Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - January 15, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s TSCA Assessment of PV29 a Legal and Scientific Mess
Jan 15, 2019 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
In response to EPA’s flawed assessment of Pigment Violet 29 (PV29), NRDC, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF), Earthjustice and others worked together to submit to EPA extensive legal and technical comments. How... -
The Trump EPA’s First TSCA Risk Evaluation Is an Epic Fail
Jan 15, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed more than 100 pages of comments on a 40-page draft risk evaluation the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared for Pigment Violet 29... -
US EPA Sued over Delay to Methylene Chloride Paint Stripper Restriction
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Public health advocates have filed a lawsuit against the US EPA for failure to finalise a long-delayed rule restricting the use of paint removal products containing methylene chloride. The suit, originally threatened last November, was... -
Group Seeks Ban on Probable Carcinogen in Paint Products
Jan 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Vermont Public Interest Research Group wants the EPA to ban paint removal products containing a potentially deadly solvent. The EPA has a mandatory duty under the Toxic Substances Control Act to ban the use of methylene chloride... -
Congress to Weigh Bill Making PFAs Eligible for Federal Cleanup Funding
Jan 15, 2019 | MLive
By Paula Gardner
Bipartisan legislation to prompt PFAS cleanup eligibility is the latest attempt among elected officials from Michigan to strengthen the federal approach to the persistent chemicals that threaten drinking water supplies and the environment. -
The Myth of ‘Clean’ Natural Gas
Jan 15, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
Electric utilities often tout natural gas as a clean fuel – an essential weapon in the fight against global warming. Even if they admit the need to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind power eventually, they insist that natural gas is a... -
Some States’ Emissions Would Be Higher Under Trump Climate Rule, Study Finds
Jan 15, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Eighteen states and Washington, D.C., would see increased carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the Trump administration’s proposed climate change rule for power plants, a new study predicted. The increases — all... -
Earth Scientist Says Green New Deal Could Help US Be Competitive on Renewable Energy
Jan 15, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Julia Manchester
Earth scientist Rob Jackson said in an interview that aired Tuesday on "Rising" that a Green New Deal could help the U.S. be more competitive with China and other countries in the renewable energy sector. "We do need new policies... -
Efforts to Punish Polluters Hit 30-Year Low — Watchdog
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
EPA efforts to prosecute polluters hit a 30-year low under President Trump, according to Justice Department data released today by a watchdog group. EPA referred only 166 cases for criminal prosecution in the last fiscal year...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s TSCA Assessment of PV29 a Legal and Scientific Mess
Jan 15, 2019 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
In response to EPA’s flawed assessment of Pigment Violet 29 (PV29), NRDC, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF), Earthjustice and others worked together to submit to EPA extensive legal and technical comments. How badly did EPA mess up, and why should you care?
The Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) was revised in 2016 after years of bare-knuckled stakeholder negotiations during which NRDC, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF), and other public interest and public health allies worked expertly and tirelessly to make it as effective and health-protective as possible. Unfortunately, implementation of the new TSCA is taking place in the pro-polluter de-regulatory Trump Administration EPA with coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler at the helm, and under the direct thumb (on the scale) of chemical industry lobbyist Nancy Beck, whose previous gig was with the American Chemistry Council -- the industry trade group dead set on weakening the new law.
EPA is required by the TSCA law to identify a set of 10 chemicals which will be reviewed first, including the hazards, exposures, conditions of use and potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. There are some big name highly hazardous and even deadly chemicals in this first batch, including: methylene chloride; trichloroethylene (TCE) solvent linked to congenital heart defects and cancer; and asbestos.
The Trump EPA has already rolled back its proposed ban on the most deadly uses of the solvents, TCE and methylene chloride.
So, with the chemical industry Cancer Lobby leading from within, it is deplorable but not surprising that the first chemical risk evaluation to be released under the new TSCA is not based on science, but instead on conjecture, deceit, and denial.
The first risk evaluation out of the gate is Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) a rather obscure coloring chemical used in paints, plastics, and other industrial and consumer products including paint sets. EPA’s draft evaluation concludes that the chemical is unlikely to pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment (Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604-0001).
Here is a summary of why no one should feel comforted – or be fooled -- by EPA’s conclusion:
-EPA’s hazard assessment is based on only 24 industry-sponsored studies, none of which are publicly available for review. Short summaries are all that the public can see (they are online at Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604-0007).
-EPA has violated TSCA by shielding from the public the full studies that it bases its assessment upon.EPA has no studies of chronic exposures, cancer, neurodevelopmental effects, or endocrine effects. None.
-For its dismissal of potential risks from inhaling PV29, EPA relies on two industry-sponsored acute studies that are classified as “not reliable” and “disregarded due to major methodological deficiencies” by the manufacture that conducted the studies.
-The longest study EPA has – which is the basis for the calculated risk estimate (the Point of Departure) - is the reproductive and developmental effects study, which is only 54 days long in total, and only examines the fetally exposed rodent pups until they are four days old, hardly enough time to see potential effects such as neurobehavioral deficits, endocrine effects, reproductive effects, or cancer. Effects including gross lesions are mentioned but dismissed by the study sponsor, BASF – the largest chemical company in the world - and by EPA.
-EPA’s determinations of worker and consumer exposure for all PV29 uses are based on a single undocumented estimate of exposure that EPA obtained from “personal communication” with an industry representative at Sun Chemical Corporation, cited as “Mott 2017”. Since EPA’s PV29 assessment says, “It is not clear if the monitoring data were for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 or for total dust” (Draft PV29 Risk Evaluation p.29). This means that EPA has no idea of what other airborne contaminants may be present, or how they may interact with PV29 to affect its absorption, metabolism or other relevant properties.
-EPA failed for two years to obtain any additional data on PV29, despite being given streamlined authority and a mandate to do so under the revised TSCA. EPA relied on its fatally flawed TSCA Systematic Review for the PV29 assessment, which favors industry-sponsored studies and is in conflict with established methods.
For all its flaws, data gaps, and uncertainties, EPA applies an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of only 100 (10 for interspecies and 10 for intraspecies differences). We identify at least another four 10X factors that EPA should have used had it followed its own Guidelines (making a total UF of 1 million); had EPA used even one additional 10X factor, its calculations would have shown PV29 to be unsafe.
EPA is ignoring some important warning signs regarding PV29 health concerns. The chemical is listed on authoritative government lists as a reproductive toxicant, “Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child,” based on modeled information (see DataCommons). The TEDX database of endocrine disrupting chemicals identifies publications in the US National Library of Medicine that report a potential for PV29-related chemicals (perylene and benzo-a-perylene) to have endocrine activity based on an analysis of their structural similarity to other endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Moreover, the US public health agency ATSDR emphasizes that the class of chemicals of which PV29 is a member (PAHs), are linked to cancer risks, harm to hematopoietic, immune, reproductive, and neurologic systems and developmental effects (ATSDR on PAHs).
In addition, given that PV29 is highly persistent and long-lasting in the environment, it is a serious concern that EPA is proceeding with its hazard evaluation of PV29 despite a complete lack of any long-term exposure studies.
And this is only a small sampling of the many problems with EPA’s work on PV29. Given these many flaws, EPA should withdraw its draft risk evaluation for PV29 and recognize that insufficient evidence is available to determine whether it presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
In summary, EPA’s first draft risk evaluation under new TSCA is marred by multiple methodological, legal and moral flaws– with 9 more of these evaluations to come in the next few months.
Importantly, if EPA finalizes it’s no unreasonable risk finding (and survives the legal challenges that are likely to follow) it will preempt states from taking further action on this chemical. But Congress never intended for EPA to preempt state action based on half-baked, shoddy and secret evaluations. The revised TSCA established clear standards for the Agency to meet in conducting its risk evaluations, and so far, EPA has failed miserably to meet those standards.
And, the mess isn’t just with EPA’s review of existing chemicals already on the market. EPA’s reviews of proposed New Chemicals are also not complying with the revised law, in several ways, including basing its decisions that new chemicals are unlikely to pose an unreasonable risk to health based upon unsupported assumptions that all workers will wear proper personal protective equipment, and that employers will follow all the (non-binding) requirements in a Materials Safety Data Sheet.
This is what environmental policy looks like when EPA’s Toxics office is run by the chemical industry: a blatant failure to meet even basic requirements of transparency or scientific merit; serving the interests of chemical manufactures while putting the health of people and the environment at risk. Pretty much what one would expect from the Trump Administration by now.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/epas-tsca-assessment-pv29-legal-and-scientific-mess
-
The Trump EPA’s First TSCA Risk Evaluation Is an Epic Fail
Jan 15, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed more than 100 pages of comments on a 40-page draft risk evaluation the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared for Pigment Violet 29 (PV29). PV29 is the first of 10 chemicals undergoing risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Our comments were so much longer than the EPA document we were commenting on because there was far more to say about what information EPA failed to obtain, make available or consider than what EPA included in its draft.
The essence of our lengthy comments can be boiled down to a single sentence, however: EPA has utterly failed to demonstrate that PV29 does not present unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
For folks who want somewhat more detail than this, our comments start with a 4-page Executive Summary that capsulizes the many serious deficiencies we identified in EPA’s draft. I’ll provide some highlights in this post.
We have already blogged about several failures on EPA’s part: EPA failed to provide public access to the 24 health and safety studies on which it relied, in violation of TSCA. EPA relied on two acute inhalation toxicity studies to conclude no inhalation risk, despite the fact that the manufacturer that conducted the studies declared them “not reliable” due to use of an “unsuitable test system” and said the studies should be “disregarded due to major methodological deficiencies.” EPA obtained a single, undocumented workplace air concentration value through a private personal communication with a conflicted industry source and used it as the basis to conclude that all workers and all other human populations face no significant inhalation exposure to PV29. EPA concluded PV29 presents no risk to human health by combining that suspect inhalation exposure value with a toxicity value from a short-term oral toxicity screening test – despite the fact that internationally accepted (as well as EPA’s own) guidance cautioned that the results of that test cannot be used to conclude there are no adverse effects.
These failings are only the tip of the iceberg. I’ll mention 10 more flaws here that are detailed in our comments:EPA fails to address the implications of the very high persistence of PV29 in the environment, and it lacks any measured data that directly assess the potential for PV29 to bioaccumulate in humans or other organisms; instead EPA uses modeled values derived from an estimation program that relies on insufficient data on similar chemicals. EPA has no information on chronic aquatic toxicity, terrestrial toxicity, or toxicity to sediment-dwelling organisms, yet still draws the sweeping conclusion that PV29 presents no environmental hazard of any kind. EPA has no actual data on the levels of PV29 released to or present in air, soil, sediment, surface water, people, other organisms, or products containing or made from the chemical. EPA ignores all occupational exposures by downstream processors and users based on the false assumption that exposures would invariably be lower since they handle a smaller overall quantity of PV29 than the manufacturer. EPA fails to analyze risk to consumers, the general public, and relevant subpopulations on the same basis, and uses an approach to sentinel exposure assessment that violates both scientific norms and EPA’s own regulation. EPA lacks any data on absorption of PV29 by inhalation, dermal, and oral routes of exposure, yet concludes it cannot be absorbed. For human health hazard, EPA relies on studies which mostly examined only acute lethal effects and none of which assessed chronic toxicity. EPA dismisses the potential for increased adverse effects on susceptible subpopulations based on studies that failed to look for such effects. EPA fails to include all necessary uncertainty factors—such as for extrapolating from acute to chronic toxicity values and for database deficiencies—in calculating its benchmark margins of exposure for worker inhalation and dermal exposures. EPA has inconsistently and selectively applied its approach to systematic review, which has not been subject to any peer review and deviates from established, authoritative approaches to systematic review developed by experts.
EDF devoted such a high level of effort to this admittedly rather obscure chemical in part because PV29 is far from atypical in having so little information on its hazards and exposures. Indeed, similar data gaps apply to the large majority of chemicals falling under TSCA’s jurisdiction. A key aspect of the reforms to TSCA Congress made in 2016 was to enhance EPA’s authority to get the information it needed to conduct robust risk evaluations of chemicals in commerce. Yet under this Administration EPA has yet to even hint at using that authority.
The shoddiness of EPA’s draft risk evaluation of PV29 is a direct result of this failure.
For years, I have heard the chemical industry complain about the purported inadequacies of EPA science. Given that they’re essentially running the show at EPA these days, is what we’re seeing now what they had in mind as constituting sound science?
Regardless, it’s not a pretty sight.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/15/the-trump-epas-first-tsca-risk-evaluation-is-an-epic-fail/
-
US EPA Sued over Delay to Methylene Chloride Paint Stripper Restriction
Jan 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Public health advocates have filed a lawsuit against the US EPA for failure to finalise a long-delayed rule restricting the use of paint removal products containing methylene chloride.
The suit, originally threatened last November, was filed in a US district court in Vermont by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Vermont Public Interest Research Group and the families of two of the dozens of people who have died from using the products.
It asks the court to compel the EPA to finalise a January 2017 proposed TSCA section 6 rule to ban the products.
"At least four deaths occurred after publication of EPA’s proposal," the complaint says. "EPA has thus violated the explicit command in TSCA section 6(a) that it ‘shall’ by rule restrict a chemical determined to present an unreasonable risk of industry, applying such requirements that are ‘necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents such risk’".
"This court should direct EPA to perform its duties under TSCA to finalise the [methylene chloride] paint remover ban and remove these dangerous products from commerce without delay," it added.‘Further delay unacceptable’
The legal action comes even as the EPA has made recent moves to finalise the regulation by submitting it to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
But alongside the rule, the EPA also included notice of its intent to propose a training, certification and limited access programme for methylene chloride used in commercial paint and coating removal.
This move suggests the agency will not be addressing occupational exposures as part of its section 6 rule and has been heavily criticised by many in the consumer advocacy space.
Compounding concerns is that the EPA has been shuttered since the end of last year as part of a partial government shutdown that does not appear likely to end soon.
"Serious questions remain about whether or not EPA's final methylene chloride rule will adequately protect exposed workers and consumers," Bob Sussman, counsel for the plaintiffs in this case, told Chemical Watch. "Judicial action remains critical to compel EPA to issue a final rule that is protective of public health for all Americans," he added.
In the absence of EPA action, NGO campaigners have pressed retailers to voluntarily commit to stop selling the products. Several, including Lowe’s, Walmart, Home Depot and Amazon, have pledged to do so.
Meanwhile, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control recently named paint removers containing methylene chloride a priority product under its Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
Campaigners also secured a commitment from the EPA in May last year that it would act on the chemical "shortly", after a meeting with former Administrator Scott Pruitt.
But "given that eight months have passed since EPA promised to finalise the rule as proposed, any further delay is unacceptable," Mr Sussman said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73367/us-epa-sued-over-delay-to-methylene-chloride-paint-stripper-restriction
-
Group Seeks Ban on Probable Carcinogen in Paint Products
Jan 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Vermont Public Interest Research Group wants the EPA to ban paint removal products containing a potentially deadly solvent.
The EPA has a mandatory duty under the Toxic Substances Control Act to ban the use of methylene chloride, VPIRG said in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.
Two mothers whose sons died while using the paint removers are also plaintiffs in the suit.
In January 2017, the EPA proposed to ban the use of methylene chloride in paint and coating products after finding it poses an unreasonable risk of cancer, heart failure, and sudden death, the complaint alleges.
In May 2018, then-EPA head Scott Pruitt pledged to finalize the ban, yet the agency has not done so, the complaint said.
The failure to issue the ban violates the EPA’s non-discretionary duty, VPIRG said.
Methylene chloride is known to cause asphyxiation from acute exposure and is responsible for more than 50 reported deaths, as well as incapacitation, loss of consciousness, and coma, the complaint alleged.
The EPA considers methylene chloride to be a probable human carcinogen.
Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Sherwin-Williams have removed the products from their shelves in response to safety concerns.
Sussman & Associates and Conservation Law Foundation represent VPIRG.
The case is Vermont Public Interest Research Group v. Wheeler, D. Vt., No. 19-cv-00009, 1/14/19.https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/group-seeks-ban-on-probable-carcinogen-in-paint-products
-
Congress to Weigh Bill Making PFAs Eligible for Federal Cleanup Funding
Jan 15, 2019 | MLive
By Paula Gardner
Bipartisan legislation to prompt PFAS cleanup eligibility is the latest attempt among elected officials from Michigan to strengthen the federal approach to the persistent chemicals that threaten drinking water supplies and the environment.
Three Congressional representatives introduced what they’re calling the “PFAS Action Act” on Monday, January 14. The bill seeking to list all per- and poly-fluorinated chemicals as hazardous substances.
That move would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to clean contaminated sites under the Superfund program
It also would be a move toward elevating a federal response to the chemicals - which are tied to health concerns like cancer, immune and endocrine disorders, and infertility, along with developmental risks for babies and children - across the entire class of related compounds.
“Michigan has been hit hard by PFAS,” said co-author U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Democrat representing the 12th District west of Detroit, in a statement. “.. 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.”
She’s joined in the proposed legislation by U S. Reps. Dan Kildee, a Democrat from the 5th District, and Fred Upton, a Republican from the 6th District. Kildee represents Oscoda, home to the contaminated former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, and Flint, where investigations continue into the spread of PFAS from the former GM Buick City factory site. Upton represents the Parchment community, where state officials closed a municipal water system due to PFAS.
The bill follows a wave of discovery in 2018 in Michigan and other states, as concerns mount over the spread and danger of the chemicals. Two types of PFAS include PFOA and PFOS, for which some states are setting drinking water limits and cleanup standards. Neither remain in use today, but other related chemicals are still used in products like Teflon and stain-resistant products, fire-fighting foam, fast-food wrappers and in industrial uses to control poison fumes.
The proposed legislation “would trigger reporting requirements, enable cleanup of contaminated sites, allow EPA to recover clean-up costs from polluters, and push the EPA and states to move forward on setting remediation levels,” said David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Work Group.
The move toward the Superfund classification is a start, Andrews added, saying that other areas also need to be addressed. And while it’s not a step toward a legal limit for drinking water, he said, “it should indirectly reduce the contamination of tap water in America.”
Michigan launched wide-scaled PFAS testing following critical discoveries of the chemicals in Grand Rapids-area water supplies, resulting in dozens of sites where the chemicals are found in either groundwater or surface water. At least two million Michigan residents have some PFAS in their drinking water, and an MLive investigation found that 16 wastewater treatment plants in the state have high enough levels of the contaminants flowing into surface waters from businesses that they face increased scrutiny.
A panel of state scientists also released a report in December that called for making PFAS a class of chemicals as officials consider drinking water and cleanup.
But Michigan’s moves to identify and control PFAS contrast to the federal approach.
The EPA launched a series of information-gathering meetings in 2018 and promised a nationwide “work plan” for the chemicals by fall 2018.
However, that plan stalled before the federal government shut-down this year and representatives of the EPA are now unavailable to provide an update on progress.
“EPA is continuing to work to develop a PFAS Management Plan that will outline the agency’s approach to address the PFAS challenge,” spokesperson Molly Block said on December 12. “The agency is working to release the plan as soon as possible.”
EPA representatives set up a meeting in October in Kalamazoo to hear Michigan residents' concerns about the chemicals, and in response heard that they want a stronger federal voice. There is no federal drinking water standard, nor is there a federal cleanup standard, leaving states to forge their own direction. That’s now a concern in Michigan as lame-duck legislation set a “no stricter than federal” route for cleanup.
However, since that October meeting, EPA’s director of groundwater and drinking water announced his retirement. Peter Grevatt left his job in December, two months after he indicated that his department’s action plan would be ready by year-end. Now, the Senate will start confirmation hearings this week for former coal lobbying Andrew Wheeler, nominated to run the EPA following the resignation of Scott Pruitt amid ethics scandals.
Unclear is what any of the changes and the slowdown may mean for the federal PFAS plan.
Also to be determined is the Congressional response to the recent bill and other pending PFAS legislation.
“As Parchment made crystal clear, we need an all-hands-on-deck effort to protect both human health and our environment,” said Upton.
https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/01/congress-to-weigh-bill-making-pfas-eligible-for-federal-cleanup-funding.html
-
The Myth of ‘Clean’ Natural Gas
Jan 15, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
Electric utilities often tout natural gas as a clean fuel – an essential weapon in the fight against global warming. Even if they admit the need to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind power eventually, they insist that natural gas is a bridge to the renewable energy future.
This notion is literally full of hot air. The production, transportation and burning of natural gas are not only major contributors to climate change, they are also a profound threat to human health.
According to the federal Energy Information Administration, or EIA, carbon emissions from natural gas plants surpassed those from coal plants several years ago. Even though a near-record number of U.S. coal plants shut down last year, an analysis by the Rhodium Group found carbon dioxide pollution increased by more than 3 percent in 2018, after going down for three years in a row.
Rhodium said that although a growing economy, cold winter and hot summer drove increased energy use, the increase in electricity generated by natural gas was also a factor in rising carbon emissions. One reason is that in 2017 the U.S. added twice as much natural gas capacity as new solar and wind power, despite the fact that renewables are now as cheap or cheaper than natural gas. The EIA says added wind and solar capacity will exceed new natural gas facilities this year, but those newly built gas plants will keep pumping out carbon pollution for decades.
And carbon’s not the only way natural gas makes global warming worse. The Rhodium Group only counted pollution from power plants and energy use in buildings and transportation. What’s missing is natural gas infrastructure: wells, pipelines and production facilities. All are big emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Over a 20-year period, methane emissions are estimated to be more than 80 times more powerful than carbon in driving climate change.
The U.S. has three million miles of natural gas pipelines and 1.3 million natural gas facilities, including wells, compressor stations and processing plants.
A 2018 study led by the Environmental Defense Fund found that methane leaks from natural gas and oil infrastructure are probably 60 times greater than the Environmental Protection Agency estimates. The study attributed the difference to the EPA’s failure to account for equipment malfunctions in wells, pipelines and processing and facilities.
In addition to natural gas being a climate change disaster, natural gas production depends heavily on hydraulic fracturing, which uses and releases large quantities of hazardous chemicals, often in close proximity to homes and schools. In a recent study, health professionals concluded that not only do existing fracking regulations fail to protect Americans from an increased risk of cancer, asthma and birth defects, but there is also no evidence that fracking can ever be done without threatening public health.
Most Americans – at least those who don't buy into the Trump administration's doomed efforts to revive the coal industry – have seen through the myth of so-called clean coal. Now the energy industry, including electric utilities, must stop pushing the myth of clean natural gas. The sooner the nation moves from energy generated by fossil fuels to power from the sun and wind, the better for the planet and for Americans’ health.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/01/myth-clean-natural-gas
-
Some States’ Emissions Would Be Higher Under Trump Climate Rule, Study Finds
Jan 15, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Eighteen states and Washington, D.C., would see increased carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the Trump administration’s proposed climate change rule for power plants, a new study predicted.
The increases — all when compared to a future with no climate policies — would be because of a “rebound effect” from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, in which power plants would become more efficient and cheaper to operate.
The study, published Monday in Environmental Research Letters, predicts that the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule proposed last year would decrease carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector on a national scale compared to business as usual, but only “modestly.”
The total increase in carbon dioxide emissions nationally would be 8.5 million tons in 2030, the researchers found. The state with the biggest increase would be Maryland, with 8.7 percent growth.
Other emissions would increase in certain states as well, the study found. Sulfur dioxide would grow in 19 states, and 20 states would see higher nitrogen oxides emissions.
“The EPA’'s proposed ACE rule does little to control carbon dioxide emissions from electric utilities nationally, and could lead to increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in some states,” Charles Driscoll, a Syracuse University professor of civil and environmental engineering and one of the study’s co-authors, said in a statement.
“At a time when many scientists are pointing to the need to accelerate greenhouse gas reductions, ACE would do little to mitigate climate change or the adverse health effects of fossil fuel emissions,” he said.
“The key takeaway is that ACE is a free pass for carbon emissions. The agency’s proposal could cause some coal plants to run longer, generating more pollution that drives climate change and harms human health,” said Kathleen Lambert, senior advisor at the Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment in Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and another author.
The study came days after a Rhodium Group analysis found that carbon dioxide emissions in the United States likely increased 3.4 percent last year, a contrast from the recent annual increases.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/425412-some-states-emissions-would-be-higher-under-trump-climate-rule
-
Earth Scientist Says Green New Deal Could Help US Be Competitive on Renewable Energy
Jan 15, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Julia Manchester
Earth scientist Rob Jackson said in an interview that aired Tuesday on "Rising" that a Green New Deal could help the U.S. be more competitive with China and other countries in the renewable energy sector.
"We do need new policies, and there are just good reasons for this kind of new deal," Jackson, who works at Stanford University, told Hill.TV's Krystal Ball.
"Let's take China," he said. "Everybody's worried about our competition with China. China is beating us in renewables. They have announced their investments of $400 billion over the next couple of years in renewables."
"They out-built us in wind and solar. They deployed five times more solar than we did in the last year. Three times more wind. They are all in on renewables," he said.
"So exactly the policy details, that's for Washington to work out, but there are strong reasons to support really, really large investments in green technology and green energy. Other countries are doing this already," he said.
The Green New Deal has been championed by liberal leaders such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as a comprehensive approach to combatting climate change.
The progressive climate plan calls for massive investments in renewable energy jobs and a shift in energy dependence away from fossil fuels.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/425395-earth-scientist-says-green-new-deal-could-help-us-compete-in-renewable-energy
-
Efforts to Punish Polluters Hit 30-Year Low — Watchdog
Jan 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
EPA efforts to prosecute polluters hit a 30-year low under President Trump, according to Justice Department data released today by a watchdog group.
EPA referred only 166 cases for criminal prosecution in the last fiscal year, according to the data from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
That's the lowest number since 1988, when 151 cases were referred under President Reagan. The Associated Press was first to report the new figures.
"The absence of criminal prosecution means corporate polluters can be comfortable that they will suffer no personal consequences, no matter how egregious the offense," PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said in a statement. "Nothing could be more core to EPA's mission than enforcing our nation's pollution laws."
EPA enforcement actions against polluters soared to new heights in 1998, when the agency made 592 criminal referrals under President Clinton, the data show.
Criminal referrals have been on a steady downward march since then, particularly under the Trump administration. They slowed even further after Andrew Wheeler took over from former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, with only 24 criminal referrals made in the first two months of fiscal 2019.
The shortage of new cases translates to fewer prosecutions, convictions and prison sentences. The 166 criminal referrals in the last fiscal year resulted in only 62 convictions. That's fewer than any year since 1992.
"These figures indicate that the Trump plan to cripple EPA is working," said Kyla Bennett, PEER science policy director and a former EPA attorney, in a statement. "Not enforcing our anti-pollution laws steadily transforms them into dead letters."
Asked for comment, EPA spokesman John Konkus referred E&E News to an agency news release touting a civil settlement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.
FCA will pay more than $500 million to settle allegations that it violated the Clean Air Act by cheating on auto emissions tests, EPA and the Justice Department announced last week (Greenwire, Jan. 10).
The news release says that while EPA's caseload has gotten smaller, the agency has prioritized large cases with massive civil penalties.
"The FCA settlement also demonstrates how enforcement accomplishments for each year are highly influenced by large cases," the release says. "The civil penalty for the FCA case alone is more than four times greater than all the civil penalties collected in FY2018."
It continues, "This case also demonstrates that while our overall number of case conclusions declined slightly in FY2018 from 1,978 to 1,818 cases, EPA is continuing to direct its resources to the most significant and impactful cases."
The Environmental Data & Governance Initiative released similar findings last year. The group reported that EPA enforcement actions dropped steeply in fiscal 2017 — which included the final months of the Obama administration — and 2018, the first full fiscal year of the Trump administration (Greenwire, Nov. 16, 2018).
PEER said it expects the ongoing partial government shutdown to further cripple the agency's enforcement abilities, resulting in another historic low once this fiscal year concludes.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/15/stories/1060114629
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested