Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 15/01/19
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Pellets Used in Manufacturing Are Spilling Into Oceans
Jan 14, 2019 | Earth.com
By Chrissy Sexton
The nonprofit group As You Sow is challenging large corporations to publicly claim responsibility for their role in the growing environmental issue of nurdles, which are small pellets used to make plastic products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Details Needed for Proposed R.I. Statewide Bag Ban
Jan 14, 2019 | ecoRI
By Tim Faulkner
The Task Force to Tackle Plastics has so far focused on removing single-use plastics, such as bags, straws, and foam containers, from the state’s waste stream. -
A New York Plastic Bag Ban: What Is Cuomo Proposing and Is It a Good Thing?
Jan 15, 2019 | The New York Times
By Michael Gold
The plastic bag ban plan is back. -
Industry-Led Effort Commits $1B to Curb Plastic Pollution
Jan 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
With more plastics piling into rivers and oceans, several of the world's biggest plastic chemical manufacturers are joining together in an industry-led effort to curb plastic waste. -
The New Gatekeepers of the House Energy, Environment Agenda
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
Democrats' control of the House means a higher profile for environmental, climate and natural resources issues in the 116th Congress. -
Lawmakers Introduce Fracking, Chemicals, Flooding Bills
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Bipartisan legislation introduced yesterday by members of Michigan's congressional delegation would designate PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances. -
Levi Strauss, Nike & Others to Create ‘Unified Approach’ to Chemicals Management
Jan 14, 2019 | Environmental Leader
By Jennifer Hermes
Four major clothing manufacturers have agreed to share their “screened chemistry” approaches to alternative chemistries, with the aim of supporting a unified approach to chemical management across the apparel and textile industry. -
Methylene Chloride Suit Marks First Test Of EPA's TSCA Responsibilities
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are suing EPA over its failure to ban paint-stripping uses of methylene chloride after finding that it does not meet the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) risk standard, marking one of the first legal tests of the agency's responsibilities to regulate toxic substances under the law since Congress revised it in 2016. -
US Shutdown Delays Science Committee's Review of PV29
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A meeting to review the first of ten draft risk evaluations under the reformed TSCA has fallen victim to the US government's partial shutdown – the longest ever. -
(ACC Mentioned) Gov. Baker Vetoes Bill Aimed to Ban Certain Flame Retardant Chemicals
Jan 15, 2019 | WWLP.com
By Jodi Reed
Governor Charlie Baker refused to sign House Bill 50-24 Friday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Massachusetts Governor 'Pocket Vetoes' Flame Retardant Ban
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A Massachusetts bill to ban 11 flame retardants from several types of consumer products has died, after Governor Charlie Baker failed to sign the industry-opposed measure into law. -
Advocates Sue to Ban Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers (2)
Jan 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Methylene chloride-based paint and coating strippers must be banned by the EPA to prevent people from dying, a coalition of environmental groups and the parents of two young men who died from exposure to that solvent say in a lawsuit filed Jan. 14. -
Environmentalists Urge Court to Preserve Lead Paint Rule Suit
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging a federal appellate court not to “administratively terminate” their suit over EPA's failure to determine whether it must regulate work practices involving lead-based paint in public and commercial (P&C) buildings, a step the court proposed last month, though EPA is not objecting to the court's plan. -
Canada Backs Glyphosate Again After Tainted Science Complaint
Jan 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
Canada’s health authority defended its approval of a popular herbicide characterized as a possible carcinogen after environmental groups complained about improper industry interference in the government’s review. -
Granite Geek: Is That Chemical Safe? Predictive Toxicology May Have the Answer
Jan 14, 2019 | Concord Monitor
By David Brooks
It sometimes seems that every chemical ever used in every product ever made turns out to be toxic, which we only realize after it has spread throughout the world and made people sick. -
CIA Calls on UK MPs to Secure Brexit Deal
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The head of the UK Chemical Industries Association (CIA) has urged MPs to back Britain’s withdrawal deal from the EU ahead of a key vote today (15 January). -
Six SVHCs Added to REACH Candidate List
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has added six substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the REACH candidate list, which now contains 197 chemicals. -
Colorado Supreme Court Rules for Oil, Gas Regulators in Public Health Lawsuit
Jan 14, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of state regulators about how much weight needed to be given to public health and environmental concerns. -
Colorado High Court Sides With Industry in Fracking Fight (1)
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado Supreme Court sided with the oil and gas industry Jan. 14 in a high-stakes court battle that would have restricted drilling in the name of public health and the environment. -
Trump Touts Energy, But Projects Hit Legal Hurdles, Tariffs in Shutdown
Jan 14, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Ben LeFebvre
President Donald Trump claimed again on Monday his actions in the White House have rewarded Americans with cheaper prices at the pump — but even where the federal government can help the industry, the administration's actions are sometimes backfiring, and the government shutdown is only making the problem worse. -
Oil Majors See a Climate Threat — To Their Bottom Line
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By John Fialka
In 2016, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, started a historic plunge into new businesses. -
Researchers Make Malware to Show Automation's Vulnerability
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Cybersecurity researchers have built a "proof-of-concept" hacking tool that could be used to disrupt coal mines, schools and hospitals. -
Ore. Delegation in the Driver's Seat
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The bipartisan allure of infrastructure stems from the fact that building roads, bridges, water projects and electric grids tends to affect nearly every state and congressional district. -
Train Operators File Countersuit for 2018 Crash
Jan 14, 2019 | Georgetown News-Graphic
By Zack McDonald
Responding to allegations that a conductor and engineer caused a March 2018 train crash and derailment in Georgetown, the two men have filed a countersuit claiming the owner of the train was responsible due to faulty equipment. -
Climate Work of Natural Resources Panel Starts With Feb. Hearings
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Expect a February packed with climate change hearings in the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the panel’s new chairman, says. -
Legislators Roll Out Climate Bills as Session Opens
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Ines Kagubare
The Washington State Legislature opened its 2019 regular session yesterday with the introduction of three climate change bills. -
Illinois to Tackle Climate Issues as New Governor Joins Alliance (1)
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Newly inaugurated Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) pledged to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, joining 17 other governors committing their states to fulfilling commitments in the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement. -
Appellate Court Backs States' 'Broad' Discretion In Setting CWA 401 Criteria
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
A federal appellate court has upheld Virginia's Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 certification approving a federally permitted natural gas pipeline and emphasized states' “broad discretion when developing the criteria” for such certifications, a ruling that could undermine efforts by GOP policymakers to limit states' discretion. -
EPA Fights Suit Challenging Raised Bar For Title V Air Permit Objections
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA, backed by industry groups and Texas, is fighting environmentalists' lawsuit that claims the agency has raised the bar for challenging Clean Air Act Title V permits by finding that objections to the permits cannot target other permits, defending its policy in an appellate court case similar to at least two other pending lawsuits. -
EPA Criminal Action Against Polluters Hits 30-Year Low
Jan 15, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)
The Environmental Protection Agency hit a 30-year low in 2018 in the number of pollution cases it referred for criminal prosecution, Justice Department data show. -
Environmental Groups Lose Challenge to Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
A host of environmental groups lost their legal challenge to the Virginia State Water Board’s certification of an interstate natural gas pipeline.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Pellets Used in Manufacturing Are Spilling Into Oceans
Jan 14, 2019 | Earth.com
By Chrissy Sexton
The nonprofit group As You Sow is challenging large corporations to publicly claim responsibility for their role in the growing environmental issue of nurdles, which are small pellets used to make plastic products. Nurdles are spilling over into waterways and accumulating in the ocean in shocking numbers.
According to Time Magazine, billions of nurdles are lost from production and supply chains every year, and the plastic pellets are the second largest source of microplastic pollution in water. Once the nurdles have entered into the environment, they persist and break down into smaller microplastics that are often mistaken for food and eaten by animals.
As You Sow has requested for Phillips 66, Chevron Corp., DowDupont Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corp. to disclose the number of nurdles that are lost during production each year. The group also wants to know how these corporations are dealing with the issue.
Conrad MacKerron is the senior vice president of As You Sow, a group that represents shareholders in protecting human and environmental rights.
“We’ve had information over the last couple of years from the plastics industry, that they’re taking this all seriously,” MacKerron told Time Magazine. “This is really more of a bellwether moment, as to whether they’re serious… if they’re willing to come out, warts and all, and say ‘here’s the situation. Here are the spills that are out there. Here’s what we’re doing about them.’”
These particular companies are already involved in a campaign called Operation Clean Sweep (OCS) Blue, for which they disclose information on the amount of plastic pellets that are shipped, received, spilled, recovered, or recycled. This data, however, is shared confidentially.
Plastic Industry Association spokesman Jacob Barron told Time that “the provision about confidentiality is included to eliminate competitive concerns that might prevent a company from disclosing this information.”
While there is limited information on how much nurdle pollution originates in the United States, the American Chemistry Council is pushing for all U.S. manufacturers to join OCS Blue by 2020.
The Great Nurdle Hunt initiative is calling for every company that uses or transports nurdles to sign the Operation Clean Sweep pledge. To find out what you can do to help with the effort, visit nurdlehunt.org.uk.
https://www.earth.com/news/plastic-pellets-nurdles-oceans/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Details Needed for Proposed R.I. Statewide Bag Ban
Jan 14, 2019 | ecoRI
By Tim Faulkner
The Task Force to Tackle Plastics has so far focused on removing single-use plastics, such as bags, straws, and foam containers, from the state’s waste stream. Nuisance plastic Items that can’t be taken out of circulation, such as plastic bottles, will be tackled through new or improved recycling and education programs, perhaps through something like a bottle-deposit law.
The likely initial recommendation from the task force is advocating for a bill that bans single-use plastics bags across Rhode Island, with a 5-cent fee on paper bags. Businesses would be allowed to collect and keep the fee. No businesses would be exempt from the ban. The bill will likely require that the statewide ban supersede Rhode Island's 10 existing municipal bans. A plan to enforce the ban has yet to be decided, nor has it been settled if the fee will be mandatory.
“The idea is to change behavior and switching to more reusable products,” Jonathan Berard, co-chair of the task force, said at the group’s Jan. 9 meeting.
The 22-member committee created through an executive order by Gov. Gina Raimondo last July includes municipal, education, business, and community leaders, but consensus on the upcoming legislation was questioned.
Lucy Rios, of the Providence Racial and Environmental Justice Committee and a member of the task force’s legislative subcommittee, said environmental justice communities need to be better represented in the decision-making.
“I don’t want to see my name attached to a recommendation that I don’t fully support,” she said. “And I don’t want to be up at the Statehouse testifying against something that I was actively involved in developing.”
The Racial and Environmental Justice Committee derailed a bag ban in Providence last year over the ban’s mandatory fee on paper bags.
Amy Moses of the Conservation Law Foundation said a statewide bag ban shouldn’t prevent cities and towns from enacting other bans on plastics, such as polystyrene. Other members didn’t want the state ban to be weaker than existing municipal bans.
Task force meetings have drawn strong interest from individuals and groups not on the committee.
Clint Richmond of the Massachusetts Sierra Club urged the committee to consider broadening any bag ban to include polystyrene and produce bags, which are exempt from most municipal bans. Richmond said Massachusetts has 90 municipal bag bans, including five that ban produce bags, and the state is considering its own statewide ban on plastic bags and reforms to make packaging easier to recycle.
“We share the common ocean here in New England,” he said. “Our waste is intermingled and we need to tackle this problem together.”
Chris Nothnagle, senior director of marketing for Toray Plastics in North Kingstown, said he supports a statewide bag ban but wanted the committee to recognize the unintended consequences, such as the larger carbon footprint of paper bags and the higher costs of alternative bags for smaller businesses.
Laws on the books
Many existing regulations are simply overlooked and not enforced, such as the requirement that most retailers who offer plastic bags must also make paper bags available to customers. All retailers, including restaurants and convenience stores, are required to recycle their cardboard, plastics, and paper and offer recycling bins for their customers.“Right now there is no enforcement,” said Terrance Gray of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM).
Gray noted that a staffing shortage requires DEM to only inspect landfills, transfer stations, and compost facilities, “because if something goes wrongs at those facilities it effects a lot of people.”
He said DEM is working with the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation to improve oversight of recycling rules.
Victor Bell, a packaging consultant who helped write the state’s recycling regulations when he worked DEM, said a litter tax enacted in the 1980s on food and beverage businesses funded enforcement operations but enforcement slowed after the tax revenue was shifted to Rhode Island’s general operating fund.
Leah Bamberger, director of sustainability for Providence, suggested a third-party audit of the laws and regulations showing which rules are enforced or ignored.
“So at least we have some clarity on where we are, so we know where we can allocate more resources,” she said.
Dale Venturini, president of the Rhode Island Hospitality Association and co-chair of the task force, warned of a “fairness issue” and urged the committee not to recommend rules that single out any one industry.
“Only certain people are being targeted and others aren’t,” she said.
Time is short
The task force’s four working groups must complete their reports by Feb. 1. On Feb. 14, the main task force is scheduled hold a public discussion of a draft report that includes the findings. A final report is expected to be sent to Raimondo by Feb. 18. The task force hasn’t set meeting dates beyond the deadline, but the group expects to write additional short- and long-term goals to reduce plastic waste.“This work needs to continue beyond the deadlines set in the executive order,” Berard said.
Best practices: Inspired by the successful waste-management efforts at events such as the Volvo Ocean Race in Newport and the CVS Charity Classic golf tournament, the final report will include waste-management and recycling guidance for events and offices.
Worth watching Bell, founder of Environmental Packaging International in Jamestown, who is scheduled to give a compelling — and apparently sobering — presentation on the global waste problem on Jan. 17. Keith Christman, managing director of plastics markets for the American Chemistry Council, will also present. The meeting is at DEM headquarters, 235 Promenade St. in Providence, Room 300, at 1 p.m.
https://www.ecori.org/government/2019/1/14/details-still-needed-for-statewide-bag-ban
-
A New York Plastic Bag Ban: What Is Cuomo Proposing and Is It a Good Thing?
Jan 15, 2019 | The New York Times
By Michael Gold
The plastic bag ban plan is back.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said Sunday that he would push for a statewide ban on single-use plastic shopping bags as part of his 2019 budget plan, which he will introduce in Albany on Tuesday.
Efforts to regulate the bags in New York have been discussed for years; the governor first proposed legislation to prohibit the ubiquitous bags last April. That bill, which stalled in the Republican-led State Senate, came more than a year after Mr. Cuomo and the state Legislature blocked a 5-cent fee that New York City officials wanted to impose on the bags.
As plastic bags have polluted sidewalks, landfills and waterways, bans on the bags have become a hotly debated issue. Several New York municipalities have shopping bag laws, following dozens of local governments across the country in adopting bans, fees or a combination of the two.
ADVERTISEMENT
But details about Mr. Cuomo’s proposal were scant on Monday, raising questions about its potential impact.What exactly is the governor proposing?
In a statement on Sunday, the governor’s office said Mr. Cuomo would propose to ban “single-use plastic bags.” It did not provide a specific definition, but the language suggested that Mr. Cuomo would be targeting the plastic bags that retailers give to customers.Andrew Cuomo✔@NYGovCuomo
Plastic bags are trash.
I’m including provisions in my executive budget to ban single-use plastic bags and expand New York's Bottle Bill to make most non-alcoholic drink containers eligible for 5 cent redemption. Let's protect our environment.2,2499:25 PM - Jan 13, 2019751 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacyThe bill that he introduced last year offered a variety of exemptions from the ban, including bags that contained raw meat, fish or poultry; bags used for bulk packaging of fruit and dried goods; takeout food bags used by restaurants; and newspaper bags. It was unclear whether those exemptions would remain in Mr. Cuomo’s proposal this year.What’s the problem with single-use plastic bags?
Most of the bags are not biodegradable, and they can end up littering the streets, hanging in trees or polluting waterways, said Eric Goldstein, the New York City environment director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Like plastic straws, which have also come under scrutiny, the bags contribute to the massive quantity of plastics in the ocean.Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter
Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.SIGN UP
ADVERTISEMENT
In 2016, a report by the World Economic Forum suggested that by 2050, the world’s oceans would contain more plastic by weight than fish. As the plastics break down, they release toxic chemicals, threatening marine life.
Also, Mr. Goldstein said, the bags are generally not recycled. Even when they are sent to recycling facilities, they are so thin that they can jam equipment, slowing the recycling process and making recycling more expensive.
In his statement, Mr. Cuomo said his proposal would “reduce litter in our communities, protect our water and create a cleaner and greener New York for all.”What about paper bags?
In his statement, Mr. Cuomo did not address carryout paper bags, which he did not propose to regulate in his bill last year.
Because of that, some lawmakers and environmental groups cautioned that this year’s measure may not go far enough to address waste and pollution problems.
Lawmakers who suggest bag fees or bans are generally trying to steer consumers toward bringing reusable bags when they shop. But Jennie Romer, a lawyer and sustainability consultant who works with legislators on bag laws, said that when people were presented with paper as a no-cost alternative to plastic bags, they would generally take it.
“We’ve learned from experience that if you just ban plastic, an unforeseen consequence is that paper bag use increases,” Ms. Romer said.Editors’ PicksNo Heat for 10 Years, and the City Is Their LandlordWhere 518 Inmates Sleep in Space for 170, and Gangs Hold It TogetherWakanda for Oscar?
ADVERTISEMENT
Paper has its own environmental impacts. Aside from the use of raw materials, Mr. Goldstein said, the paper production is an energy-intensive process that generates air and water pollution. Additionally, paper bags are heavier than plastic bags, and transporting them involves greater use of fossil fuels.
Food retailers have also expressed concerns over legislation that does not address paper bag use. Mike Durant, the head of the Food Industry Alliance of New York State, said a plastic bag ban alone would put pressure on retailers, because it costs more to store and transport paper bags.
A bill introduced by State Senator Todd D. Kaminsky, a Democrat from Long Island who chairs the Senate’s Environmental Conservation Committee, proposed supplementing a ban on plastic bags with a 10-cent fee on paper bags.
On Twitter, Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat from Manhattan who tried for a plastic bag ban in 2018, also called for a paper bag fee:Senator Liz Krueger✔@LizKrueger
Glad that @NYGovCuomo is tackling plastic bag pollution, but ban without fee is the wrong approach. Creates loopholes, encourages paper bag use, limits switch to reusables. Ban/fee hybrid bill held by @toddkaminsky (S.95) is a proven solution. https://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/reusable-plastic-bags-cuomo-state-1.25914467 …115:09 PM - Jan 14, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacyCuomo wants statewide plastic bag ban
Environmental advocates and grocery lobbyists are concerned that shoppers would start using free paper bags or thicker plastic bags, both exempt from the proposal.newsday.comSee Senator Liz Krueger's other TweetsHave other places tried this? How’s it going?
If Mr. Cuomo’s measure is enacted, New York would become the second state, after California, to impose a ban on single-use plastic shopping bags. Hawaii also has a de facto ban on the bags because all of its counties have banned them.
In addition, many municipalities, including large cities like Chicago and Washington, have imposed fees on bags given to customers at retail stores.
Washington’s 5-cent fee on paper and plastic bags went into effect in 2010. City officials have said the law drastically reduced consumption of disposable bags there, and a foundation that monitors trash in Washington’s waterways said it found a 72 percent decrease in the number of plastic bags being removed during cleanup efforts.
Chicago passed a ban on thin, lightweight plastic bags in 2015, then repealed that law in 2016 and replaced it with a 7-cent fee on paper and plastic. A 2018 study from researchers at the University of Chicago and New York University said disposable bag use in the city was down 40 percent.
ADVERTISEMENT
Globally, countries including Israel and Ireland also have fees on plastic bags. In Israel, the government said disposable plastic bag use went down 80 percent at supermarket chains in the year after the law took effect. In Ireland, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent just weeks after the country adopted its tax in 2002.Wait, didn’t New York City already try to enact a fee?
Yes. In 2008, then-Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg called for a 6-cent fee on plastic bags. He dropped the proposal after it faced fairly strong opposition.
In May 2016, the City Council narrowly voted to approve a 5-cent bag fee. But a coalition of state lawmakers stepped in, saying that the bag fee amounted to government overreach and that it would put an undue financial burden on poor New Yorkers.
The group introduced a bill to stop the city from implementing its fee. The legislation passed, and Mr. Cuomo signed it into a law. At the time, the governor said that the city’s law was “flawed,” and that it would have allowed merchants to keep the 5-cent bag fee as a profit.
After he halted the city’s action, the governor set up a task force, which issued a report last January. The report presented eight possibilities — including a plastic bag ban and fee scenarios — and outlined the concerns over paper bags.
All the while, other New York municipalities enacted bag fees. Suffolk County on Long Island approved a 5-cent fee on paper and plastic bagsthat took effect last January. The city of Long Beach in Nassau County, also on Long Island, approved a 5-cent fee on plastic bags that began in 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/nyregion/cuomo-plastic-bag-ban.html
-
Industry-Led Effort Commits $1B to Curb Plastic Pollution
Jan 14, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
With more plastics piling into rivers and oceans, several of the world's biggest plastic chemical manufacturers are joining together in an industry-led effort to curb plastic waste. A group of nearly 30 global companies have committed more than $1 billion into developing programs and technologies to better minimize, manage and prevent plastic waste.
LyondellBasell of Houston, Chevron Phillips Chemical of The Woodlands, ExxonMobil of Irving as well as BASF, Shell Chemical, Dow and Procter and Gamble are among the two dozen companies forming a nonprofit called Alliance to End Plastic Waste, according to a joint announcement from the companies.Recommended Video
00:4201:37
The goal is commit $1.5 billion over the next five years to fighting plastic waste; so far over $1 billion has been pledged with new members being added, an Alliance spokesperson said.
The nonprofit's initial set of investments and projects include:Setting up an incubator network with Circulate Capital, an investment management firm, and SecondMuse, a New York consultancy, to develop and promote plastic recycling technologies, particularly in Southeast Asia. Collaborating with United Nations Environment, a UN agency, to train government officials and community leaders to identify and pursue localized waste prevention.Supporting the Renew Oceans program, ran by the Salt Lake City recycling company Renewology, to capture plastics entering the oceans from 10 major rivers shown to carry the vast majority of land-based waste to the ocean. The funding will also support an initiative fighting plastic pollution around the Ganges in India.Establishing a city partnership program to design integrated waste management systems in large urban areas where infrastructure is lacking, particularly in developing nations.Creating an information project to support waste management projects globally with reliable data collection, metrics, standards and methodologies.
From HoustonChronicle.com: Can sputtering recycling market find a second life?
Over the next few months the alliance will incorporate additional investments tied to, education, technological innovation and cleanup of highly-polluted areas.
"Everyone agrees that plastic waste does not belong in our oceans or anywhere in the environment. This is a complex and serious global challenge that calls for swift action and strong leadership. This new alliance is the most comprehensive effort to date to end plastic waste in the environment," said David Taylor, CEO of Procter & Gamble, and chairman of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, in a statement.
The nonprofit will focus much of its efforts in Southeast Asia where plastic pollution is the worst. About 55 to 60 percent of the world's plastic pollution originates in five emerging markets – China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, according to research from the Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, Ocean Conservancy. About 80 percent of the world's plastic waste starts on land and is carried out to ocean in rivers and waterways, including eight major rivers in Asia and two major rivers in Africa, according to the Ocean Conservancy and research from the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
The alliance is unique in that it includes companies across the plastic value chain – from oil majors with hands in the petrochemical industry such as Total, Exxon, Shell and Chevron to consumer good household brands like Procter & Gamble to companies that collect and manage plastic waste.
The alliance also includes Berry Global, Braskem, Clariant, Covestro, Versalis, Eni's chemical company, DSM, Formosa Plastics, Henkel, Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings, Mitsui Chemicals, Nova Chemicals, OxyChem, Reliance Industries, SABIC, Sasol, Suez, SCG Chemicals, Sumitomo Chemical, Total and Veolia.
Environmentalists were quick to criticize the new nonprofit as a band aide solution for the real problem - the growing use of single-use plastics globally.
"This is a desperate attempt from corporate polluters to maintain the status quo on plastics. ... Make no mistake about it: plastics are a lifeline for the dying fossil fuel industry, and today's announcement goes to show how far companies will go to preserve it," said Graham Forbes, global plastics project leader for Greenpeace, a global environmental non-governmental organization.
Forbes noted that just 9 percent of plastics ever made have actually been recycled, according to research in the journal Science Advances, "but corporations love to use recycling as a crutch to continue production of cheap plastics."
Jacqueline Savitz with Oceana, a D.C.-based ocean conservation nonprofit, argued that reducing single use plastic is the only way to combat pollution.
"The industry coalition's promise to solve the plastic pollution crisis with waste management and cleanup is a nice dream, but it's not sufficient to solve the plastic problem. Companies like Procter and Gamble, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola must take responsibility to reduce the amount of single-use plastics they're pumping into commerce by adopting alternative packaging for their products," Savitz said in a statement.
Shareholder pressure
The announcement about the alliance comes as the plastic and petrochemical industry is under growing pressure to tackle pollution. About 8 million metric tons of plastic waste wind up in oceans every year, according to the Ocean Conservancy.
Last week shareholders with the advocacy group As You Sow filed shareholder proposals with four of the world's biggest manufacturers of plastic resins – the tiny pellets that go into plastics also called nurdles – including Chevron, DowDupont, ExxonMobil and Phillips 66.
The proposals ask for annual reports disclosing plastic pellet spills and measures taken to prevent and clean up any spills. These tiny pellets, the size of lentils, are estimated to be the second largest direct source of microplastic pollution to the ocean by weight, according to the UK environmental consultancy group Fauna and Flora.
EARLIER: Plastic bottle recycling dips amid industry ‘transformation’
Although these four companies are members of Operation Clean Sweep, an industry initiative with a stated goal of decreasing pellet spills, this initiative has provided no public reporting in more than 25 years of existence, according to As You Sow.
"The industry's effort to deal with pellet spills, Operation Clean Sweep, provides no transparency on the scope and nature of spills or efforts made to clean up," said Conrad MacKerron, senior vice president of As You Sow in a statement. "Given what we know about the alarming rates of plastic leakage into oceans, companies can no longer hide behind vague pledges of best practices. They need to provide prompt and detailed disclosure about specific actions taken to prevent spills, and when spills occur, information on spill size, and actions taken to clean up."
As You Sow last year was involved in successful efforts to push Starbucks to ditch plastic straws and pressure KraftHeinz, Procter & Gamble, Unilever and others to commit to increase the use of recycled packaging in their products.
The shareholder proposals will likely be voted on during the spring annual meetings. A Phillips 66 spokesperson said the company has offered to engage with the proponents behind the pellet reporting initiative. A Dow spokesperson said the company "regularly engages with shareholders on sustainability issues and will continue to do so. Dow is committed to innovating and enhancing its products and processes while also collaborating across the plastics value chain to develop solutions that keep plastic out of our environment."
Editor's note: This story has been updated to clarify that the alliance has committed $1 billion to fighting plastic waste with the goal of reaching $1.5 billion in investments over the next five years.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Industry-led-effort-commits-1-5B-to-curb-plastic-13532153.php
-
The New Gatekeepers of the House Energy, Environment Agenda
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
Democrats' control of the House means a higher profile for environmental, climate and natural resources issues in the 116th Congress.
Veteran lawmakers in leadership will rely on staff with policy chops and legislative savvy to push their agenda on energy and the environment, as well as liaise with new members eager to shake things up on climate change.
Here's a look at six House Democratic staffers to watch on energy and environmental issues during the next two years.Jeffrey Carroll, staff director at the Energy and Commerce Committee
A longtime loyalist to Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Carroll will serve as majority staff director overseeing the dozens of Democratic staffers on a powerful panel known for writing major legislation and launching aggressive investigations.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Staff Director Jeffrey Carroll (left) with Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). Carroll/Facebook
Carroll has served as the minority staff director since Pallone took the ranking member slot in 2015. He was heavily involved with efforts to help rewrite the Toxic Substances Control Act and reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act for the first time in 20 years.
Pallone has called Carroll his "most trusted adviser," one who began working for him as an executive assistant shortly after graduating from George Washington University and serving a brief stint with then-New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli (D).
He'd eventually become Pallone's chief of staff, staying in that post for 12 years before becoming minority director.
Carroll managed Pallone's failed 2013 bid for an open Senate seat as well as his successful 2014 bid to lead E&C Democrats.
He's a native of Lyndhurst, N.J., and Pallone describes Carroll as a "Jersey guy through and through," citing both his love of Bruce Springsteen and pork rolls.Rita Culp, clerk at the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
Culp worked for 12 years at EPA during Democratic and Republican administrations before arriving on Capitol Hill in 2013 as a detailee from EPA's budget office.
Rita Culp. Special to E&E News
She's spent her Hill career steeped in appropriations: first at the Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee under Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Jack Reed's leadership, and then the House Appropriations Committee starting in 2015.
Culp's boss on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Rep. Betty McCollum, now leads that panel. The Minnesota Democrat has been a vocal advocate of clean air, water, public lands and tribal concerns, as well as a frequent critic of Trump's EPA and Interior Department during her leadership on the subcommittee.
McCollum also has worked closely in the past with committee Republicans such as Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson on a wildfire funding fix and forest management provisions, a package that Culp helped negotiate as a Democratic aide.
Culp has a public policy and administration master's degree from Northwestern University and a bachelor's degree in biology and biological sciences from the University of Chicago.Kenneth DeGraff, senior policy adviser to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
DeGraff, a Pelosi leadership aide since 2011, will have a broad portfolio in the 116th Congress that includes energy, environment, climate, science, technology and consumer protection.
"My No. 1 priority in this role is to do whatever is possible to reduce and reverse the climate crisis," DeGraff said in a recent interview with E&E News.
Kenneth DeGraff. DeGraff/Linkedin
Tackling climate change has been DeGraff's passion since he was a member of the Sierra Club at Indiana's Butler University. DeGraff said he worked through college to afford his Sierra Club membership as well as outdoor recreation trips.
A Truman scholar, DeGraff packed everything up in his Toyota Corolla right after graduation in 2003, drove to Washington, D.C., and worked for three years as a policy analyst at Consumers Union on issues "where technology and energy come together on the consumer side," he said.
As an aide to Pelosi, he's been involved in crafting several omnibus spending bills as well as the reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
DeGraff arrived on the Hill in 2006 and began working for Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), first as a legislative assistant, before going to serve five years as Doyle's legislative director.
But it's not all work for the Nashville, Tenn., native, who lists photography, travel, hiking and biking among his many interests. "I love really good disco and R&B," said DeGraff, who gave a special shout-out to Wonderland Ballroom's monthly Sleaze night disco dance party. "There are some great DJs in D.C."Priyanka Hooghan, staff director at the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment
Hooghan has only been on Capitol Hill for a few years, but the environmental engineer brings industry experience and a wealth of subject matter knowledge to her role on the Environment Subcommittee.
Priyanka Hooghan. Hooghan/Linkedin
The Texas native worked as an environmental engineer for nearly three years for Conestoga-Rovers & Associates and SunCoke Energy Inc. in the Lone Star State and Illinois, respectively, before heading to Congress.
In 2015, Hooghan arrived on the Hill as an Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies fellow in Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono's office. She followed that up with a stint as a science, technology, engineering and math fellow at the American Petroleum Institute, finally returning to the Hill in early 2017 as a staffer on Science's Environment Subcommittee under then-ranking member Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.).
Hooghan called the Science panel "a fantastic committee" to work on, though it was "challenging this last Congress" under the chairmanship of Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who has since retired. Now, "we get to take a proactive view of our issues and topics rather than reactive," Hooghan said in an interview with E&E News.
"I'm definitely looking forward to seeing our own agenda," the graduate of Stanford University and Southern Methodist University added.Jaime Shimek, clerk at the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
The Ritzville, Wash., native has significant experience working on energy issues on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch.
As clerk of the subcommittee, Shimek's portfolio includes the Energy Department, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jaime Shimek. Special to E&E News
Shimek has been at the subcommittee since 2017, following a career that started on the Hill in 2001 when she interned for then-Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.).
During more than a decade on the Hill, Shimek worked for Democratic Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, as well as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.); she was Murray's senior policy adviser and legislative assistant for eight years.
After leaving Murray's office in 2013, Shimek headed to DOE where she served as deputy assistant secretary for Senate affairs for three years before a brief stint as director of federal affairs at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Her policy accomplishments include leading DOE's legislative efforts to support the Iran nuclear agreement and helping to secure passage of the Wild Sky wilderness designation in Washington state in 2008.
Shimek has a bachelor's degree in communications from Washington State University and a master's degree in government and public policy from Johns Hopkins University.David Watkins, staff director at the Natural Resources Committee
Watkins came to Capitol Hill in the mid-1990s as a legislative assistant for Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, his hometown congressman. But the bulk of his career has been on the Natural Resources Committee where, he said, he's had "vast experience in the minority," except for a brief four-year period and now in the 116th Congress.
David Watkins. Watkins/Facebook
Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), will have "an active agenda with legislation plus oversight," said Watkins, who also has served as chief counsel for committee Democrats.
As the minority party for the better part of the last decade, the Democrats' experience has primarily been in "blocking bad legislation," said the graduate of Swarthmore College and the University of Texas School of Law.
Watkins told E&E News he and Republican committee staff director Parish Braden "have a very good working relationship. I have a lot of respect for Parish."
The Austin, Texas, native cited the bipartisan public lands package, which failed in the previous Congress but is poised to make a comeback this year, as proof the two sides can collaborate on substantive policy efforts.
"My approach will be to try to be as inclusive and cooperative as we can," Watkins said of his role as majority staff director. "I think there are a lot of issues under the jurisdiction of this committee in which there is agreement."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/15/stories/1060113737
-
Lawmakers Introduce Fracking, Chemicals, Flooding Bills
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Bipartisan legislation introduced yesterday by members of Michigan's congressional delegation would designate PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances.
Democratic Reps. Dan Kildee and Debbie Dingell and Republican Rep. Fred Upton are championing the "PFAS Action Act" because EPA doesn't currently list any per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous.
PFAS have been used for decades in consumer and industrial products from firefighting foam to nonstick cookware and have wound up in drinking water.
"Michigan has been hit hard by PFAS," said Dingell. "It's clear it's a threat to human health and our environment. It's been found in our drinking water, air, food and consumer products.
"Our bipartisan legislation will list all PFAS as the hazardous chemicals we know they are and give the EPA the tools it needs to clean up contaminated sites," he said.Flood insurance
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) in recent days reintroduced several bills that he said will provide critical fixes to the National Flood Insurance Program.
The first, the "Taxpayer Exposure Mitigation Act," would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to buy reinsurance or some capital market alternative to protect taxpayers from footing the bill for future losses.
H.R. 472, the "Community Mapping Act," would allow communities to develop alternative flood insurance rate maps.
H.R. 469 would require the use of replacement cost value in determining the premium rates for flood insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Lastly, Luetkemeyer introduced a measure to allow commercial properties to opt out of the NFIP mandatory purchase requirements. He said the bill would allow businesses to more easily purchase private flood insurance.
"Throughout my time in Congress, bipartisan calls for comprehensive reform of the NFIP have gone unanswered," Luetkemeyer said in a statement.
He said the bills would shift power from "bureaucrats in Washington to states, local communities and policyholders."Fracking
Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) reintroduced two bills related to hydraulic fracturing. H.R. 436 would re-establish Obama-era rules on a temporary basis.
Those rules would be in effect until regulators can establish stronger ones. The Trump administration moved to scrap the Obama rules.
Soto also sponsored H.R. 484, the "Fracking Jurisdiction Act." It would grant the Interior secretary and EPA jurisdiction to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
According to Soto, the bill would solve an issue that came up in a Wyoming court case that questioned whether the Bureau of Land Management or EPA had the jurisdiction to regulate the practice.Shutdowns
Republican-sponsored legislation would permanently prevent the federal government from shutting down.
The "End Government Shutdowns Act" from Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) would create an automatic continuing resolution for any regular appropriations bill or existing CR.
Portman has introduced this measure every Congress since 2010. "It's disappointing that both sides didn't resolve this matter weeks ago," Portman said in a statement.
"Shutdowns inevitably [cost] taxpayers more money once the government reopens. I hope that both parties come together and reach an agreement that brings a resolution to this issue as quickly as possible," Portman said. "Moving forward, we should end government shutdowns for good."
The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).Other bills
Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.) introduced H.R. 426, which would take away mineral rights on 30,000 acres of federal public land in Custer Gallatin National Forest. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) introduced a companion measure last week (E&E Daily, Jan. 11).
The legislation is part of the latest version of a bipartisan lands package, but many members are introducing bills individually as a marker or in case the package doesn't see success (Greenwire, Jan. 9).
Other bills introduced:H.R. 431, from Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), to repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards.H.R. 432, from Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), to authorize the Interior secretary to covey certain land and facilities of the Central Valley Project.H.R. 434, sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), to designate the Emancipation National Historic Trail.H.R. 441, from Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to examine certain hydropower licenses.H.R. 453, from Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), to take certain federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.H.R. 462, from Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to provide for an expedited project implementation relating to the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.H.R. 486, sponsored by Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), to authorize the Interior secretary to conduct a special resource study of Chicano Park in San Diego.S. 78, from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), to ensure a complete analysis of the potential impacts of rules on small businesses.S. 81, from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), to adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area in Oregon. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) introduced a companion bill, H.R. 524.S. 93, from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), to authorize the Interior secretary to convey certain land and facilities of the Central Valley Project.S. 94, from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), which would encourage states to develop additional or expanded shooting ranges by making more funds available to state fish and wildlife agencies through the Pittman-Robertson Act.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/15/stories/1060113487
-
Levi Strauss, Nike & Others to Create ‘Unified Approach’ to Chemicals Management
Jan 14, 2019 | Environmental Leader
By Jennifer Hermes
Four major clothing manufacturers have agreed to share their “screened chemistry” approaches to alternative chemistries, with the aim of supporting a unified approach to chemical management across the apparel and textile industry. Levi Strauss & Co, Nike, H&M and C&A – all of which use similar methodologies in their efforts to identify safe chemical alternatives when eliminating hazardous chemicals – will be sharing their screened chemistry tools with the ZDHC Foundation to help the organization develop a platform for developing safe chemical alternatives and driving innovation in the industry.
Screened chemistry is the concept of evaluating the human health and environmental impacts of potential alternatives when eliminating hazardous chemicals in order to avoid “regrettable substitutions,” according to ZDHC, an organization focused on building a global center of excellence for chemical management in the textile and footwear industries. The foundation has established a task force for its Roadmap to Zero program. The program expects to create a clear process for identifying and evaluating chemical alternatives with input from various stakeholders across the industry.
“Although the efforts of Levi Strauss & Co., Nike, H&M and C&A were not initiated together, the core elements of their different Screened Chemistry methodologies are remarkably similar, both in their approach and ultimate goals,” ZDHC says. Levi Strauss & Co’s screened chemistry program, for example, scores chemicals based on their toxicity to human health and the environment.
The four retailers will form the core of the new ZDHC Roadmap to Zero Programme Task Team and will invite other brands and partners to join the initiative.
Traditionally, in terms of reducing hazardous chemicals in their supply chains, brands focused on “restricted substance lists” (RSLs), which identified the chemicals a company would not permit in its products. These lists are useful when it comes to ensuring compliance with international chemical regulations, but do little to drive the use of more sustainable chemistries in the apparel supply chain, Levi Strauss says. By shifting to hazard-based approach to chemical management, and by sharing their approach with others, the retailers believe they can drive systemic change.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2019/01/179199/
-
Methylene Chloride Suit Marks First Test Of EPA's TSCA Responsibilities
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are suing EPA over its failure to ban paint-stripping uses of methylene chloride after finding that it does not meet the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) risk standard, marking one of the first legal tests of the agency's responsibilities to regulate toxic substances under the law since Congress revised it in 2016.
Environmentalists filed the suit, Vermont Public Interest Research Group et al v. Wheeler et al, Jan. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, just days after raising concerns that a pair of draft measures under White House review suggest the Trump administration may be retreating from the broad ban the Obama EPA had proposed.
Co-plaintiffs include the group Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, and Lauren Atkins and Wendy Hartley, whose sons died while using paint-stripping products containing methylene chloride.
While EPA is facing a series of suits challenging rules it has written to implement the revised law, the instant suit appears to mark one of the first suits alleging the agency is failing to exercise mandatory duties to regulate substances.
The suit asks the court to order EPA officials to “perform their mandatory duty under sections 6(a) and 7 of [TSCA] to address the serious and imminent threat to human health presented by paint removal products containing methylene chloride,” by invoking TSCA section 20(a)(2) “which provides the U.S. District Courts with jurisdiction to direct EPA to take actions under the law that are non-discretionary, but which EPA has failed to carry out,” the complaint states.
The suit notes “TSCA section 6(a) directs EPA to ban or restrict chemicals that it determines present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment,” and argues that EPA has “violated the explicit command in TSCA section 6(a) that it 'shall' by rule restrict a chemical determined to present an unreasonable risk of injury, applying such requirements that are 'necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents such risk.'”
Further, the plaintiffs argue that EPA is violating TSCA section 7, which requires the agency “to protect the public against 'imminently hazardous' chemical substances.”
The suit is expected to be followed by a second suit along similar arguments from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which issued a notice of intent to sue EPA last month. Like the plaintiffs, NRDC's notice states the agency has a non-discretionary duty to regulate methylene chloride in paint strippers after finding that the use poses risks to human health.
The suit asks a court to order EPA to impose a ban on the chemical under TSCA section 6(a) -- the type of action that EPA attempted on asbestos uses in the 1980s that was overturned by the 5th Circuit in the 1991 ruling that largely dissuaded the agency from attempting to ban or restrict uses of existing chemicals, those that were on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976.
The decision, and its externalities, were major drivers toward the TSCA reform law enacted in 2016.
Major retailers who have announced their own bans on methylene chloride paint-strippers include Lowe's, Walmart, Home Depot and Amazon, as well as an alternative chemical, n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). While advocates have celebrated each announcement, they say that those steps, while protective of consumers, fail to address commercial uses so EPA must act to protect workers.
Section 6
The plaintiffs describe several ways that Congress revised TSCA section 6 in order to strengthen EPA's ability to regulate existing chemicals, such as eliminating cost and other non-risk factors in making safety determinations.
The complaint notes that “Congress expressly authorized EPA to use the new law to regulate” chemicals such as methylene chloride, where the Obama EPA had completed risk analyses prior to the June 2016 passage of the TSCA reform statute.
“Section 26(l)(4) provides that, for chemicals for which EPA had published completed risk assessments before the new law took effect, the Agency 'may publish proposed and final rules under section 6(a) that are consistent with the scope of the completed risk assessment for the chemical substance” the complaint states, before citing Democrats' statement in the Congressional Record on the reform statute.
“This provision was intended to 'avoid any delay in the imposition of important public health protections that are known to be needed' based on EPA's already completed risk assessments.”
EPA's most recent regulatory agenda, published last fall, states that EPA was scheduled to issue a final rule banning paint-stripping products containing methylene chloride for consumer and commercial uses in December.
The agency, however, did not send a final version of the rule to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for review until Dec. 21. The same day, EPA also sent for OMB pre-publication review a pre-rule on a “Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program,” with no further details available.
Environmentalists, including plaintiff SCHF, have raised concerns that the proposed training program suggests the agency is retreating from the Obama-era proposal to prohibit methylene chloride paint-strippers' use outright and will instead finalize a scaled-back ban allowing some paint-stripping uses of the chemical despite potential risks to workers.
SCHF and the Environmental Defense Fund called the pre-rule “a major concession” to industry interests that would allow significant risks to workers to persist, weakening the previous administration's proposed ban.
Such an approach would be a win for paint stripper manufacturers who said in comments on the Obama administration's January 2017 proposed ban that EPA should pursue alternative measures, including risk management options aimed at reducing worker exposures.
One industry source told Inside EPA last May that softening the ban to allow for such measures could be a legally defensible “logical outgrowth” of the rulemaking process.
Bob Sussman, an attorney representing SCHF who served in top positions in the Clinton and Obama EPAs, told Inside EPA last week that the group will seek meetings with OMB to press for the agency to finalize the ban as proposed so that it also protects commercial workers -- who will not be protected by the retailer bans environmentalists say have been prompted by the Trump EPA's delay in finalizing a ban.
But Sussman added that the partial government shutdown makes it unclear when those meetings will occur, as all non-essential work such as rulemaking efforts are on hold indefinitely.
While the Trump EPA appeared intent on shelving plans to ban methylene chloride and other substances that the Obama EPA proposed under section 6(a), the agency announced last May that former Administrator Scott Pruitt planned to finalize the methylene chloride rule, without addressing the other substances.
The reversal came days after Pruitt met with relatives of workers killed from inhaling methylene chloride while paint stripping, including one of the plaintiffs, Hartley.
The environmentalists in their suit point to this promise and others, noting that “[a]t least four deaths have occurred after publication of EPA's proposal” and that Pruitt after the May announcement to ban the products “reaffirmed this commitment in testimony to Congress and the Agency reiterated its earlier determination that MC paint removers present an unreasonable risk of injury. Yet 10 months after Mr. Pruitt's explicit vows to finalize the proposed ban, no rule has been issued and MC paint removers continue to place Americans at risk of lethal health effects.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/methylene-chloride-suit-marks-first-test-epas-tsca-responsibilities
-
US Shutdown Delays Science Committee's Review of PV29
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A meeting to review the first of ten draft risk evaluations under the reformed TSCA has fallen victim to the US government's partial shutdown – the longest ever.
The TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) was scheduled to review an EPA preliminary determination of no unreasonable risk on pigment violet 29 during a meeting from 29 January to 1 February.
However, a 31 December EPA statement said the four-day peer review would be postponed if the shutdown persisted beyond 5pm EST on 11 January.
The EPA has released no information about when the rescheduled meeting might take place, and the agency remains shut down.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73366/us-shutdown-delays-science-committees-review-of-pv29
-
(ACC Mentioned) Gov. Baker Vetoes Bill Aimed to Ban Certain Flame Retardant Chemicals
Jan 15, 2019 | WWLP.com
By Jodi Reed
Governor Charlie Baker refused to sign House Bill 50-24 Friday. Refusing to sign a bill is called "a pocket veto," which means it will have to go through the entire legislative process all over again.
Thousands of Massachusetts Firefighters Support the flame retardant ban, saying the chemicals in some household products and children's toys are unnecessary and pose significant health risks.
The House and Senate sent the bill to Baker on New Year's Day hoping he would review it and sign it into law before the end of the 2017-2018 session.
The governor declined to do so, disappointing environmental advocates and first responders.
"There's nothing else we could have done that would have made the governor comfortable with this. Because the governor and Northstar were looking at the manufacturers who profit off of these chemicals and not in the public interest," said state representative Marjorie Decker, one of the bill's main sponsors.
The governor said he would have returned the bill with an amendment if the Legislature had still been in session, but since a new term is now underway, he does not have the option.
In a statement to Lawmakers, the governor said the bill would likely have a disproportionate impact on families with lower incomes who are less able to afford more expensive alternatives.
The American Chemistry Council applauded Baker's decision saying, "The bill would have placed an undue burden on Massachusetts businesses and consumers."
Supporters of the bill say they plan to file a new version during the next session, and the governor has expressed a willingness to work with them on the language.
https://www.wwlp.com/news/state-politics/gov-baker-vetoes-bill-aimed-to-ban-certain-flame-retardant-chemicals/1702025601
-
(ACC Mentioned) Massachusetts Governor 'Pocket Vetoes' Flame Retardant Ban
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A Massachusetts bill to ban 11 flame retardants from several types of consumer products has died, after Governor Charlie Baker failed to sign the industry-opposed measure into law.
And despite the bill passing the state legislature by a wide margin, the so-called ‘pocket veto’ cannot be overridden, as the state’s next legislative session has already begun.
The measure (H 5024) had sought to bar the sale or manufacture of bedding, carpeting, children’s products, residential upholstered furniture and window treatments containing more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of certain flame retardants.
But in a letter to legislators, Governor Baker said the bill would "make Massachusetts the only state in the United States to ban certain flame retardants in car seats and the non-foam parts of adult mattresses, products already subject to federal flammability requirements".
The less than five-month lead time for manufacturers to comply, and "the resulting disruption to what is available to consumers in Massachusetts", were also among the concerns cited.
The governor also took issue with the proposed requirement for the state’s environmental protection department to ban additional substances in the future "based solely on certain risks, without any consideration of countervailing benefits".
In the governor’s letter, he said he would have returned the bill with amendments to address his concerns, but that the option was not available with the legislature adjourned, so a pocket veto was his only option.‘Inconsistency and confusion’
Leading up to the pocket veto, several industry groups pressed the governor to reject the bill.
The Associated Industries of Massachusetts said it would create "inconsistency and confusion" in the marketplace, with a standard more stringent than California’s. The AIM said it supports Massachusetts adopting a law modelled on California’s legislation so regulations could be consistent across state lines.
The American Home Furnishings Alliance, meanwhile, took issue with the ban on antimony trioxide, a flame retardant they said is used specifically to meet federal flammability standards for mattresses.
The substance, said the AHFA, has been subject to "exhaustive scientific review" by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which has found its use in this application safe for consumers, workers and the environment.
Its inclusion in a ban would "dramatically limit consumers’ access to mattresses and sofa sleepers that meet the federal mattress flammability standard," the group added in a statement to Chemical Watch.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) agreed that the bill would have "placed an undue burden on Massachusetts businesses and consumers, while also removing an important component of comprehensive fire safety."Veto ‘will only increase our efforts’
The bill’s backers, however, have harshly criticised the governor’s move.
"It is outrageous that when given the option, Baker chose to stand with industry lobbyists instead of firefighters and families," said Elizabeth Saunders, Massachusetts director for Clean Water Action. "The chemical industry has lied up, down and sideways about what this bill will do to fire safety and to products sold in" the state, she added.
"Scientific evidence shows that the use of flame retardants in furnishings needlessly exposes the public to toxic chemicals, and that children and firefighters are especially vulnerable," said Kathryn Rodgers, staff scientist at the Silent Spring Institute.
Representative Marjorie Decker (D) and Senator Cynthia Stone Creem (D) – who introduced H 5024 – both committed to making the legislation a priority this year.
"It will only increase our efforts now," said Senator Creem, "working with Representative Decker, my Senate colleagues, the firefighters, environmental advocates and the public to make this the law."
The ACC and the International Sleep Products Association (ISPA) each told Chemical Watch that they are committed to working with bill proponents to craft a more workable solution in the new legislative session.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73365/massachusetts-governor-pocket-vetoes-flame-retardant-ban?q=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
Advocates Sue to Ban Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers (2)
Jan 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Methylene chloride-based paint and coating strippers must be banned by the EPA to prevent people from dying, a coalition of environmental groups and the parents of two young men who died from exposure to that solvent say in a lawsuit filed Jan. 14.
The Environmental Protection Agency has violated the Toxic Substances Control Act by allowing a chemical the agency knows can be deadly to remain on the market, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, and parents told the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.
The nation’s primary industrial chemicals law requires the EPA to restrict compounds that pose an unreasonable risk of injury and to protect the public against “imminently hazardous” chemicals, the lawsuit says.
The agency has failed to do that despite recognizing in a 2014 risk assessment that short-term exposures to high concentrations of paint and coating strippers made with the solvent can kill and proposing a rule in January 2017 to ban the chemical’s use in most consumer and commercial products. Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told Congress in May 2018 that the agency would ban it, the advocates told the court.Rules at OMB
Asked for comment on the lawsuit, an EPA spokesman emailed a link to a final rulethe agency recently sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. That rule would restrict methylene chloride in some way, but details as to how have not been released.
The EPA also sent an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for commercial uses of methylene chloride to OMB. The White House office must review and clear agency rulemakings before they are released.
The EPA’s recent actions don’t affect the lawsuit, because there’s no guarantee the OMB will approve either or both rulemakings, Robert Sussman, an attorney who represents Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, told Bloomberg Environment.
Nor is there any assurance that the restrictions in either proposal will be sufficient to protect the public, Sussman said.
The lawsuit, by contrast, seeks to compel the EPA to proceed with the January 2017 rule that would have protected consumers and commercial users of paint and coating strippers by banning methylene chloride from those products, he said.
In the absence of federal action, 11 major North American retailers, such as Lowe’s and Home Depot, along with auto parts stores, have pledged to stop carrying paint and coating strippers containing methylene chloride, Safer Chemicals said in a statement about the lawsuit.
The case is Vt. Pub. Interest Research Grp. v EPA, D. Vt., No. 19-00009, 1/14/19.
(Updated with EPA's comment in fifth paragraph.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/advocates-sue-to-ban-methylene-chloride-in-paint-strippers-2
-
Environmentalists Urge Court to Preserve Lead Paint Rule Suit
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging a federal appellate court not to “administratively terminate” their suit over EPA's failure to determine whether it must regulate work practices involving lead-based paint in public and commercial (P&C) buildings, a step the court proposed last month, though EPA is not objecting to the court's plan.
“Petitioners respectfully request that this case not be administratively terminated. While we understand the Court’s interest in not engaging in further monitoring of the status of older cases, the status reports make clear that the Respondent is currently implementing a settlement agreement,” Thomas Neltner, attorney for the Sierra Club and the Center for Environmental Health, writes in a Jan. 11 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
“We anticipate that with continued progress, the case should be resolved by June 2021 and possibly earlier. We wish to continue implementation of that Agreement.”
The brief comes in response to an order from the court last month in the suit New York Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. EPA, which seeks to require EPA to comply with provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act and other laws to address lead paint hazards by a date certain.
But the suit has lingered since 2008 as EPA has struggled to develop the data needed to make its determination.
As a result, the court last month asked environmentalists and EPA to “show cause by January 11, 2019, why this case should not be administratively terminated upon the docket of the court."
The order notes that it is based on consideration of EPA's last status update to the court, last August, in which the agency again indicated it is still working to gather data that would support decisionmaking the agency had promised to complete by March 31, 2017.
The clerk explains that termination “allows the court to clear its statistical docket of older cases in which no activity before the court is expected in the near future. It also relieves the court of the need to monitor the status of such cases and the parties of the responsibility to submit periodic reports.”
In his reply, Neltner acknowledges that the parties reached an agreement in 2009, which has been twice updated, most recently in 2015 after environmentalists sued EPA to force the agency to craft a rule intended to protect workers and occupants from lead dust exposure during renovations of public and commercial buildings. The agency completed such a rule in 2008 for homes and child care facilities built before 1978, but environmentalists are urging the agency to expand such protections to occupants of other building types. These properties are largely occupied by adults, requiring a new and separate risk analysis than that underlying the child-focused 2008 rule.
“EPA has completed many of the milestones related to this Agreement as documented in prior status reports. In particular, EPA has recently completed a major step by gathering information necessary to make the threshold determination whether renovation or remodeling activities in these buildings create lead-based paint hazards,” Neltner writes. “Petitioners believe that this information should enable the agency to make this threshold decision by the end of 2019.”
Neltner asks that “the Court should continue to require that Respondent file status reports on a semi-annual basis, as it will assist in reaching a resolution of this matter.”
EPA, by contrast, writes that “it has no objection to the administrative termination of this action as contemplated in the Court’s Order,” according to its Jan. 11 brief.
EPA does acknowledge the court's statement that such a termination would be “without prejudice to the reopening of the case by any party at any time for the purposes and under the terms stated in the Court’s Order.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-urge-court-preserve-lead-paint-rule-suit
-
Canada Backs Glyphosate Again After Tainted Science Complaint
Jan 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
Canada’s health authority defended its approval of a popular herbicide characterized as a possible carcinogen after environmental groups complained about improper industry interference in the government’s review.
Scientific studies that the groups say were undermined by industry meddling didn’t affect Health Canada’s decision to approve glyphosate’s use for 15 years in 2017, the department said in documents released Jan. 14.
“Our scientists left no stone unturned in conducting this review,” Health Canada said in a Jan. 11 statement, ahead of the documents’ release.
Glyphosate, used widely to control weeds, has received significant negative attention since the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer announced in 2015 that it was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”Thousands of Suits
The chemical is currently the subject of over 9,000 lawsuits in U.S. courts that alleged it caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
California’s Superior Court found last August that Monsanto Co., which made the glyphosate-containing Roundup pesticide, should be held accountable for groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson’s cancer and awarded him $289 million, a sum that was later knocked down to $78.6 million.
Six Canadian environmental groups say that documents unearthed in that case show improper interference from Monsanto in scientific deliberations and that the results from those studies were used in Health Canada’s approval of glyphosate.
The department reviewed these documents—known as the Monsanto Papers—using 20 staff members who were not involved in the original approval.
The concerns raised by the Monsanto Papers couldn’t be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data and they don’t create doubt or concern regarding the scientific bases of the 2017 approval, Health Canada said.Split Reactions
Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto in 2018, commended the department for its work.
“This additional review reaffirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides are safe when used as directed and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic,” Bayer Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan wrote in an Jan. 14 email to Bloomberg Environment.
Ecojustice, a law firm that compiled the documents used to trigger the Health Canada review, lambasted the department’s conclusions.
“The decision they’re upholding relies on tainted science; there’s no other way to look at it but that,” Elaine MacDonald, program director for healthy communities at the firm, said Jan. 14.
The environmental groups behind the complaint—Ecojustice, Environmental Defence Canada, Friends of the Earth, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Equiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation—had originally called for an independent panel to review the 2017 approval of glyphosate, MacDonald said.No Panel
A panel is authorized under the Pest Control Products Act but has never been used, she said.
Health Canada’s use of 20 internal scientists does not provide enough confidence that the review was impartial, said Environmental Defence Canada’s toxics program manager Muhannad Malas.
“It’s like the government grading their own math test,” he said.
A separate Roundup trial is set to begin in U.S. federal court on Feb. 25.
Based on future deliberations from that case and others, the environmental groups will look for options to again challenge Health Canada’s support for glyphosate, both MacDonald and Malas said.
“We’ll have to determine if there are other legal options that can be pursued,” MacDonald said.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/canada-backs-glyphosate-again-after-tainted-science-complaint
-
Granite Geek: Is That Chemical Safe? Predictive Toxicology May Have the Answer
Jan 14, 2019 | Concord Monitor
By David Brooks
It sometimes seems that every chemical ever used in every product ever made turns out to be toxic, which we only realize after it has spread throughout the world and made people sick.
Wouldn’t it be nice to know how toxic a chemical really is before we start using it?
This, it turns out, is the whole idea behind a relatively new field (new to me, certainly): Predictive toxicology. It tries to move beyond the time-consuming laboratory and field studies which have long been used to determine toxicity, making quicker decisions using more easily obtained information such as the molecular structure of substances.
“Just like machine learning is being used to predict what we might buy, predictive toxicology is an emerging field to generate data in the lab and compare it across chemical structures, using big data to better predict the toxic effects that a chemical might have,” said Britton Goodale, Ph.D., a research scientist and toxicologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
If nothing else, she said, predictive toxicology can start prioritizing which chemicals should be studied.
“Doing a long-term animal study is really expensive and slow, so they have this huge backlog of chemicals for which they don’t have enough data to do a good risk assessment,” Goodale said.
Huge chemical backlog
There are currently about 85,000 substances in the EPA’s inventory under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and about 30,000 are thought to be used in wide commercial application. That doesn’t include, according to a 2011 study in the journal “Science of the Total Environment,” 8,600 food additives, 3,400 cosmetic ingredients, 1,800 pharmaceuticals and 1,000 pesticides that are regulated under federal agencies other than the EPA.
At that time, the study said, about 10,000 substances being considered for an EPA priority testing program yet high-quality data was available for only about one-quarter of them, and one-third of them had virtually no toxicology information at all.
Being able to make useful predictions about effects based on chemical structure and other existing data would be really helpful. Hence the excitement about predictive toxicology.
But that new approach is still – well, new. Most decisions continue to be made based on traditional science.
How much arsenic?
I approached Goodale about it because her specialty is arsenic, which is in the news at the moment. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has proposed lowering the acceptable level of arsenic in our drinking water based on updated science, from 10 parts per billion to five parts per billion. In other words, each drop of our water should be 99.99995 percent arsenic-free instead of just 99.99990 percent arsenic-free.
(Arsenic is usually a byproduct of our geology, by the way. This is one of many cases where it does not help that the chemical is “natural.”)
That proposal made me curious about the scientific processes by which we decide that one incredibly diluted amount of a chemical is dangerous while a slightly less incredibly diluted amount is safe. Hence my call to Goodale.
The complication is that you can’t do controlled experiments on human health. You can’t subject a random group people to a potential toxin for a number of months or years to see what happens compared to a control group.
So, Goodale explained, we have to make intelligent guesses based on three things, all of which have shortcomings: Epidemiological studies, analysis of human cells in labs, and animal studies.
Animal studies involve exposing lab rats or their equivalent to doses of a chemical, while lab work does the same thing to isolated human cells in a Petri dish or the equivalent. Both take the results and extrapolate to what would happen if the exposure had been done to human beings, an extrapolation that involves plenty of room for uncertainty.
You’re probably more familiar with epidemiology. You know how it goes: A community that seems to have an unusual amount of some disease gets studied to see if an environmental cause can be found. If there’s more cancer than the national average and more of a chemical around than is usual, did the chemical cause the disease, or is it coincidence, or is there some other factor?
This is more direct, since it looks at actual humans, but much more complicated. Determining how much a specific agent caused a change in disease over a period of time is an exercise in extreme biology and statistics, with a hefty dose of data-gathering uncertainty added.
“Epidemiological studies can show correlation but cannot provide causation, because it’s not a controlled exposure,” she said.
One in a million
As Goodale explained it, the process starts with a benchmark dose at which experience or studies indicate that effects are likely to start showing up. For cancer, the usual benchmark is that it’s not expected to cause a more than one-in-a-million of cancer over a human lifetime.
The acceptable dose limit is then lowered by various factors.
“Usually it’s divided by 10 to factor in people who might be more sensitive, to account for that uncertainty. Another factor of 10 if extrapolating from animal data to human data. Another factor of 10 if the study data are not chronic – if they’re shorter-term, which is often the case in animal studies,” she said. “Sometimes they add another uncertainty factor, depending on circumstances.”
“Then there’s an evaluation of the limitations of the data – things that are considered are things like the risk of bias of the study, the quality of the study, the confidence in how the exposure was assessed, and the like,” she said.
Ten times ten times ten times ten is 10,000 – which means that a benchmark dose of one part per million based on limited studies can turn into a regulated limit of one part per 10 billion.
Combine this with an ever-increasing ability of technology to detect and measure chemicals in minuscule amounts and you see how we get to mind-boggling levels like 70 parts per trillion – trillion! – of the chemicals known as PFAS in southern New Hampshire groundwater. (To help grasp what that number means, consider: One million seconds is 11 days, but one trillion seconds is 30,000 years – yes, years.)
There’s another complication: You can’t assume that health effects are linear. In other words, if a substance causes X problems at a certain dose, cutting that dose by a factor of 10 doesn’t necessarily mean that the effects will also be cut by a factor of 10. The effects might disappear entirely if you get below a cutoff level, or they might go down by the expected factor of 10, or the effects might not go down much at all.
“Endocrine disruptors are a good example of that. Acting like hormones, they can often have different effects at lower levels that you wouldn’t predict if you just extrapolated down from high-level exposure,” Goodale said.
So what’s to be done? One possibility is to take the precautionary principle to the extreme, demanding a certain lack of future harm before producing any new chemical or using an existing chemical in a new way. The difficulty of proving a negative means this would basically cripple all new industrial production. While that may not seem too bad an idea to some folks, it’s never going to happen.
Instead, we need to double down on science and research to help inform ourselves as much as possible. And we need to accept the reality of regulation and oversight that will sometimes get in the way of our wishes and desires and business plans; we are grownups, after all.
As for Goodall, she’s cautiously optimistic.
“With more health effects being taken into account in design, and as methods improve to determine which chemicals will be bad, there’s a lot of hope that we can develop chemicals that will not be harmful to human health or the environment,” she said.
To put it another way: Predictive toxicology – save us from ourselves!
https://www.concordmonitor.com/arsenic-groundwater-dartmouth-superfund-22694384
-
CIA Calls on UK MPs to Secure Brexit Deal
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The head of the UK Chemical Industries Association (CIA) has urged MPs to back Britain’s withdrawal deal from the EU ahead of a key vote today (15 January).
MPs are expected to vote down the divorce deal put forward by Prime Minister Theresa May.
"In this critical week I urge all members of our parliament to ensure that the United Kingdom secures a deal with the European Union on our withdrawal from membership and our future relationship," CIA’s Steve Elliott said.
"For chemical businesses and hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs across the country, leaving our biggest trading partner on 29 March without any agreement is an economic price that is just too high to pay."
In September last year the government released guidance on REACH in a no-deal scenario. This was followed by no-deal advice on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) and prior informed consent (Pic) regulations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73368/cia-calls-on-uk-mps-to-secure-brexit-deal
-
Six SVHCs Added to REACH Candidate List
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has added six substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to the REACH candidate list, which now contains 197 chemicals.
Four of the new substances have either persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties, one is reprotoxic and the other is an endocrine disruptor for the environment.
The agency included four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) – benzo[k]fluoranthene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pyrene, following input from Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC). Belgium proposed the first two and France the latter two.
The PAHs were referred to the MSC in order to address new hazard information submitted during the public consultation.
Five substances are not yet registered under REACH. The chemicals and their properties are:2,2-bis(4'-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane – reprotoxic. This was proposed by Sweden;benzo[k]fluoranthene – carcinogenic, PBT and vPvB;fluoranthene – PBT and vPvB;phenanthrene – vPvB; and1,7,7-trimethyl-3-(phenylmethylene)bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one – endocrine disruptor for the environment. The European Commission identified it as an SVHC following the referral of the MSC opinion on its proposal as such in 2016.
Meanwhile, pyrene, which was added due to its PBT and vPvB qualities, is currently used as a transported intermediate in the manufacture of fine chemicals.Withdrawal
The German Environment Agency (UBA) decided to withdraw its proposal to identify undecafluorohexanoic acid and its ammonium salt (PFHxA) as an SVHC, during the MSC agreement seeking process.
Last year the competent authority began a risk management option analysis (RMOA) of the substance under Echa’s public activities coordination tool (PACT), which also assesses hazards.
PFHxA is not registered under REACH or used in the EU, Germany said at the time, but PFHxA-related substances (precursors), which can be degraded to PFHxA, are registered and used within the single market.
The candidate list is updated approximately every six months with ten SVHCs added in June last year.
Earlier this month Echa set out its actions to promote substitution of SVHCs during 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73376/six-svhcs-added-to-reach-candidate-list
-
Colorado Supreme Court Rules for Oil, Gas Regulators in Public Health Lawsuit
Jan 14, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of state regulators about how much weight needed to be given to public health and environmental concerns...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here:
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117064-colorado-supreme-court-rules-for-oil-gas-regulators-in-public-health-lawsuit
-
Colorado High Court Sides With Industry in Fracking Fight (1)
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado Supreme Court sided with the oil and gas industry Jan. 14 in a high-stakes court battle that would have restricted drilling in the name of public health and the environment.
The state’s highest court ruled the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission properly declined to engage in rulemaking to consider a proposal from a group of teenagers that fracking be allowed only if the state could show the practice doesn’t harm human health or the environment.
The court said the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act primarily requires the commission to “foster development of oil and gas resources, protecting and enforcing the rights of owners and producers.” It said the commission is not required to “condition all new oil and gas development on a finding of no cumulative adverse impacts to public health and environment.”
‘Prevent and Mitigate’Rather, the act requires the commission “to prevent and mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts to the extent necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare, but only after taking into consideration cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility,” the court said in a unanimous 31-page ruling.
The highly anticipated decision reverses a March 2017 split decision by the Colorado Court of Appeals, which found the commission erred when it concluded it lacked the authority to consider the teenagers’ petition.
“Today’s outcome is positive for all Coloradans,” Colorado Petroleum Council Executive Director Tracee Bentley said in a statement. “This case has dragged on for over five years and it’s time to focus on uniting to encourage energy development in the United States, and specifically in Colorado.”
Interested PartiesSeveral parties filed friend of the court briefs in the case, including environmental groups, local governments, and industry groups such as the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and National Federation of Independent Businesses.
The seven teenagers had proposed a rule that would have precluded the commission from issuing drilling permits until confirming that oil and gas activity doesn’t harm Colorado’s environment and human health and doesn’t contribute to climate change.
That activity included hydraulic fracturing, the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals deep underground to stimulate the extraction of natural gas and oil trapped in tight shale formations.
New Gov. Jared Polis (D) said in a statement he was disappointed by the ruling, adding that it “highlights the need to work with the Legislature and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to more safely develop our state’s natural resources and protect our citizens from harm.”
‘Take Action’In his Jan. 10 State of the State address, Polis urged lawmakers to “take meaningful action to address the conflicts between oil-and-gas drilling operations and the neighborhoods they impact, and to make sure that all of our communities have clean air and water.”
Similarly, House Speaker KC Becker (D) said in a statement that the court’s decision puts the issue “back into the hands of lawmakers to take action and we are committed to addressing this concern this legislative session.”
Colorado Rising, a community group that pushed a failed ballot measure in November to place restrictions on new drilling, said the ruling “validates all of our concerns that the State is not adequately protecting public health and the regulations are insufficient.”
The case is COGCC v. Martinez, Colo., No. 17SC297, 1/14/19.
(Adds reaction from Colorado lawmakers and environmentalists throughout.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/colorado-high-court-sides-with-industry-in-fracking-fight-1
-
Trump Touts Energy, But Projects Hit Legal Hurdles, Tariffs in Shutdown
Jan 14, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Ben LeFebvre
President Donald Trump claimed again on Monday his actions in the White House have rewarded Americans with cheaper prices at the pump — but even where the federal government can help the industry, the administration's actions are sometimes backfiring, and the government shutdown is only making the problem worse.
Approving oil and gas projects was an early focus of Trump's, and he invited TV cameras into the Oval Office executive in his first few days to sign an order expediting permit processing for pipelines and other “critical infrastructure,” including an order reviving the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline that the Obama administration had quashed.
But Keystone XL remains mired in permit approvals, and the administration's tariffs on steel raised hackles in the industry, forcing the companies with major pipeline and liquefied natural gas projects to scramble for exemptions from the measures that pushed foreign steel prices up 25 percent.
Now, the government shutdown means even those tariff exemptions have been threatened, putting multibillion-dollar oil and gas projects in danger of delays or busting their budgets because of staff furloughs at the Commerce Department, which is responsible for processing applications.
Companies like BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil are seeking exemptions for offshore oil rigs, pipelines and other projects, arguing that the type of steel product needed isn’t made in the U.S. The delays in getting them could drive up project costs as companies either forgo the exemption and pay the tariff, or buy domestic steel and essentially re-design their projects to account for the material’s different physical specifications, said Christine McDaniel, senior research fellow for international trade at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
“This is very capital intensive,” said McDaniel, a former senior trade economist in the George W. Bush White House. “It could really cause major delays into months or years.“
Trump has said he's content with portions of the government to be shut for “months or even years” until House Democrats include $5.7 billion for a border wall in any new government spending measure, but Democrats have showed no sign of giving in to the demand.
“They’re stuck in purgatory,” a source at one international oil company said of its applications for steel for a major offshore oil rig.
Vallourec USA, which supplies oil companies with various steel products, applied for a tariff exemption in November. The Houston oilfield equipment maker said it needed to import steel from Germany to supply Gulf of Mexico oil rigs, including BP’s giant Atlantis, Mad Dog, Na Kika and Thunderhorse platforms, as well as Chevron’s Murrayfield project and Hess’ Stampede facility.
“Unavailability of this product could delay the development of these projects for several months or even years because the product is [a] critical safety component of the development,” Vallourec said in its applications to Commerce. Vallourec representatives did not respond to questions.
Exxon Mobil’s pipeline subsidiary is also waiting on an exemption for pipeline steel from the U.K. and Malaysia that is needed to build links to West Texas' oil fields, the company said in its application.
The government shutdown is also helping environmental groups that are fighting in court to halt pipeline projects under construction. While the shutdown continues, the furloughed federal lawyers can’t defend the permits in courts and regulators at Interior may not have the employees on hand to update the permits judges have sent back to them.
The Keystone XL pipeline could end up being one of the biggest losers in the shutdown fight. A federal judge in Montana in November sided with environmental groups challenging Trump’s January 2017 approval of the 830,000 barrel-per-day pipeline, ordering a halt to construction while the State Department redoes what it ruled as a faulty environmental review.
But Justice Department lawyers defending the project in court have been furloughed, according to email responses. A department spokesperson did not reply to questions as to whether it would have anyone attending a Monday hearing to argue that pre-construction in Montana should be allowed to continue while Keystone builder TransCanada appeals the judge’s November order.
A TransCanada spokesperson declined to comment, though the company filed a notice with the court arguing against delaying the hearing, saying the Justice Department lawyers were not essential.
The delay may not scuttle Keystone XL, said Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party who has fought against pipeline projects. But it's the latest example of the administration unintentionally erecting hurdles for pipelines and helping opposition groups seeking to block their construction until a White House more sympathetic to their cause is put in place.
The groups’ plan is to “hold the line until 2020, so all the delays help,” Kleeb said. “Since Trump insists on breaking the government, he is helping our cause.”
Other pipelines being contested in court are also in jeopardy of new delays from the shutdown.
Federal judges late last year ordered the Interior and Agriculture departments to redo environmental permitting for the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coastpipelines, two projects proposed to transport natural gas through mid-Atlantic states. In both cases, judges admonished department regulators for faulty environmental analyses and remanded the permits the administration had given out, forcing work stoppages.
The Justice Department asked a federal judge on Dec. 31 to delay future hearings in the Atlantic Coast Pipeline case, saying that during the shutdown, “Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the U.S. Department of the Interior are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis,” except in the case of emergencies.
The Interior Department did not answer questions about whether it was still performing the permitting work amid the shutdown. An Agriculture Department spokesperson said he was unable to comment on specific agency actions “while the government shutdown is ongoing and ever-changing.“
The overall effect that the shutdown is having on the Interior Department’s ability to redo environmental analyses remains to be seen, said Jared Margolis, staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a group that has opposed pipeline development. But the delays in and out of court just add to the administration’s miscues on pipeline projects, he added.
“The president can’t just say we want these pipelines and then they magically just appear in the ground,” Margolis said. “The litigation is saying you didn’t look at [environmental] impacts closely enough. Courts are agreeing with us.”
“I don’t think they’re learning from that,” Margolis added of Trump’s regulators. “Not that I want them to learn from that.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/01/trump-touts-energy-but-projects-hit-legal-hurdles-tariffs-in-shutdown-1070965
-
Oil Majors See a Climate Threat — To Their Bottom Line
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By John Fialka
The second in a three-part series. Click here for the first story.
In 2016, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, started a historic plunge into new businesses.
The British-Dutch-controlled company began spending $2 billion a year on joint ventures that had little or nothing to do with oil and gas. One of its new companies sells biofuels made from sugar cane in Brazil. Another built an advanced demonstration project in Bangalore, India, that makes biofuels from agricultural wastes.
Shell and other oil majors see potential chaos in their markets. Their carbon-rich product is one of the most valuable commodities on the planet, generating $1.7 trillion in sales in 2016. Transportation consumes more than a quarter of the world's energy, and projections estimate the number of passenger cars will double by 2050.
Here's the hitch: Governments concerned about climate change might impose stiffer taxes on carbon emissions.
To some companies, that's a green light to invest in electric cars. Shell bought its way into the hydrogen fuel business in Germany, becoming a partner in a network that is building 400 hydrogen filling stations, needed to supply a growing market for fuel-cell-driven cars. They are electric vehicles that get their power from hydrogen; the result is emissions that consist mainly of water.
Shell also bought a Dutch company called NewMotion, which makes chargers for electric cars in Europe. They can recharge a battery in 30 minutes. Another major, BP PLC, invested in an Israeli company called StoreDot. It is working on a new electric car battery that could be recharged in as little as five minutes.
Meanwhile, Shell is building a solar park in Moerdijk, in the Netherlands. It has 50,000 solar panels that will provide renewable energy to run Shell's nearby chemical plant and reduce its emissions.
Ben van Beurden, Shell's CEO, begins press interviews by explaining that Shell is no longer just an oil and gas company. His views have become contagious among the leaders of some other major oil companies. Ten of them, led by Shell, Total SA and BP, put up $100 million apiece in November 2016 to help promote the goals of the Paris Agreement by forming the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative.
"There are plenty of questions facing our industry," van Beurden explained last year at an energy conference in Houston. "But I believe the biggest of them is climate change."
That means "the reality is change" for the oil and gas business, he explained.
"For me, the second-biggest question is how our industry can succeed through all this change," van Beurden said. Shell's ambition is to remain a "world-class" investment while it ramps up new products and drops others, he said.
"We are businesses, not charities," he reminded a group of oil and gas executives.
Shell is helping governments sponsor new research into the next generation of electric storage batteries. In the United States, part of the effort is aimed at developing lighter, more efficient batteries that can replace the current lithium-ion batteries that power electric cars. Another part is finding new chemistries for much larger batteries needed by utilities to store excess electricity generated by wind and solar power. The idea is to use the power at night, when the wind isn't blowing.
Shell has partnered with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, in a program that it calls the "game changer technology accelerator." NREL and Shell are reviewing proposals from over 50 startup U.S. companies to see which four might be eligible to share $1 million in Shell seed money. Next year, a second round of prospecting for "game changers" will extend to startups in Europe.
"One of our big [research] criteria is that we want to see a big difference in new technology, one that's going to revolutionize the energy landscape," said Adam Duran, a program manager at NREL. "Shell has funded core research at NREL before, but not in this particular kind of accelerator space."
The goal is to find companies with the most promising science proposals and award them up to $250,000 of Shell's money to help them escape what Duran calls the "valleys of death" that doom many new startups. One is the struggle to develop a workable product from an idea. The other is to develop a commercial market for it.
That could earn a company as much as $500,000 after two rounds of competition.
"One of the things that brought Shell to NREL is that they're making the transition from their core competency," Duran said, referring to oil and gas.
NREL has a long history of developing new electric battery chemistries, and Duran noted that Shell's involvement will give it a preview of new ideas coming from inventors and universities.
"I wouldn't call it truly philanthropic," he admitted, but Shell's agreement with NREL would not give it equity rights in the emerging winners. But that could happen later. Shell wants "to be in the front of the pack, versus following up from behind."
Shell also co-sponsored recent research by two committees of experts from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on ways to make commercial products out of carbon dioxide contained in industrial waste, such as power plant emissions.
Asked about NREL's "game-changer" competition, Natalie Gunnell, a spokeswoman for Shell in Houston, said: "We are excited about these partnerships that bring together industry experts and innovative thinking to identify promising new technologies and move future energy solutions to market, as we continue to provide more and cleaner energy."
Some of Shell's major competitors are excited about partnerships, as well, and they are using different ways to stay ahead of the pack. For example, there is Bob Dudley, the group chief executive of BP. He grew up in Hattiesburg, Miss., and got his degree in chemical engineering at the University of Illinois.
As he put it in a recent speech: "A race to renewables will not be enough. That's why we are making bold changes across our entire business." That put BP, which launched a $200 million advertising campaign called "Beyond Petroleum" in 2000 to emphasize BP's relatively small solar and wind power assets, onto a circular pathway.
In 2011, it divested itself of its wind and solar assets, claiming it needed to refocus the company on continued expansion of the gas and oil business. Now, driven by climate change and the moves of its European competitors, BP is back to where it started in 2000. And it's moving way, way beyond petroleum.
It bought a new solar company, calling it LightSource BP. It plans to invest at least $500 million a year in "low-carbon activities," Dudley said. BP's list of new investments includes Solidia Technologies, a New Jersey company that makes building materials, including cement and concrete, that can reduce the massive CO2 footprint of these products by up to 70 percent, according to BP.
A companion move was to buy into Tricoya Technologies Ltd., a British company that makes a lighter, more durable particleboard and other building materials that can be substituted for higher-carbon construction materials.
BP is also working with Fulcrum BioEnergy, a California company that is building a plant near Reno, Nev., to make household garbage into a low-carbon fuel intended to help airlines and trucking companies switch from conventional diesel and jet fuels.
On another front, BP owns part of Breathing Buildings Ltd., a company in Cambridge, England, that promises to make heating and cooling buildings more energy-efficient with advanced controls that can use more air from outside.
Almost every oil and gas major has invested in some form of electric-vehicle-related market. For that, BP took its checkbook to China to invest in NIO Capital, a fund involved in building multiple EV battery plants there.
For years, environmental groups have bashed oil companies collectively as "Big Oil," and blamed its lobbying and ready cash for being one of the motivating forces behind the Trump administration's pledge to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement.
Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate end Energy Solutions, a Washington-area think tank, believes that with most of the majors, the economic and business settings are rapidly shifting.
"One of the things that's interesting about oil and gas companies is that they have some of the best chemists in the world," said Perciasepe, formerly deputy director of EPA under President Obama.
"When you sit down and talk to them, you understand they know what needs to be done about climate change," he said. They are aware of a timetable recently set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of scientists organized by the United Nations, that said action will have to begin "well before" 2030 to bring greenhouse gas emissions down to net-zero growth by around 2050.
"I think what they're doing is not public relations," Perciasepe said. "They're starting to put real resources and brain power into thinking how they might evolve over the next 20 years."
"They're basically saying, 'Look, we're running out of time. We've got to do everything.'"
Next: Some American majors get involved.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/01/15/stories/1060113135
-
Researchers Make Malware to Show Automation's Vulnerability
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Cybersecurity researchers have built a "proof-of-concept" hacking tool that could be used to disrupt coal mines, schools and hospitals.
Elisa Costante, technology innovation director at cybersecurity firm ForeScout Technologies Inc., said she hopes her team's custom-built malware can "raise awareness" around building automation systems, which she described as a critical but often-overlooked technology.
Costante worked with building automation vendors and homeland security officials to fix 10 vulnerabilities laid bare by her findings. She's set to review the highlights at the S4 industrial cybersecurity conference here today, though ForeScout has stopped short of publishing the malware itself as an "ethical" matter, she said.
"We don't want it to end up in the wrong hands," Costante said. "We just want to say that we should face the problem and not hide it under the carpet."
Modern building automation systems can encompass heating, air conditioning, ventilation, security cameras, access controls, thermostats and even energy sources like rooftop solar panels.
While cybersecurity flaws in the U.S. power grid and gas pipelines grab headlines, Costante laid out how glitches in seemingly innocuous building networks can cause big problems.
"The criticality of building automation systems was a bit dismissed. 'You put the HVAC down, fine, I'm too cold or too hot, and I move into the other room,'" she said.
But for tunnels, mines and data centers, among other sites, fluctuations in temperature and ventilation could force the facilities to shut down or put workers in jeopardy, Costante said. "It's more critical than we think," she said.
Her team of cybersecurity specialists spent about $11,000 simulating a building network replete with real internet-connected cameras, "smart" lighting fixtures and thermostats.
"It's cheap to target those systems," Costante said. "One of the lessons learned was: You don't need a state sponsor to launch quite complex attacks."
The malware she created first keyed into web-connected security cameras before taking advantage of glitches in two other products to nestle deep in the simulated building's control system.
The most dangerous flaw Costante uncovered dates back more than five years and has been fixed by the vendor, which she declined to name. But her team discovered thousands of vulnerable building automation components still accessible online via specialized search tools like Shodan, she said.
Even if the buildings themselves are never targeted, exposed devices could be roped into "botnets" of hacked computers, like the Mirai worm that was used to knock down swaths of internet infrastructure in 2016, Costante pointed out. North American grid overseers issued an alert to utilities in response to the Mirai incident, warning that their own "internet of things" devices could be used to launch attacks on other companies' computers.
Costante started work on the malware project in July while at control system cybersecurity firm SecurityMatters, which was acquired by ForeScout late last year.
"The whole idea of doing the exercise was to show that it's not so complicated" to find and exploit weak points in building networks, she said. "We really think they're going to be targeted more and more."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/15/stories/1060113711
-
Ore. Delegation in the Driver's Seat
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The bipartisan allure of infrastructure stems from the fact that building roads, bridges, water projects and electric grids tends to affect nearly every state and congressional district.
But there's one state in particular that will have an oversize influence on drafting infrastructure legislation in the 116th Congress: Oregon.
Despite its relatively small delegation — there are just five House members in addition to its two senators — the seniority of Beaver State lawmakers on key congressional committees means negotiations on infrastructure will be conducted by a wonky collection of Oregonians, some of whom have been waiting for decades to imprint their ideas on a national level.
Consider the House, where Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) just took the reins of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which will be the starting point for an infrastructure package this year.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) plans to use his senior position on the Ways and Means Committee to press funding options — a perennially thorny issue that sank President Trump's much-ballyhooed $1 trillion infrastructure package in the last Congress after Republicans shied away from finding revenues.
And although he's no longer in the majority, Oregon Rep. Greg Walden remains the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which could contribute energy-related and rural broadband provisions under its jurisdiction to an infrastructure package.
And while he's farther down in the seniority ranks, Democratic Oregonian Rep. Kurt Schrader sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well.
In the Senate, Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) will guide revenue talks on the Finance Committee from his ranking member slot, while Oregon's junior Democratic senator, Jeff Merkley, sits on the Senate's primary panel of jurisdiction, the Environment and Public Works Committee.
DeFazio demurred last month when asked whether the 116th Congress represented the high point of the delegation's powers, noting that former Oregon GOP Sens. Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield chaired the Finance and Appropriations committees, respectively, during the 1980s and 1990s.
But he conceded that "we've got a lot of clout to bear" on infrastructure in the current Congress. "It's going to take a lot of work," DeFazio said.'Early in the session'
That work that has already begun in earnest.
DeFazio said Democrats will look to push through a smaller infrastructure bill in the first six months of the new Congress, followed by a major highway reauthorization when the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act expires in 2020.
DeFazio said the first package could include long-held priorities, such as improving rural internet access, adding that there are "a lot of things we can do in a longer-term bill" to green transportation.
"We hope to have an infrastructure package writ large done early in the session," he said.
DeFazio and Blumenauer have been meeting regularly with new Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) to talk about revenue options — a topic that DeFazio said he's also been in contact with the Trump administration on, as well.
"It's a useless exercise if the federal government can't be a better partner with the states," he said. "So we have to have more federal revenue one way or another, mostly I'm looking at incremental stuff with bonding, but if someone has bigger ideas, I'm open."
Blumenauer this month acknowledged the passion for infrastructure among the Oregonian delegation.
"We do a lot of work on it," he told E&E News, noting that he spent 10 years on T&I serving with DeFazio, whom he called "superbly qualified" to legislate on the subject.
Blumenauer said of his Senate colleague: "Ron Wyden cares deeply — we've worked cooperatively on that."
Blumenauer noted that his own passion for infrastructure stems from the decade he spent as a public works commissioner in Portland. "The reason I went to Ways and Means was to work on infrastructure finance," he said.
Although leadership spurned his idea to create a Ways and Means subcommittee focused on infrastructure, Blumenauer vowed "to ensure that it gets the focused attention it deserves" in the current Congress (E&E Daily, Jan. 4).
Asked about Oregon's hand on infrastructure, Wyden last month said the delegation is "not just well-positioned, we've got an opportunity to take some of the good ideas that Oregonians have given us over the last few years about infrastructure and to work with our colleagues to build bipartisan support for it."Vehicle-miles-traveled system
One distinctively Oregonian policy that will likely ripple through infrastructure talks is the state's vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) program — the nation's first — which launched in 2015. Since then, more than a dozen states have launched similar efforts (E&E Daily, Dec. 17, 2018).
Senate EPW Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) has spoken approvingly of Oregon's work on the issue, which aims to charge people by the distances they travel rather than by the per-gallon-of-fuel tax that currently is supposed to fund construction of roads and bridges in the United States but is badly lagging because of technological advances in vehicles and the fact it hasn't been adjusted for inflation since the early 1990s.
"I think that's where we need to go, and we're not going to be there next year or the year after that," Carper said last year. "What we need is sort of a game plan, a path, to take us there over the next 10 years."
DeFazio agrees that the United States will eventually convert to a national VMT program. He'd like to include a national voluntary VMT pilot program "along the lines of what we're doing in Oregon, which is a voluntary pilot."
"They are doing ways that you can track your mileage to see how it works out in equivalence in terms of revenues and how acceptable different forms of VMT are to people," he said, referencing privacy concerns over the federal government monitoring private vehicles.
DeFazio noted that mobile phone app developers regularly monitor and sell data based on locations, which "starts at your house and shows where you went."
"People don't want the government to know where they've been, but they are being tracked," he said. "We're not ready to go there as a principal national program yet, but a national pilot would help move us along."
Wyden for his part is eying a revival of "Build America bonds," which were included at his behest in the 2009 economic stimulus law and generated $181 billion in investments.
"We made extensive use of Build America Bonds in Oregon, which I continue to be very interested in because they're tax credit bonds," he told E&E News last month.
Walden last month praised DeFazio's long-standing focus on infrastructure, which he said bodes well for both urban, suburban and rural transportation needs of Oregon.
"He has always been about doing big infrastructure and fixing our highways, roads and bridges," Walden told E&E News. "We'll work together on that."
Blumenauer's focus on urban planning — especially cycling — further complements the state's rural transport needs, which mirror other areas of the country.
"It's just maintenance and upgrades for a lot of our roads," he said, noting the associated suburban congestion that accompanies the growing population of the city of Bend in his district.
Blumenauer noted one other added benefit of the delegation's interest and clout that could benefit infrastructure negotiations.
"It's luck of the draw, but it's nice we're on the same airplanes," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/15/stories/1060113397
-
Train Operators File Countersuit for 2018 Crash
Jan 14, 2019 | Georgetown News-Graphic
By Zack McDonald
Responding to allegations that a conductor and engineer caused a March 2018 train crash and derailment in Georgetown, the two men have filed a countersuit claiming the owner of the train was responsible due to faulty equipment.
Engineer Kevin Tobergte and conductor Andrew Hall filed countersuits Dec. 21 in the federal court against their former employer Norfolk Southern Railway Company. They allege that while the train company laid blame on them for the March 2018 train crash near Georgetown Estates mobile home park complex, the incident could have been avoided with functioning train control software. Tobergte and Hall have claimed personal damages of more than $75,000, which is the minimum amount for a federal lawsuit, and demanded a jury trial.
A jury could award more or less to the two men if the train company is found to be liable, or the case could be settled out of court. The underlying lawsuit against the two employees is still pending, and jurors could side with the train company in either case.
According to the countersuit, though, Tobergte and Hall claim the train’s Positive Train Control (PTC) system was not working at the time of the crash. If it had been, the crash might have been avoided, their lawsuit states.
“The collision could not have happened if the PTC safety technology that Norfolk Southern had available for Train No. 175 had been operative on this trip,” the lawsuit states. “If operative, the PTC safety technology for Train No. 175 would have automatically stopped Train No. 175 before it passed the stop signal at CP 72.18 and there would have been no collision.”
After the crash, both Tobergte and Hall had to seek treatment for psychological and physical trauma sustained due to the lack of crash-preventing equipment, the lawsuit claims. On top of the injuries, the two men also allege that the lawsuit from their former employer should be dismissed because it was meant to silence them and protect Norfolk Southern from liability.
The train company filed their lawsuit against the two men only weeks after the crash that caused $3.7 million in damage. Norfolk Southern claimed that it had been Tobergte and Hall’s fault because they failed to reduce the train’s speed despite a track signal at Georgetown that should have alerted them to slow down before reaching the next signal.
Norfolk Southern claimed Tobergte and Hall were negligent because they failed “to maintain a reasonable lookout … for wayside signals that govern the movement of the train,” the lawsuit states.
Norfolk Southern said the inactions of the two made them liable for $3.7 million in damages to two trains and cargo.
Both employees filed motions to dismiss the case in August, saying that Norfolk Southern had failed to state a claim.
U.S. District Judge Karen K. Caldwell denied the motions only weeks before the countersuit. She ruled that Norfolk Southern did have grounds to file a suit against its employees.
http://www.news-graphic.com/news/train-operators-file-countersuit-for-crash/article_31a728c8-1842-11e9-8439-034353d0e025.html
-
Climate Work of Natural Resources Panel Starts With Feb. Hearings
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Expect a February packed with climate change hearings in the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the panel’s new chairman, says.
The committee’s first full hearing will focus on climate change, Grijalva told Bloomberg Environment in an interview Jan. 14. That hearing, not yet scheduled, will be followed by climate hearings at each subcommittee level throughout February that take a narrower look at the issue and dig deeper into the effects of global warming on areas such as public lands and indigenous peoples, he added.
“That’s the kickoff for what is going to be an aggressive look at the [environmental] rollbacks, an aggressive look at legislative fixes to those, and overall factoring the impacts of climate change into the decision making,” Grijalva said.
Oversight will be a constant across the committee’s climate work, he added.
“The dumbing down of science didn’t happen by accident,” Grijalva said. “The staffing of key positions at Interior that have realm over extraction have conveniently landed in the hands of former industry leaders. It has to be looked at.”
Grijalva said expects to have a full committee roster as soon as this week, and then he will send out notices about hearings. He said he hopes some Washington newcomers will want to be part of the committee, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who is leading efforts to push a Green New Deal, which calls for a quick transition to renewable energy. Her office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Template for FutureOcasio-Cortez’s calls for strong action could fit well into the plans Grijalva said he has for his committee to outline bold policies on climate change. He said he wants members who want to take policy risks.
The committee will draft legislation looking 10 to 15 years into the future, setting a template for the kind of climate policy that could be taken up by a future Democratic administration and full Congress, he said.
Grijalva’s committee isn’t the first to announce a hearing on climate change. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who chairs House Energy and Commerce, also said his committee’s first hearing will focus on climate change.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), leading the House Science committee, has also expressed similar interest. Plus there’s the new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, led by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).
‘Climate Change Umbrella’Progressives like Ocasio-Cortez have criticized that committee because it won’t have subpoena power or authority to draft legislation.
But Grijalva said he expects the select committee will help focus attention on climate change and coordinate among other committees, like his, that are working it.
“I think the climate change umbrella is so big that everybody fits underneath it,” he said.
Grijalva said something like the Green New Deal could help serve as a goal for the Democratic Party as it works to craft climate legislation, but first the party must wrestle with two cruicial issues central to any legislation: revenue and timeline.
“The sooner we reconcile those two as a caucus, the better off we’re going to be,” Grijalva added.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/climate-work-of-natural-resources-panel-starts-with-feb-hearings
-
Legislators Roll Out Climate Bills as Session Opens
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Ines Kagubare
The Washington State Legislature opened its 2019 regular session yesterday with the introduction of three climate change bills.
House Environment Chairman Joe Fitzgibbon (D) introduced two measures — one aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation fuels and the other intended to reduce and ultimately phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
And the chairman of the Senate Energy, Environment and Technology Committee, Reuven Carlyle (D) , introduced a bill aimed at supporting a clean-energy economy and promoting a transition to renewable energy.
The bills come two months after voters rejected a state ballot initiative aimed at imposing a carbon tax on the transportation sector, the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. The initiative would have put a $15-per-metric-ton-of-carbon tax in 2020 and increased $2 per metric ton every year until 2035, with revenue going toward funding environmental programs and projects (E&E Daily, Nov. 7, 2018).
This time, legislators decided to push for ways to reduce carbon emissions without adopting a tax.
"Given the recent defeat of the carbon tax initiative, we decided to focus on a sector-by-sector approach for now," Fitzgibbon told E&E News.
Although his two recent bills don't include a carbon fee, he said he would still support it if one is proposed in the future.
The climate bills introduced yesterday:H.B. 1110 would impose a low-carbon fuel standard, requiring the transportation sector to use gasoline and diesel in smaller amounts with an eye toward having petroleum replaced by hydroelectricity or biofuels. Washington is the national leader in hydroelectricity. The bill would also require a 10 percent carbon reduction by 2028 and a 20 percent reduction by 2035.H.B. 1112 would adopt a rule to phase out HFCs and use less destructive refrigerants. HFCs were adopted as an alternative to trichlorofluoromethane, or CFC-11, a potent greenhouse gas and ozone-depleting substance. CFC-11 was banned in 2010 under the Montreal Protocol, which phased out the production of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. Under the Kigali Amendment, countries are asked to entirely phase out their use of HFCs starting this year when the agreement goes into effect.S.B. 5116 intends to lead the state into a 100 percent clean energy economy by eliminating coal-fired electricity and transitioning to renewable energy sources. As prices of clean energy continue to drop, the measure says, the state can expect its electricity supply to be 100 percent carbon neutral by 2030.
"This is an important policy that goes to the core of our carbon emission [fight] ... and it will accelerate our migration away from fossil fuels toward renewables," Carlyle said in an interview.
Carlyle also added that he plans to introduce a cap-and-trade bill next week that would aim to link Washington in an emissions-trading system with Oregon and California, he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/01/15/stories/1060113415
-
Illinois to Tackle Climate Issues as New Governor Joins Alliance (1)
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Newly inaugurated Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) pledged to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, joining 17 other governors committing their states to fulfilling commitments in the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement.
“I believe in science,” said Pritzker of his decision to join the alliance, which aims to adopt state policies aimed at slowing the rise in global temperatures.
The alliance is bipartisan, but most members are Democrats, with Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, and Vermont Gov. Phil Scott the only Republicans.
“Our future depends upon our actions today,” he said Jan. 14 in his inaugural remarks in Springfield, Ill. “That’s why we must embrace a broad vision of environmental protection, or else decisions are going to be forced upon us in ways that will offer us little control and catastrophic outcomes for our children.”
“We will wait for formal communication from the governor’s office, and look forward to welcoming Governor Pritzker and the State of Illinois into the Alliance,” Kristin Igusky, an alliance spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Pritzker succeeds former Gov. Bruce Rauner (R).
President Donald Trump said in 2017 he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement that the Obama administration had signed onto in August 2016, a move that can’t formally occur until November 2020.
Governors joining the alliance commit to meeting the objectives of the agreement, even though the federal government won’t. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) is another new member, who said during his Jan. 7 inaugural address: “If Washington won’t lead, Minnesota will.”
Representatives of the governors meet at least twice a year to develop strategy and direct alliance working groups. The alliance speaks at least monthly, and technical agencies involved in one of the nine working groups may speak more frequently, especially since peer-to-peer cooperation to support state priorities is at the core of the alliance’s work, Igusky said.
(Updated with Climate Alliance comment in the fifth and ninth paragraphs.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/illinois-to-tackle-climate-issues-as-new-governor-joins-alliance-1
-
Appellate Court Backs States' 'Broad' Discretion In Setting CWA 401 Criteria
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
A federal appellate court has upheld Virginia's Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 certification approving a federally permitted natural gas pipeline and emphasized states' “broad discretion when developing the criteria” for such certifications, a ruling that could undermine efforts by GOP policymakers to limit states' discretion.
Echoing its rationale in a different pipeline case last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in a unanimous Jan. 14 ruling, backed Virginia's approval of federal permits for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), brushing aside environmentalists charges that the state had not considered “all relevant factors” when granting its 401 certification.
“Governmental agencies can always take additional steps to increase the protection of the environment. But that is not the applicable legal standard this Court utilizes when reviewing a state agency’s issuance of a Section 401 Certification,” the ruling from a three-judge panel says.
Instead, the court said it is required to determine whether the agency considered the relevant factors and whether there was a clear error of judgment.
And it found “there is no indication that the State Agencies did not consider relevant factors or that they clearly made an error of judgment.”
Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory wrote the opinion on behalf of himself and Judges James A. Wynn Jr. and Stephanie D. Thacker..
The just-issued ruling in Appalachian Voices v. Virginia State Water Control Board, which challenged the state's 401 certification for the ACP, follows an Aug. 1 ruling from the 4th Circuit that upheld the state's certification for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP).
During oral argument in the ACP case, Wynn suggested the court was likely to be bound by the MVP ruling and said that what environmentalists were asking the court to assess “goes beyond what our view is” on whether state agency actions are arbitrary and capricious.
Both pipelines are slated to transport vast quantities of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale and other mid-Atlantic production areas to power plants and other downstream sources though construction of both pipelines is currently blocked because of flaws the 4th Circuit has identified in their federal permits.
For example, the 4th Circuit last year halted work on the MVP in West Virginia, saying the Army Corps of Engineers lacked the authority (/node/217155) to unilaterally change requirements that state included in its 401 certification of nationwide permit 12 (NWP12), a CWA dredge-and-fill general permit.
While the 4th Circuit has yet to rule on the merits of a similar challenge of NWP12's application to the ACP in West Virginia, the appeals court Nov. 7 granted environmentalists' request to stay construction. The Army Corps has also administratively suspended NWP12 in Virginia and North Carolina for ACP, pending the resolution of the West Virginia case.
Additionally, other 4th Circuit decisions involving Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues regarding ACP have also halted work on the pipeline.
CWA 401
Under CWA section 401, states have the ability to evaluate whether activities under a federal permit will undermine attainment of state water quality standards. For federally permitted activities, a state certification that water quality will be protected is necessary for projects requiring such permits, including CWA permits, to proceed.
While the 4th Circuit's rulings about Virginia's 401 certifications for MVP and ACP may eventually benefit pipeline development, other states have used their 401 certification processes to block energy projects, prompting Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation to scale back states' 401 authority and the Trump administration to explore administrative changes to the 401 program.
As such, the 4th Circuit's reiteration of state discretion appears likely to hamper both GOP and Trump administration efforts to limit state discretion.
In the 401 case, environmentalists argued Virginia's 401 “upland” certification for ACP was arbitrary and capricious and should be vacated.
They argued the state effectively invalidated its own finding of “reasonable assurance” when it reopened the comment period of the certification of the Corps' NWP12; the state arbitrarily and capriciously failed to assess the combined impacts on water quality that would result from multiple areas of construction activities within individual watershed areas; the state arbitrarily and capriciously failed to conduct an adequate antidegradation review; and the state arbitrarily and capriciously failed to ensure that the water quality in karst geology regions would be protected.
The 4th Circuit rejected each argument, starting by saying the state reopened the comment period on the wetlands and streams certification -- a related but separate certification for the pipeline that was not challenged in this case and which the state ultimately did not revoke.
The court also backed Virginia's decision not to conduct a combined effects analysis, saying the upland certification is not designed to function alone but was a supplement to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Certification and the wetlands and streams certification of NWP12 regarding waterways and utility line crossings.
“The Army Corps examined cumulative impacts, and it would be redundant and inefficient for the State Agencies to duplicate these efforts,” the ruling says.
Furthermore, “State Agencies have broad discretion when developing the criteria for their Section 401 Certification. The only requirement imposed by the regulations is that States must establish procedures for public notice when there are applications for certification, and to the extent deemed appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection with specific applications,” the ruling says.
And nothing in section 401 restricts states to a single certificate proceeding nor does it require states to undertake a single cumulative review of all possible impacts in a single certification, the court says, rejecting cases cited by environmentalists on these points as “distinguishable and unpersuasive” because they dealt with violations under NEPA rather than the CWA.
Similarly, the state's failure to explicitly consider the combined effects of multiple areas of construction within individual watersheds such as the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL) did not render their decision arbitrary and capricious. The TMDL does not constitute a regulatory mandate that the state is required to address before issuing the upland certification, the court says, citing the 2002 9th Circuit ruling in Pronsolino v. Nastri.
On the antidegradation argument, the 4th Circuit found the state was not required to conduct a separate antidegradation review before issuing the upland certification because an existing state program requires a project developer to submit annual standards and specifications for state review and the impact on sediment on the water would be temporary.
Finally, the court found the record demonstrates the state took environmentalists' concerns regarding karst geology into consideration, and thus the state's treatment of the terrain was not arbitrary or capricious because of the conditions imposed on the certification.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/appellate-court-backs-states-broad-discretion-setting-cwa-401-criteria
-
EPA Fights Suit Challenging Raised Bar For Title V Air Permit Objections
Jan 14, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA, backed by industry groups and Texas, is fighting environmentalists' lawsuit that claims the agency has raised the bar for challenging Clean Air Act Title V permits by finding that objections to the permits cannot target other permits, defending its policy in an appellate court case similar to at least two other pending lawsuits.
In the case, Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) and Sierra Club v. EPA, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the agency is defending its March 2018 rejection of a petition by environmentalists to object to the Title V permit granted by Texas to ExxonMobil's Baytown, TX, olefins production plant. Environmentalists say that an underlying permit included in the broader “umbrella” Title V permit is flawed and not federally enforceable, serving to circumvent tougher federal new source review (NSR) permit requirements.
Title V permits are overarching documents that must include "all applicable requirements" for a plant. NSR permits, by contrast, are preconstruction permits issued under Title I of the air law.
The Trump administration's policy says when reviewing Title V permits it need not consider weaknesses in underlying permits such as NSR permits, or whether such underlying permits were required in the first place. Former Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt established the policy in 2017 in two key decisions denying petitions to object to Title V permits, known as Pacificorp Hunter and Big River Steel.
Environmentalists argue that EPA, which is responsible for reviewing such permits, must consider the adequacy of underlying permits, and ensure that where NSR permits are required for "major sources" of air pollution, that Title V permits contain the requisite NSR permits. EPA under the Obama administration sometimes weighed in on whether underlying permitting requirements were correct.
But the Trump EPA says it is returning to an older EPA policy, which holds that reviews of Title V permits should not "second guess" decisions made by state permitting authorities. The revised policy hence deprives petitioners of one avenue to challenge air permits they say are deficient.
The litigation over Pacificorp Hunter is in abeyance in the 10th Circuit, where EPA is fighting environmentalists' attempt to have the D.C. Circuit hear the case. The 10th Circuit has held the case in abeyance, against EPA's wishes, while the D.C. Circuit determines whether to address the merits of the suit.
EPA argues the Hunter decision is only "locally or regionally" applicable. Should it prevail in that view, any ruling on the issue would be restricted to the 10th Circuit states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. A D.C. Circuit ruling, by contrast, would either affirm or reject EPA's policy nationally. Any ruling on the issue in EIP would apply to the 5th Circuit states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
In intervenor briefs filed Jan. 10 in support of EPA in the 5th Circuit case, Texas and ExxonMobil back the agency's interpretation of Title V permits. "Nothing in the Clean Air Act or in EPA’s regulations requires the reexamination of title I preconstruction permits during a title V permit proceeding," Texas says. "By the time EPA reviews a title V permit, the title I preconstruction permits that are being folded into the title V permit have already been scrutinized at the state level and have already been subject to judicial review."
ExxonMobil in its intervenor brief says the Clean Air Act "does not mandate that EPA use the Title V process to re-evaluate the terms and conditions of underlying authorizations proposed to be incorporated into a facility’s operating permit, nor the state permitting authority’s analysis in prescribing these terms and conditions."
The company argues, "underlying state preconstruction permitting decisions should be incorporated into Title V permits without further review or second-guessing."
PAL Program
EIP and Sierra Club in their petition to EPA said a 2014 "minor source" NSR permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state's environmental regulator, under the "plantwide applicability limit" (PAL) program allowed the Baytown facility to escape major source NSR when undergoing an expansion project.
Environmentalists say the PALs stem from "state-only" programs that are not part of the state's Clean Air Act state implementation plan, and hence not federally enforceable as required by Title V permitting. The 2014 minor source NSR permit was included by Texas in a 2016 Title V permit, which environmentalists then petitioned EPA to overturn.
The groups say that the PAL emissions limits are wrongly based on maximum potential pollutant output, rather than actual emissions. PALs are facility-wide emissions caps that allow facilities to increase regulated air emissions from one emissions point if they decrease emissions from another and remain within the cap. Environmentalists have long criticized Texas' PAL program as allowing too much pollution. At Baytown, they say the PAL allows unlawfully high emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.
But EPA in its Dec. 21 brief says it need not address the substance of environmentalists' case, citing the Hunterdecision as precedent. "Title V does not require that EPA reopen the state process to determine which Title I preconstruction requirements apply to a facility. Title V also does not permit the public to force belated federal reexamination of these Title I state decisions by submitting petitions requesting EPA to object to Title V petitions," EPA says.
"EPA thoroughly explained its current interpretation in both the Hunter Order and the Baytown Order," EPA says. "EPA has not offered an entirely new interpretation. It is returned to its original interpretation, which was contemporaneous with the regulation and close in time to the passage of Title V, and is therefore entitled to particular deference."
Oral argument has not yet been scheduled in the case.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-fights-suit-challenging-raised-bar-title-v-air-permit-objections
-
EPA Criminal Action Against Polluters Hits 30-Year Low
Jan 15, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)
The Environmental Protection Agency hit a 30-year low in 2018 in the number of pollution cases it referred for criminal prosecution, Justice Department data show.
EPA said in a statement that it is directing "its resources to the most significant and impactful cases."
But the 166 cases referred for prosecution in the last fiscal year is the lowest number since 1988, when Ronald Reagan was president and 151 cases were referred, according to Justice Department data obtained by the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility advocacy group and released Tuesday.
"You don't get closer to the core of EPA's mission than enforcing the law," Jeff Ruch, PEER's executive director, told The Associated Press. "We're reaching levels where the enforcement program is lacking a pulse."
ADVERTISEMENT
EPA efforts to prosecute polluters reached 592 criminal referrals under President Bill Clinton in 1998. Criminal referrals have been on a downward trajectory since then, especially under the Trump administration.
A supporter of deregulation, President Donald Trump as a candidate called for doing away with all but "little tidbits" of the federal environmental agency.
Asked for comment, EPA spokesman John Konkus pointed to the civil settlement of about $800 million with Fiat Chrysler over claims the automaker rigged its diesel-powered Ram and Jeep vehicles to cheat on emissions tests.
The agency said its actions in fiscal year 2018 led polluters and potential polluters to take care of 809 million pounds (370 million kilograms) of waste and pollutants, a 40 percent increase from 2017.
EPA referrals resulted in 62 federal convictions in fiscal year 2018, the fewest since 1995.
Scott Pruitt was the agency's head for most of fiscal year 2018, resigning in July amid ethics scandals over his spending and allegations of favor-seeking in office. Pruitt rankled many by insisting on an unusual round-the-clock security detail, which required drawing agency special agents from regional offices for stints guarding him.Editors’ PicksWakanda for Oscar?Where 518 Inmates Sleep in Space for 170, and Gangs Hold It TogetherAs the Trumps Dodged Taxes, Their Tenants Paid a Price
ADVERTISEMENT
Andrew Wheeler, whose nomination to succeed Pruitt as the agency's chief goes before a Senate committee Wednesday, stopped the 24-hour guard when he was named Pruitt's acting replacement.
Congress in 1990 mandated that the agency's Criminal Investigation Division deploy at least 200 special agents.
PEER said the number had fallen to 140 special agents by last April.
"They're being gutted," said Michael Hubbard, a former special agent who led the EPA's Criminal Investigation Division regional office in Boston.
With so few EPA special agents to investigate polluters around the country, "as leads come in, they can't be followed up on," Hubbard said. "You end up saying 'no' to potential leads routinely because you just don't have the wherewithal to investigate them."
Justice Department figures show the agency's referrals for criminal prosecution slowing even more in the first two months of fiscal year 2019, to 24, under Wheeler.
Wheeler, like Pruitt, at times emphasizes giving states more say in regulation of polluters within their borders. Wheeler also has continued a centralization of enforcement action and decision-making within the agency. Critics say that could discourage enforcement.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/15/us/politics/ap-us-epa-enforcement-decline.html
-
Environmental Groups Lose Challenge to Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Jan 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
A host of environmental groups lost their legal challenge to the Virginia State Water Board’s certification of an interstate natural gas pipeline.
The proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline would intersect 89 Virginia rivers and streams, including 74 migratory fish spawning waters or their tributaries, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The Virginia board concluded it had reasonable assurances that construction of the pipeline wouldn’t degrade the state’s water resources, and certified the pipeline under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Several environmental groups, including Appalachian Voices, the Sierra Club, and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, challenged that certification. Among other arguments, they said the board failed to assess the combined impacts on water quality from multiple areas of construction activities in individual watershed areas, should have conducted a water quality antidegradation review, and failed to ensure that the water quality in karst geology regions would be protected.
The appeals court concluded Jan. 14 that the water board’s certification wasn’t arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. State agencies have broad discretion in setting the criteria for their Section 401 certifications, the court said.
The board didn’t have to conduct a combined effect analysis, in part because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “examined cumulative impacts, and it would be redundant and inefficient for the State Agencies to duplicate these efforts,” the court said.
An antidegredation review wasn’t necessary, in part because any impact from sediment caused by the construction would be only temporary, the court said.
Karst is geological formations of soluble limestone bedrock that create underground water flow systems. These areas pose additional environmental considerations for pipeline construction, including sinkhole collapse, sinkhole flooding, and groundwater contamination, according to the court.
The water board had reasonable assurances that karst regions would be protected under the conditions imposed on the Section 401 certification, the court said.
The opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, and joined by Judges James Wynn, Jr. and Stephanie Thacker
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.The case is Appalachian Voices v. State Water Control Board, 4th Cir., No. 18-1077, 1/14/19.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/environmental-groups-lose-challenge-to-atlantic-coast-pipeline
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested