rules are insufficient and that the quarterly reporting requirement should stay in place.
Scott Skokos, the council’s executive director, said the industry is easily meeting the 13.7 psi threshold, which indicated that “the regulation is essentially not actually doing much.”
“It looks like they could actually be setting the bar a little bit higher,” Skokos said.
Helms said the commission will take action on the oil conditioning regulations Dec. 18.
North Dakota set oil and gas production records in September, but a slowdown is expected in the coming months due to a sharp drop in oil prices.
The state’s director of mineral resources, Lynn Helms, said that oil production surged to a record 1.36 million barrels per day, while natural gas output hit an all-time high of 2.5 billion cubic feet per day in September.
But the gas volume that was flared off instead of captured also hit a record at 457 million cubic feet per day. The capture rate was 83 percent, missing an 85 percent target for the fifth straight month. The target rose to 88 percent this month.
The North Dakota Industrial Commission is expected to take action on Nov. 20 on changes to the gas capture policy.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2018/11/19/509696.htm
-
Dems Demand Answers About Disbanded Advisory Group
Nov 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
More than a dozen Senate Democrats are asking acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler to fully explain his recent decision to disband an entire air quality advisory panel.
That step, coupled with others taken by EPA under the Trump administration, "could have the effect of jeopardizing the environment and human health" by leading to the appointment of less-qualified industry representatives, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and 15 colleagues said in a letter to Wheeler late last week.
More broadly, the lawmakers want a detailed description of how EPA chooses members for all of its almost two dozen advisory committees, along with documents related to the agency's assessment of potential conflicts of interest for nominees. They asked EPA to update that information every three months.
EPA representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Prompting the letter was Wheeler's announcement last month that he was disbanding the auxiliary panel charged with helping to review the agency's ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Wheeler also called off plans to form a comparable panel to aid in the assessment of EPA's ground-level ozone standard.
Instead, Wheeler concentrated that responsibility in the seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which is now dominated by recent appointees with little evident background in air quality research. Apart from saying through a spokesman that the decision was consistent with the Clean Air Act and the committee's charter, Wheeler has offered no explanation for ending the use of the auxiliary panels, which date back at least 30 years.
The periodic reviews of the standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other "criteria" pollutants are required under the Clean Air Act; the CASAC is supposed to provide outside expertise in assessing whether the existing thresholds are strong enough to protect human health and the environment. In connection with a recently launched fast-track review of the ozone standard, the CASAC is set to hold a Nov. 29 public teleconference. The committee has also scheduled a two-day meeting next month related to a review of the particulate matter standards begun three years ago.
Under the current administration, EPA's oversight of once-obscure advisory committees has become a lightning rod for controversy. A policy imposed last fall by then-Administrator Scott Pruitt bars current EPA grant recipients from serving on those committees. That policy, which the agency has enforced unevenly, is the subject of three pending lawsuits.
Democratic lawmakers have also questioned whether the previously expressed positions of some recent CASAC appointees could cloud their handling of the air quality reviews. In their letter, they wrote that a roster of 174 candidates for another panel, the Science Advisory Board, includes several "problematic nominees," including one who had received tobacco industry funding and another whose clients have included Exxon Mobil Corp.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/19/stories/1060106707
-
EPA Defends CASAC from Critics' Attacks on NAAQS Reviews
Nov 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is defending its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) from some critics' claims that the panel lacks the ability to thoroughly oversee EPA's reviews of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants on a compressed schedule.
The agency has opted to abandon specialized panels to advise the seven-member chartered CASAC on its reviews of ozone and PM standards, and has further replaced all seven members of the chartered committee since the Obama era. A majority of CASAC members are now state regulators, rather than scientists, and the committee is chaired by an industry consultant known for his skepticism of some studies linking air pollution to health problems.
Some former CASAC members and specialized panelists, and public health advocates, say this will deprive the committee of the capacity to properly review EPA documents prepared in support of PM and ozone NAAQS reviews that are projected to conclude by late 2020.
Several former CASAC specialized panelists intend to mount a “shadow” review of the PM and ozone standards, submitting comments to CASAC and EPA, and attending CASAC meetings as members of the public, sources say.
Further, the CASAC is now tasked with reporting on the “adverse” consequences of NAAQS implementation, again spurring criticism that it lacks the skill set required to conduct such analysis.
The agency says that CASAC's “new members are highly qualified and have a diverse set of backgrounds in fields like toxicology, engineering, medicine, ecology, and atmospheric science.”
Senate Democrats are pressing the agency on its handling of CASAC and EPA science more broadly, writing a letter to Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler Nov. 15 demanding answers on a range of issues, including why EPA dismissed the PM and ozone NAAQS review panels.
An EPA spokesman told Inside EPA Nov. 19 that, “EPA and CASAC welcome public comments throughout the ozone and particulate matter standard review process. We will respond to the Senate Democrats through the proper channels.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-defends-casac-critics-attacks-naaqs-reviews
-
‘Insane’ California Air Topped World Health Standard by 60 Times
Nov 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian K. Sullivan
California’s air exceeded world health standards by 60 times last week, and conditions Nov. 19 continued to top safe thresholds with the deadliest blaze ever in the state is about 65 percent contained.
Last week, particulates in the air reached as high as 1,500 micrograms per cubic meter. The threshold set by the World Health Organization is 25. Lower levels Nov. 19 still exceeded the benchmark.
“It is just insane,” said Rebecca Buchholz, a project scientist, who studies pollution from fires at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. “It is quite amazing how high these fine-particulate levels are.”
The Camp Fire blaze in Butte County, California, has killed at least 77 people, destroyed 10,623 homes and consumed 150,000 acres, according to Cal Fire. The blaze will probably be extinguished by Nov. 30.
The smoke has drifted far south. On Nov. 19, Sacramento’s air was listed as unhealthy and particulates reached a level of 135.4 micrograms per cubic meter, according to the U.S. Forest Service. San Francisco has a reading of 55 with San Jose at 76.1 and Stockton at 152.
The particulates can irritate lungs, eyes, and nasal passages and are particularly dangerous for people with respiratory diseases, Buchholz said. In addition to the smoke, fires cause ground-level ozone to form, triggering more-severe health issues.
Heavy rain is forecast on Nov. 21, raising the risk for mudslides because trees and brush have been lost. The poor air quality won’t just end when the fires go out, Buchholz said.
Smoldering will keep smoke in the air, and without the heat of an active fire to push particles into the atmosphere, they will linger near the ground, she said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/insane-california-air-topped-world-health-standard-by-60-times
-
Zinke Blames ‘Environmental Radicals’ for Deadly California Fires
Nov 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke blamed “environmental radicals” for the California wildfires that have killed at least 77 people, saying they stop forest management practices that could have prevented the fires.
Days after touring the damage of the Camp fire, the deadliest in California’s history, Zinke went on Breitbart News Sunday and declared “it’s not the time for finger-pointing” on the causes of the fires.
But minutes later, he put the blame squarely on environmentalists, contending that they stood in the way of clearing brush, doing prescribed burns and other actions.ADVERTISEMENT
“I will lay this on the foot of those environmental radicals that have prevented us from managing the forests for years. And you know what? This is on them,” Zinke said.
“We have dead and dying timber. We can manage it using best science, best practices,” he continued. “But to let this devastation go on year after year after year is unacceptable, it’s not going to happen. The president is absolutely engaged.”
The Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental group, criticized Zinke for his remarks, saying he should instead focus on recovery and the victims of the fires.
“Perhaps it’s the numerous investigations, the potential criminal charges eating at him, or the fact that he still doesn’t even know what department the Forest Service is under, but Ryan Zinke would best be served by focusing on the people rather than making disgusting and dangerous accusations,” Athan Manuel, the group’s public lands director, said in a statement.
Zinke’s interview aired the day after President Trump visited the firefighting and recovery. Trump said other countries, like Finland, prevent and mitigate fires by better managing the forests.
"You’ve got to take care of the floors. You know, the floors of the forest, very important,” he told reporters.
“I was with the president of Finland and he said, ‘We have a much different — we're a forest nation.’ He called it a forest nation, and they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things,” he said. “And they don't have any problem.”
Finnish President Sauli Niinistö later said that he brought up forest management and wildfires with Trump, but didn’t mention raking as a prevention technique.
Zinke used his Breitbart interview also to defend himself against multiple accusations that he violated ethics policies, including by participating in a land deal with Halliburton Co. Chairman David Lesar — a deal that the Justice Department is investigating for potential prosecution.
“The left is so angry,” he told the conservative news outlet. “The allegations against me are outrageous. They’re false. Everyone knows they’re false. And they get more outrageous as you get close to October. I follow all rules, regulations, procedures, and most importantly law. I love my job.”
Zinke said the allegations have resulted in threats against him and his family.
“My wife’s been threatened, my kids have been threatened. Our property’s been trespassed upon,” he said.
“This is how angry the resistance movement is.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/417489-zinke-blames-environmental-radicals-for-deadly-california-fires
-
‘Like a Terror Movie’: How Climate Change Will Cause More Simultaneous Disasters
Nov 20, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
Global warming is posing such wide-ranging risks to humanity, involving so many types of phenomena, that by the end of this century some parts of the world could face as many as six climate-related crises at the same time, researchers say.
This chilling prospect is described in a paper published Monday in Nature Climate Change, a respected academic journal, that shows the effects of climate change across a broad spectrum of problems, including heat waves, wildfires, sea level rise, hurricanes, flooding, drought and shortages of clean water.
Such problems are already coming in combination, said the lead author, Camilo Mora of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He noted that Florida had recently experienced extreme drought, record high temperatures and wildfires — and also Hurricane Michael, the powerful Category 4 storm that slammed into the Panhandle last month. Similarly, California is suffering through the worst wildfires the state has ever seen, as well as drought, extreme heat waves and degraded air quality that threatens the health of residents.
Things will get worse, the authors wrote. The paper projects future trendsand suggests that, by 2100, unless humanity takes forceful action to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change, some tropical coastal areas of the planet, like the Atlantic coast of South and Central America, could be hit by as many as six crises at a time.John Schwartz is replying to commentsShare Your Thoughts299
That prospect is “like a terror movie that is real,” Dr. Mora said.
The authors include a list of caveats about the research: Since it is a review of papers, it will reflect some of the potential biases of science in this area, which include the possibility that scientists might focus on negative effects more than positive ones; there is also a margin of uncertainty involved in discerning the imprint of climate change from natural variability.
New York can expect to be hit by four climate crises at a time by 2100 if carbon emissions continue at their current pace, the study says, but if emissions are cut significantly that number could be reduced to one. The troubled regions of the coastal tropics could see their number of concurrent hazards reduced from six to three.
The paper explores the ways that climate change intensifies hazards and describes the interconnected nature of such crises. Greenhouse gas emissions, by warming the atmosphere, can enhance drought in places that are normally dry, “ripening conditions for wildfires and heat waves,” the researchers say. In wetter areas, a warmer atmosphere retains more moisture and strengthens downpours, while higher sea levels increase storm surge and warmer ocean waters can contribute to the overall destructiveness of storms.A search-and-rescue team looking for human remains in the aftermath of the recent Camp Fire in Paradise, Calif. The state is also suffering from drought, extreme heat waves and degraded air quality.
In a scientific world marked by specialization and siloed research, this multidisciplinary effort by 23 authors reviewed more than 3,000 papers on various effects of climate change. The authors determined 467 ways in which those changes in climate affect human physical and mental health, food security, water availability, infrastructure and other facets of life on Earth.
The paper concludes that traditional research into one element of climate change and its effects can miss the bigger picture of interrelation and risk.
Climate change also has different ramifications for the world’s haves and have-nots, the authors found: “The largest losses of human life during extreme climatic events occurred in developing nations, whereas developed nations commonly face a high economic burden of damages and requirements for adaptation.”
People are not generally attuned to dealing with problems like climate change, Dr. Mora said. “We as humans don’t feel the pain of people who are far away or far into the future,” he said. “We normally care about people who are close to us or that are impacting us, or things that will happen tomorrow.”
And so, he said, people tend to look at events far in the future and tell themselves, “We can deal with these things later, we have more pressing problems now.” But, he added, this research “documented how bad this already is.”
The paper includes an interactive map of the various hazards under different emissions scenarios for any location in the world, produced by Esri, which develops geographic information systems. “We see that climate change is literally redrawing the lines on the map, and revealing the threats that our world faces at every level,” said Dawn Wright, the company’s chief scientist.
Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the paper, said it underscored the urgency for action to curb the effects of climate change and showed that “the costs of inaction greatly outweigh the costs of taking action.”
Dr. Mann published a recent paper suggesting that climate change effects on the jet stream are contributing to a range of extreme summer weather events, such as heat waves in North America, Europe and Asia, wildfires in California and flooding in Japan. The new study, he said, dovetails with that research, and “is, if anything, overly conservative” — that is, it may underestimate the threats and costs associated with human-caused climate change.
A co-author of the new paper, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, hailed its interdisciplinary approach. “There’s more than one kind of risk out there,” he said, but scientists tend to focus on their area of research. “Nations, societies in general, have to deal with multiple hazards, and it’s important to put the whole picture together.”
Like military leaders developing the capability to fight wars on more than one front, governments have to be ready to face more than one climate crisis at a time, Dr. Emanuel said.
Dr. Mora said he had considered writing a book or a movie that would reflect the frightening results of the research. His working title, which describes how dire the situation is for humanity, is unprintable here. His alternate title, he said, is “We Told You So.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/climate/climate-disasters.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience
-
'Up to the Courts': The 50-State Climate Change Strategy
Nov 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
In the summer of 2011, Des Moines teenager Glori Dei Filippone sued state agencies in Iowa over climate change.
Filippone demanded that a state court declare the atmosphere vital to the residents under Iowa law and order the Department of Natural Resources to protect it by cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
"The atmosphere is a public trust resource," she told the court through her lawyers, adding that the agency "has a duty to protect it and prevent harm to it for present and future generations."
For seven years, Filippone and other American youth have engaged in a full-court-press strategy nationwide to hammer home the idea that state governments should value and protect the atmosphere as a public trust, and that by failing to do so they are unlawfully breaking their obligations to their residents.
The 50-state strategy is a lesser-known prong of attack from Our Children's Trust, a legal nonprofit group locked in a high-profile fight with the Trump administration over its landmark climate change case, Juliana v. United States.
Both Juliana and the state cases were drawn from a similar blueprint: The plaintiffs are children or young adults, they raise public trust arguments, and they seek constitutional rights to a safe climate.
Yet while the federal case — which has been repeatedly stayed and unstayed — has attracted national and international attention, these state-level legal challenges have drawn much less notice, despite the fact they've delivered significant results.
"There were seeds of victory in, I would say, every case," said Mary Wood, a University of Oregon law professor known for her application of the public trust doctrine to atmospheric protection.
Our Children's Trust began filing lawsuits and submitting petitions in all 50 states in 2011. The idea was to sue in states with strong public trust histories and petition everywhere else. And if state agencies ignored or disputed the petition, OCT would file a case, as it did in Iowa.
"Right out of the gate, in the first few months, there were stunning victories," Wood said.
In Texas, Travis County Judge Gisela Triana, for example, issued a sweeping decision in 2012 in favor of the plaintiffs. She called the state's argument that public trust protections don't apply to the atmosphere "legally invalid."
"The public trust doctrine includes all natural resources of the State including the air and atmosphere," Triana ruled.
In New Mexico, state District Judge Sarah Singleton, who retired last year, allowed a case to proceed — a procedural victory for the youth plaintiffs — but then ruled in favor of the government. The New Mexico Court of Appeals later issued a mixed ruling, finding that although the atmosphere is protected under the public trust doctrine, the state had done its duty by complying with state air pollution laws.
In 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals also ruled for the youth plaintiffs in their case against the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, finding that the panel has a duty to protect locals from emissions. (An appeal is pending before the Colorado Supreme Court.)
Filippone appealed her case up the Iowa judicial rungs, repeatedly losing, until it was ultimately bounced from court in 2013. But Judge Richard Doyle of the Court of Appeals of Iowa saw some logic in her argument.
While there was "no Iowa case law for extending the public trust doctrine to include the atmosphere," Doyle wrote that there is firm ground under state policy to consider the atmosphere a public resource.
"The legislature, the voice of the people, has spoken in terms as clear as a crisp, cloudless, autumn Iowa sky," the judge wrote.
The 's-word'
Making gains on the legal arguments, though, is just the start.
"Even if you get wins, it may be a long time coming before the remedy," Wood said.
That's a fact Andrea Rodgers, a lawyer for Our Children's Trust, acknowledged in an interview.
Governors and state politicians want control over how to address climate change within their borders, said Rodgers, who lives in Washington, where Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has framed himself as a climate champion.
Democratic and Republican governors alike have defended these legal challenges in equally aggressive tones, Rodgers said.
Between Inslee and Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who has censored government officials from using the term "climate change," she sees scant difference.
"I see very little difference between them other than political rhetoric," Rodgers said. "It's been frustrating with the states.
"And we're working with the national 'climate leader,'" she added of Inslee.
Still, perhaps the biggest breakthrough in the legal strategy emerged from Washington state in April 2016, when King County Judge Hollis Hill ordered the state to enact a rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions before the year's end.
The plaintiffs' "very survival depends upon the will of their elders to act now, decisively and unequivocally, to stem the tide of global warming," Hill ruled a few months prior, "before doing so becomes first too costly and then too late."
Hill's text was read globally, according to Wood. "It created ripple effects around the world," she said. "She used the s-word."
Charlie Tebbutt, an environmental lawyer in Oregon, pointed to her ruling as courageous.
"Most of the courts have been unwilling and dare I say afraid to address the problem," Tebbutt said.
Washington ultimately adopted a greenhouse gas rule, but Hill retired and a higher state court eventually granted Washington's motion to dismiss follow-up litigation brought by the kids.
In Alaska, the youth plaintiffs haven't fared as well. Earlier this month, state Judge Gregory Miller threw out their case, which claimed violations of both the public trust doctrine and state constitution. Miller wrote that it could have usurped the duties of state lawmakers or the governor's administration.
Judges hear cases and rule on them based on what they've experienced, said Chris Winter, an attorney with the Crag Law Center in Portland, Ore., who filed a complaint on behalf of kids in 2011. In 2014, an appeals court reversed a lower court ruling to side with his clients.
"They're humans," he said of judges. "It's really up to the courts to turn the tide."
'The hammer'
As for the kids, they've stumbled upon the litigation themselves, according to attorneys behind these cases. There's some overlap between the plaintiffs involved in the state cases and the federal Juliana lawsuit. The lead plaintiff in the federal case is suing the Oregon state government too.
"Kids are so sophisticated these days," Rodgers said. "They're finding us."
The Washington plaintiffs, she added, are "the only ones on Earth who know what a Rule 61-B motion is." (It's a motion for a court to relieve a party of its obligations under a final order.)
Supporters of the legal strategy see states as key in addressing climate change. While the federal Juliana case currently stalled in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brings "it all together," as Tebbutt put it, states will have to implement the plans needed to address climate change.
"Each government bears a responsibility," he said. Once state lawmakers grow serious about climate change, they will roll out and embrace climate plans swiftly, he predicted.
"The states can drive the process," he went on, adding that just as states have embraced marijuana legalization and gay marriage, "it will flip, and it will flip fast."
Zach Corrigan, an attorney with Food & Water Watch, said the one-two-punch routine of petitioning state agencies, and then suing, can be effective.
A clear-cut and strong case can be disregarded without public pressure, he said. "If you don't have people asserting themselves against fossil fuel interests, it is very easy for courts to ignore it.
"I don't think that's a bug in their approach," Corrigan said. "I think that's a strong feature."
Legal pressure from Our Children's Trust in Massachusetts, in fact, prompted Gov. Charlie Baker (R) to sign an executive order on climate change.
"Some of this litigation is the hammer," Corrigan said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/11/20/stories/1060106985
-
Architect of Failed Climate Bill Finds Hope for Future
Nov 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
One of the architects of the most sweeping climate policy ever passed is watching the current political moment with an equal mixture of dread and hope.
Former Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California crafted a bipartisan climate bill that would have installed a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gas emissions. After months of intense work — and with the shepherding of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — it passed the House in 2009 by a vote of 219-212, only to die in the Senate after Republicans refused to support it.
The 1,400-page bill, formally known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," would have established emissions caps through 2050 for several greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, and instituted a system for trading emissions allowances.
Staffers worked long hours, seven days a week for six months, to craft the legislation, which would have yielded significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace (E&E Daily, June 27, 2016).
But the bill dropped around the time the Obama administration was pushing for health care reform, which Republicans rallied around in opposition. The bill's other author, Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who was then in the House, later blamed the divisiveness on health care for the cap-and-trade bill's demise.
Waxman, who is now chairman at public affairs and strategic communications firm Waxman Strategies, recently spoke to E&E News. He said the current battles within the Democratic Party over climate action wouldn't matter because no legislation has any realistic hope of passage for at least two years.
Still, he said this is an important time to set the stage for climate action.
The Democratic Party has seen some divide on climate policy, with younger progressives pushing for more aggressive actions and establishment party figures picking a slower, more deliberate approach. Which tactic do you think would be most effective to getting climate policy passed?
I don't know that anything is realistic to get into law because we have a Republican president who denies the existence of climate change, and I think the Democrats in the House will have the opportunity to hold hearings and bring out this issue to the American people. And they can propose different ideas that can be looked at, more as setting the stage for accomplishing legislative goals after President Trump is gone. Unless the Republicans decide they want to do something about the problem because the public demands it, I think the chances for the legislation to pass are more modest. Maybe they can do something about the fuel standard; maybe they can do something about more efficiency, I can't in my mind think there is a very good chance to do anything beyond that.
What were your lessons learned from your attempt to pass a meaningful bipartisan climate bill?
The proposal that we had for cap and trade was based on an industry-environmental group that got together to do something about the problem, and we took their proposal and expected that the business community, which was a pretty substantial coalition, could influence the Republicans. So one of my lessons learned is that even the business community does not influence Republicans.
The second lesson I learned is we couldn't get cap and trade, but then after that, we tried again with a tax, and if we couldn't get a carbon tax to reduce the deficit, which Republicans said they cared about, but we now know they don't in light of their tax bill. There are people like [former Secretary of State George] Shultz who said you can do a tax bill, but it's got to be used to reduce other taxes, and I said that's fine, too. And I remember once during a committee hearing, a Republican leader of my committee saying, "You don't want to do a cap and trade, you don't want to do a tax, you don't want to do anything else that I know of; do you have a proposal?" And they did not. It was hard to reach a compromise with people who deny the problem and don't have a solution to it.
What can be done in the next two years on climate policy?
In the next two years, I don't think, on the big picture, how to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and to put our country behind efforts to dramatically lower it in order to protect the planet from a tipping point consistent with the Paris Agreement — I don't see the United States stepping up to the plate.
Would your proposal of a cap-and-trade bill work today? Is that still the approach you would recommend?
I think it would work, absolutely. We had a very successful cap and trade on sulfur emissions to stop acid rain, and it accomplished exactly what we wanted, and it was accomplished using market forces. I'm open to anything that would work; it could be a carbon tax — what you do with the money from a carbon tax would be something worth discussing. There are loads of other measures that would be important, such as mandating more renewables. I don't see that happening the next two years.
Since the Waxman-Markey bill, have both sides just dug in more? Is it a worse landscape now than it was back in 2009?
It's very bad because Republicans have taken such a strong, polarizing position on denying the existence of climate change, and when they admit it, they say it's nothing they can do anything about. It's hard to negotiate from that.
Did you see anything in the midterm elections that made you hopeful in terms of climate or environmental policy?
I saw a lot in the midterm elections that has been very encouraging. The voters rejected Trump and most of his policies, and certainly his personal style. They ousted Republicans, even moderate ones, who weren't doing anything with their supposed moderate position on climate change and other issues. And I think it reflected a public opinion that is changing quite rapidly on a number of issues, especially on the number of climate episodes that we've had from drought, from fires, from storms, from hurricanes and everything else. Even the news does not hold back from saying that climate change is happening and it's caused by man-made actions.
Do you have any hope?
Yes, I have a lot of hope that in the next few years, we have a lot of opportunity to explore the issue through hearings and actions in the Democrat-controlled House, and by bringing up the issue, there is a chance we can bring some of the Republicans over so that they just can't hide. It was easy for them to hide when they had a president who denied climate change, a leadership that didn't want anything to do with it, in both the House and the Senate. So it wasn't on the agenda for them. I think the public is going to put it on the agenda and demand some actions.
Any words of advice for Nancy Pelosi, or whoever the next speaker of the House is, on climate policy?
Nancy Pelosi has been a great champion of doing something about climate change. She created a select committee on it when she became speaker in 2007, she cares deeply about the issue, and I'm sure she'll look for more opportunities to push the issue forward.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/11/20/stories/1060107085
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested