Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - February 14, 2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) US-China Trade War Having ‘No Effect’ on China Steel, Amid Surging Domestic Market and Tariff Exemptions
Feb 14, 2019 | South China Morning Post
By Finbarr Bermingham

The trade war between the United States and China is having “no effect” on the Chinese steel sector, which is being propped up by “surging domestic demand”, according to a new study.
(ACC Mentioned) Design Connections Day 2 Recap: Design Is in the Details
Feb 13, 2019 | Interiors & Sources
By Robert Nieminen

Day two of Design Connections kicked off with an engaging panel discussion that revealed a rather interesting truth: that to make a big difference in the world of design, sometimes you need to start small—really small.
(ACC Mentioned) Anipac Boosts Operation Clean Sweep Focus in Mexico
Feb 13, 2019 | Plastics News
By Stephen Downer

Mexico's national plastics industry association is redoubling efforts to achieve zero resin pellet, flake and powder loss in the country.
(ACC Mentioned) Movers & Shakers: Smile Direct Club, Momentum Worldwide and More
Feb 13, 2019 | Campaign US
By Oliver McAteer

JPL is expanding its paid media and analytics practice to New York. The Harrisburg, PA-based integrated marketing agency, with clients including The Hershey Company, Quest Diagnostics, Rite Aid and the American Chemistry Council...
Court Affirms US EPA Policy Barring Grant Recipients from Serving as Advisers
Feb 13, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue

A federal trial court is upholding a policy that bars US Environmental Protection Agency research grant recipients from serving as EPA science advisers.
Negotiators Release Bipartisan Spending Package
Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Manuel Quiñones

Several environmentally sensitive border areas would be protected and EPA would see a small funding boost in a bipartisan border security and spending package unveiled late last night in hopes of averting a government shutdown tomorrow.

TSCA News

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) PFAS, the ‘Forever Chemicals,’ Become EPA Problem: QuickTake
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Kary

What do you do about lab-made chemicals that are in 99 percent of people in the U.S. and have been linked to immune system problems and cancer? Whose bonds are so stable that they’re often called “forever chemicals”?
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Top Leaders Stymied Research Unit, Report Finds
Feb 14, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Heidi Vogt

An Environmental Protection Agency research unit tasked with evaluating chemicals’ health risks has had its work hindered by the agency’s top leadership, according to a government watchdog.
(ACC Mentioned) Suffolk County Contemplating Restrictions On Plastics, Styrofoam
Feb 13, 2019 | CBS New York
By Jennifer McLogan

Suffolk County is mulling a crackdown on plastics and foam containers.
What the Trump EPA Should Do to Tackle the PFAS Pollution Crisis
Feb 13, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcok

Communities across the U.S. are suffering from drinking water contamination from poly- and perfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals due to industrial releases and use in firefighting foam.
The Science Behind PFOA Safe Concentrations
Feb 14, 2019 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Michael Dourson

Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) is a simple 8-member carbon molecule that is combined with fluorine molecules.
EPA Sets Toxins Response Plan Amid Criticism From Lawmakers
Feb 14, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Ellen Knickmeyer and John Flesher

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce a plan for dealing with a class of long-lasting chemical contaminants amid complaints from members of Congress and environmentalists that it's not moved aggressively enough to regulate them.
As Pressure Mounts, EPA Expected to Continue Weighing MCLs for PFAS
Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

EPA is set to announce that it will continue to weigh whether to set an enforceable drinking water standard for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a step that will likely address widespread concerns that the agency had decided not to proceed with such an approach...
What Are PFAS Chemicals, and What Are They Doing to Our Health?
Feb 14, 2019 | CNN
By Nadia Kounang

PFAS chemicals are known as "forever chemicals," a family of potentially thousands of synthetic chemicals that are extremely persistent in the environment and in our bodies. PFAS is short for perfluoroalky and polyfluoroalkyl substances and includes chemicals known as PFOS, PFOA and GenX.
Chemical Plan Tests Wheeler with Pruitt's Promises
Feb 13, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday is set to release a long-awaited "action plan" on a class of toxic chemicals that are raising alarm in communities across the country — an effort that began as a series of bold promises then-Administrator Scott Pruitt made last spring...
Give EPA Chemical Risk Data or Face Possible Controls: Attorneys
Feb 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Information that firms provide the EPA in the next few months could persuade the agency that certain chemicals used in making cars, computers, textiles, and other products don’t warrant regulatory scrutiny, attorneys said Feb. 13.
Thinktank Calls for EPA IRIS Programme to Be Scrapped
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

In the latest development in a years-long battle over the US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), non-profit thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is calling for the programme to be shut down and its functions folded into other agency offices.
Setting the Record Straight on IRIS Reform Progress
Feb 13, 2019 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Angela Logomasini

The Competitive Enterprise Institute published my paper this week on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
California Eyes Cosmetics Oversight Legislation
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

California legislators are considering making a commitment to enact a new law aimed at improving the oversight of "harmful" cosmetics.
Exposure to Weed Killing Products Increases Risk of Cancer by 41% – Study
Feb 14, 2019 | The Guardian
By Carey Gillam

A broad new scientific analysis of the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate herbicides, the most widely used weed killing products in the world, has found that people with high exposures to the popular pesticides have a 41% increased risk of developing a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
European Chemicals Agency Acts to Head off Brexit Chaos
Feb 13, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the body responsible for implementing the European Union’s chemical legislation, is changing its rules to accommodate UK chemical firms in an attempt to avert trade chaos when the UK exits—or Brexits—the EU on March 29.
ECHA Considers Reopening Concluded Reach Evaluation in ‘Exceptional’ Move
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies

Echa is considering reopening a substance evaluation for resorcinol, under the Community rolling action plan (Corap).
RNA Study Points to Therapy for Nanomaterial Inhalation
Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley

A study has shown that manipulating non-coding RNA can reduce the adverse effects of inhaling titanium dioxide on the cardiovascular and metabolic systems. The US-based scientists who conducted the study say the results point to a therapy for individuals exposed to large quantities of engineered nanomaterials (ENM).

Energy News

CCS Tax Credits Do Not Displace Renewables, Report Finds
Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

An environmental group that supports carbon capture and storage (CCS) is releasing new analysis showing that a newly revived federal tax credit for the technology could spur major carbon emission reductions, and that such cuts would be “additional” to projected deployment of renewable power.
It's Full Speed Ahead For U.S. Natural Gas Exports
Feb 13, 2019 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente

Now poised for the biggest year ever in 2019, 2018 was a record breaking year for the emerging U.S. natural gas export business.
Texas Shale Forces Big Oil Cost Revolution, Chevron CEO Says
Feb 14, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Kevin Crowley

For Mike Wirth, the future of Big Oil lies at home, under the dusty fields of West Texas.

Chemical Security News

Ill. Lawmakers Urge Epa Action on Cancer-Causing Emissions
Feb 13, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

Democratic members of Congress from Illinois are once again mounting concerns that EPA is not doing enough to protect communities from ethylene oxide emissions from a sterilization facility.
CSB Must Disclose Chemical Emission Information After Incidents, District Court Rules
Feb 13, 2019 | Safety+Health Magazine

The Chemical Safety Board must release details about chemical emissions resulting from industrial incidents and produce a reporting regulation within 12 months, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Feb. 4.
U.S. Finds Safety Management Gaps Led to 2016 Gas Plant Blast
Feb 13, 2019 | Reuters
By Erwin Seba

Gaps in safety management led to a 2016 explosion that idled an Enterprise Products natural gas processing plant in Pascagoula, Mississippi, for six months, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said in a report on Wednesday.
Industry Puzzled by Trump Admin's Cryptic Cyber Warning
Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr

Two weeks after a startling intelligence warning about U.S. gas pipelines' cybersecurity threats, the industry says it's still waiting for details.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Climate, Funding Concerns Emerge as Senators Mull Broad Bill
Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday debated how to craft a broad infrastructure package that protects rural and poor communities as well as the environment.

Environment News

Midwestern States' Strict Environmental Policies Fight Trump Deregulation
Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Newly inaugurated Democratic governors in Midwestern states are pursuing strict drinking water protections and promotion of clean energy as they fight President Donald Trump's deregulation of federal environmental policy, with the states saying their policies will address...
Dropping Air Permit Enforcement Priority is Progress, Some Say
Feb 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

Dropping air pollution permitting as an EPA enforcement priority is a measure of the 20-year-old program’s success and not a capitulation to polluters, as some critics are suggesting, former agency attorneys said.
Republicans Unify against Green New Deal in Bid to Finesse Climate Stance
Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

Capitol Hill Republicans are increasingly unified in their opposition to the ambitious “Green New Deal” climate change plan championed by many Democrats, allowing them to place less of an emphasis on prior disputes over climate science that could give them problems...
From Skepticism to Acceptance, GOP Spectrum on Display
Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews

Since the start of the 116th Congress, House Republicans have shown a new openness to serious conversations about climate change.
Democrats See Chance for Bipartisan Buy-In on Climate Study (1)
Feb 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

Some Democrats on the House Science Committee are optimistic that increased funding for climate and clean energy research can win bipartisan support.
EPA Chief Downplays Drastic Climate Change Report as Based on 'Worst-Case Scenario'
Feb 13, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Burke

Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Andrew Wheeler on Wednesday downplayed last year's dire federal government report on climate change, saying some of the report's conclusions "were based on the worst-case scenario."
Virginia Carbon Trading Link Likely to Survive GOP Objections
Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard

Virginia Republicans’ bid to block the state’s intention of joining a Northeastern greenhouse gas trading appears doomed given Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) vow to veto the measure.
Data Visualization to Drive Clean Air Innovation and Improve Health
Feb 13, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Aileen Nowlan

The first time I spoke at a conference about air pollution, the venue was right beside a daycare—a well-regarded chain, no doubt with significant waiting lists.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) US-China Trade War Having ‘No Effect’ on China Steel, Amid Surging Domestic Market and Tariff Exemptions

Feb 14, 2019 | South China Morning Post

By Finbarr Bermingham

The trade war between the United States and China is having “no effect” on the Chinese steel sector, which is being propped up by “surging domestic demand”, according to a new study.
New research by US analysts shows that Chinese steel producers are enjoying more exemptions from US President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel than those from US allies Canada, South Korea, Spain and the United Kingdom.
This is despite the fact that when the tariffs were invoked under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, ostensibly on grounds of national security, China were expressly named by Trump and his close advisers as the primary target.
But almost one year on from the introduction of the tariffs on steel and aluminium, Chinese steel is enjoying a relative boom.
Exports may have fallen by 8.1 per cent last year to 9.34 million metric tonnes, but China increased its total steel production massively in 2018, from 831.7 million metric tonnes to 928.3 million metric tonnes, almost half the world’s total.
Surging domestic demand helped make up for the loss in export sales, with China being less reliant on steel exports than ever before.
In comparison, American steel production last year was 86.7 million metric tonnes.
US purchases of China’s steel, meanwhile, have been dwindling for a decade, from 5.4 million metric tonnes in 2006, to just 1.2 million metric tonnes in 2017.
They now account for just 2 per cent of US steel imports, with China now selling steel predominantly to other Asian countries.
“The trade war made no impact on the Chinese steel sector in 2018. The Chinese steel industry has seen improving fundamentals in the last few years,” said Laura Zhai, senior director of Fitch Ratings’ Asia Pacific corporate ratings group.
Consolidation of steel mills around China has helped ease overcapacity issues.
The government’s move to pump more cash into the Chinese economy, meanwhile, has helped the sector to recover from a blip in the third quarter of 2018, where tightening cash flow saw people buying fewer cars and household goods, sending steel prices tumbling.
The situation is leading some to question whether containing Chinese steel was the real target of the tariffs, which were lobbied for by the US steel industry, including Nucor Corporation and US Steel Corporation.
The new study by Christine McDaniel, a trade economist at the Mercatus Centre at the George Mason University in Virginia, shows that requests made to exclude Chinese steel products from tariffs have had a 39 per cent approval rating.
Canadian steel, meanwhile, has been exempt from tariffs on 27 per cent of applications, the UK 30 per cent, 8 per cent for South Korea and just 6 per cent for Spain.
Japan had a higher rate of approval for tariff exclusion requests, with 38 per cent of 9,166 steel exclusion requests being successful.
Analysts from S&P Global, a market intelligence firm, said that most of China’s steel exemptions have come in higher products, made by producers such as Baosteel, who can compete in terms of quality with Japanese and South Korean producers.
“Last year when the tariffs first came in, the steel market reacted negatively in China. It’s very sentiment driven, tends to be reactionary to policy announcements,” said Paul Bartholomew, senior managing editor at S&P Global.
“But it returned to fundamentals within a few days. For the first three quarters, the market was very strong and robust, demand was very robust.
“Steel tariffs, the so-called trade war, wasn’t a huge factor. It was playing out in sentiment, but domestic demand was strong enough to save the steel industry.”
Canada, the European Union, Mexico and other countries affected by tariffs on metals have put retaliatory duties on US products.
Some other nations, such as Brazil and South Korea, have been given blanket exemptions, but must import under a quota system.
This is, McDaniel said, having a negative impact on US manufacturing – the base of the economy Trump has promised to resuscitate.
Part of the blame, McDaniel said, lies with the US steel industry itself, which is making objections to tariff exclusion requests made by US manufacturers, on the grounds that they can provide the same product for roughly the same price, even if it has been proven that they cannot.
“Out of the 60,000 exclusion requests that have been filed, only one has been accepted that’s had an objection [from a US steel company]. The other thousands that have been objected have either been denied or still pending. For US manufacturers, whether your request is denied or pending, it’s essentially the same thing: you don’t have access to the tariff free product,” she said.
If a manufacturing company files a tariff exclusion request for a typical type of steel that it usually acquires from Canada or Japan, it takes the Department of Commerce three weeks to process, after which the request is posted online.
US steelmakers then have 30 days to file an objection, which can be filed on the grounds that they can supply the same product within five weeks.
“There are so many cases where the US manufacturer will file an exclusion request, then the steelmaker files an objection saying they can make it. The manufacturer files a rebuttal saying that they have documents saying that they have requested the US steelmaker to make that type of product in the past, and they could not do it,” McDaniel said.
“You have a situation where US steelmakers are deciding who pays tariffs. If they say they can make it for you, you’re out of luck, even if they can’t.”
The situation has been a thorn in the side of the many sectors of US manufacturing, including the chemicals industry, which is reliant on imported steel products to build factories.
Access to huge shale oil and gas reserves in the US led to a rush of investment, with international chemicals companies among those building American factories to tap cheap and abundant raw materials.
However, the steel tariffs and quotas are threatening to jeopardise the resurgence, said Edward Brzytwa, director for international trade at the American Chemical Council.
“The estimate is that it takes about 16,500 tonnes of steel to build an ethylene cracker, which looks like a giant steel jungle gym, they’re very steel intensive. Not only are we paying more for steel to build manufacturing facilities, but the US is also using quotas on certain countries, such as South Korea, Argentina and Brazil,” said Brzytwa, who was formerly the director of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation affairs at the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
“Some of our members had to find their way around the quotas to bring in the really specialised steel they needed to build their product.”
US steel producers, on the other hand, benefited from higher prices in the immediate aftermath of the tariffs, but that has moderated slightly.
“US flat [coil] steel prices did climb in the wake of the tariffs being introduced, but some of the price climb can also be attributed to the corporate tax cuts in the US and the healthy economy last year, which stimulated investment,” said Bartholomew.
“Prices have come off again and are now back at roughly the same level as before the tariffs were introduced. US steel mill capacity utilisation rates are at 81.5 per cent currently, but the downturn in the [car] sector is crimping demand a bit.”
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2186142/us-china-trade-war-having-no-effect-china-steel-amid-surging

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Design Connections Day 2 Recap: Design Is in the Details

Feb 13, 2019 | Interiors & Sources

By Robert Nieminen

Day two of Design Connections kicked off with an engaging panel discussion that revealed a rather interesting truth: that to make a big difference in the world of design, sometimes you need to start small—really small. Titled “Molecules Matter,” the session emphasized the importance of combining the fields of chemistry and technology to bring about positive disruption in product design and arrive at creative solutions.
Moderated by Todd Sims, director of sustainability and market outreach for the American Chemistry Council, the panelists shared from their collective experiences how product innovation can be achieved by broadening the conversation to include people not traditionally involved in the conversation—and that failure can be a catalyst for success. For example, Linda M. Gabel, facility planner at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, noted that a costly fabric failure at their facility led to a chemistry investigation.
When the hospital enlisted the help of chemists to determine how cleaning products were reacting with its upholstery fabrics, it was discovered that human contact on the seats left oil and sweat residue that interacted with cleaning agents which ultimately destroyed the fabrics. Such a disruption based on adversity ended up being the spark used to drive innovation for a new product.
EXPERIMENTING WITH MATERIALS
Likewise, panelist Donald Strum, principal of product design at Michael Graves Architecture & Design related his firm’s experience redesigning the wheelchair—a product that has essentially remained unchanged for more than a century. Working with hospital clients, the design team set out to make a wheelchair that was simpler, more durable and prevented the spread of infection.
Experimenting with different materials, the Stryker wheelchair was ultimately constructed of powder-coated steel and vinyl that features easily replaceable parts and an attractive design. “All you need is two or three insights to make something transformative,” he said.
WELLNESS TREND
Deidre Hoguet, director of applied research at Designtex, noted how the textile company is responding to the wellness trend to continue to innovate its products at the micro level. Utilizing tools such as Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and Health Product Declarations (HPDs), Designtex is setting benchmarks for improvements that ultimately have an impact on human health.
However, she noted that “we can’t look at products in a vacuum” and that only looking at Red Lists and chemicals of concern is too limited. “We have to look at things holistically, including cleaning, and we need to ask, what is the purpose of the product, and how dowe design for the whole picture?
In other words, molecules really do matter when inventive technologies and chemistry formulations are begin used to solve design problems.
Attendees then broke out into one-on-one sessions and boardroom meetings with manufacturers to learn more about the latest product introductions and solutions—and key disruptors—that are making an impact in the market. The day ended with a Night of Giving, which included a lively design challenge in which a number of teams created lighting fixtures using building blocks from wakaNINE and fabric from Sunbrella that will be donated to the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity.
https://www.interiorsandsources.com/article-details/articleid/22502/title/design-connections-day-2

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Anipac Boosts Operation Clean Sweep Focus in Mexico

Feb 13, 2019 | Plastics News

By Stephen Downer

Mexico's national plastics industry association is redoubling efforts to achieve zero resin pellet, flake and powder loss in the country.
At a Feb. 7 event, Raúl Mendoza, managing director of Anipac, said the association will triple the number of workshops held every year to promote a plastic-free marine environment.
Anipac (Asociación Nacional de Industrias del Plástico A.C.) has promoted the Plastic Industry Association and American Chemistry Council's Operation Clean Sweep (OCS) largely through workshops. The first took place in 2013 and six more have been held since then, according to Anipac President Aldimir Torres.
"The new global situation obliges us to be more efficient in the use of resources and to protect and take care of the environment," he said in a speech, underscoring Anipac's commitment to the initiative. OCS operates under license in 38 countries outside the United States, according to Perc Pineda, the Plastic Industry Association's chief economist.
"Recent additions include Poland, Belgium, Estonia, Serbia and Ghana," he said in another presentation.
Pineda was one of several speakers at the event, where 11 Mexican companies received diplomas acknowledging their support for OCS, which was launched in 1991.
In Mexico the program is known as Cero Pérdida de Pellets (Zero Pellet Loss).
The 11 companies which received diplomas marking OCS membership, which is renewable every year, are:
? Anguiplast SA de CV.
? Arpema Plásticos SA de CV.
? Braskem Idesa S.A.P.I.
? Carredana de Empaques SA de CV.
? Distribución y Servicios Logísticos SA de CV.
? Dow Química Mexicana SA de CV.
? Katoen Natie Mexicana SA de CV.
? Logística Integral en Transportación SA de CV.
? Organización Brenn S.A. de CV.
? Radici Plastics México S. de R.L. de CV.
? PetStar S.A.P.I. de CV.
PetStar was the only company whose OCS Blue membership was recognized at the ceremony. OCS Blue has VIP status and gives members access to environmental data from across the world.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190213/NEWS/190219926/anipac-boosts-operation-clean-sweep-focus-in-mexico

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Movers & Shakers: Smile Direct Club, Momentum Worldwide and More

Feb 13, 2019 | Campaign US

By Oliver McAteer

Wins & Losses
JPL is expanding its paid media and analytics practice to New York. The Harrisburg, PA-based integrated marketing agency, with clients including The Hershey Company, Quest Diagnostics, Rite Aid and the American Chemistry Council has made talent acquisition in digital media and analytics a priority for growth.
Sizmek’s Joshua Koran is recognized with a 2019 IAB Tech Lab Service Excellence Award.Up and Out
Smile Direct Club taps Bruce Henderson as its first chief creative officer.
Tool of North America signs directors Daito Manabe and Alex Richanbach to its Live Action and Innovation rosters.
C-K welcomes Jeff Kean as SVP, innovative technology director.
Solve promotes Ryan Murray to director of account management.
Momentum Worldwide takes on Kevin Collins as managing director of its Midwest office.
Mark Taylor is named CCO of MeringCarson.
Tapad appoints its first SVP of Identity, Ajit Thupil.
Johannes Leonardo brings in Hope Nardini as their new creative director.
Creative studio Laundry adds Reza Rasoli as creative director and live-action director.
https://www.campaignlive.com/article/movers-shakers-smile-direct-club-momentum-worldwide/1525617

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Affirms US EPA Policy Barring Grant Recipients from Serving as Advisers

Feb 13, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Cheryl Hogue

A federal trial court is upholding a policy that bars US Environmental Protection Agency research grant recipients from serving as EPA science advisers.
Former EPA head Scott Pruitt acted legally in issuing the policy, which effectively allowed the agency to add more industry experts to the panels, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Feb. 12. Under federal law, the court explained, “Agency heads have broad discretion over the composition of advisory committees.”
EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who took over after Pruitt resigned amid a dozen investigations last year, has maintained the policy. Wheeler’s appointment to replace Pruitt is pending Senate confirmation.
Three health advocacy groups and three scientists who served, or who hoped to serve, as science advisers filed the lawsuit after the policy change in late 2017. They include a scientist who was removed from the agency’s flagship Science Advisory Board because she receives EPA research funding.
EPA and the public are losing some of the best scientific advice by excluding top scientists who receive EPA grants,” said Patti Goldman, an attorney from Earthjustice, an nonprofit legal group that represents the plaintiffs.
The opinion by Judge Trevor N. McFadden said federal statutes “do not explicitly require EPA to appoint the ‘most qualified’ scientists or make subject matter expertise the ‘principle factor in determining membership.’ ”
The plaintiffs are considering an appeal, Earthjustice says.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/litigation/Court-affirms-US-EPA-policy/97/i7

Return to headline | Return to top
Negotiators Release Bipartisan Spending Package

Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Daily

By George Cahlink and Manuel Quiñones

Several environmentally sensitive border areas would be protected and EPA would see a small funding boost in a bipartisan border security and spending package unveiled late last night in hopes of averting a government shutdown tomorrow.
The Senate will go first in taking up the legislation today, and then the House will act later this evening to send the legislation to the president's desk. If the funding deal is not in place by midnight tomorrow, parts of the government will be forced to shut down.
Conferees last night formally signed off on the legislation, which would provide $1.375 billion in U.S.-Mexico border barrier funding and carry the seven unfinished fiscal 2019 spending bills, including Interior-EPA. The failure to pass those bills late last year sparked the recent 35-day government shutdown.
The legislation contains provisions barring border construction on five sites in South Texas. The areas marked for protection are the National Butterfly Center, Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, La Lomita Historical Park and a tract of land next to the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge that will be home to the proposed SpaceX commercial spaceport.
Under the agreement, federal workers would get a 1.9 percent pay raise, and the Coast Guard would get funds to buy its first new ice cutter in decades.
The seven spending bills largely reflect bipartisan deals reached at the end of the last Congress by appropriators that were not acted on because of the impasse over border funding.
According to summaries, provided by both Democrats and Republicans, the legislation would provide $35.6 billion for Interior-EPA for fiscal 2019, a figure about $300 million above current spending.
The Interior Department would receive about $13 billion next year, about $95 million less than current spending.
EPA, which the White House sought to cut by more than $2 billion, would see a small increase of $25 million to $8.8 billion, summaries show.
Both EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund would keep current appropriations.
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act grants would get a small increase after being marked for deep cuts by the Trump administration.
The National Park Service would see an increase of $20 million to $3.2 billion for fiscal 2019, a notable victory for the agency after the White House proposed a more than $500 million cut.
The Bureau of Land Management would see a $14 million increase to $1.3 billion, while the Fish and Wildlife Service would get a $17 million cut to $1.58 billion.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement would get almost $116 million. The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund would get almost $140 million, including $115 million for projects that both clean abandoned sites and promote economic development.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education would be largely level funded at $3 billion, while the Land and Water Conservation Fund would see an increase of $10 million to $435 million.Riders
As expected, a host of new, controversial environmental and land policy riders pushed by House Republicans were not included in the final package.
Riders returning from last year include a provision treating biomass emissions as carbon neutral and another exempting certain agricultural practices from the Clean Water Act.
The legislation does not contain any emergency aid for national disasters, nor does it contain any extensions of renewable energy tax provisions.
A provision, pushed by Democrats, to provide pay for contractors who were furloughed during the recent government shutdown was left out, too.
Democrats cheered the yanking of what they saw as objectionable riders, including those related to delisting gray wolves and scrapping the Obama Clean Water Rule. The bills also don't prohibit money for the international Green Climate Fund.
Appropriators stressed that the 1,159-page bill represents a compromise, with trade-offs made by both parties in hopes of averting another shutdown.
"We cannot repeat the disastrous government shutdown, so it is incumbent on Congress to come together to responsibly fund our government. This legislation represents a bipartisan compromise and will keep our government open while funding key priorities," said House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), who stressed that the deal denies funding for a concrete border wall.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said the plan makes a "significant down payment" on border wall construction and wraps up bipartisan work on the fiscal 2019 spending bills.
Other sections of the spending package include:NOAA climate research would increase by $1 million from fiscal 2018 levels to $159 million.The National Weather Service would get $1 billion, a boost of $6.6 million.NASA would get $1.93 billion for earth sciences, which includes climate research, a $10 million increase.The Agriculture title would be allocated $23 billion, a $32 million increase.Agricultural research would get a boost to $3.16 billion, but the Natural Resources Conservation Service would go down to $819 million.The Homeland Security title includes funding for the first polar security cutter in more than 40 years.The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would get a $3 million boost to $275 million.Will he sign?
President Trump has not yet said he would sign the legislation, but his tone softened yesterday from earlier in the week, when he said he was "not happy with the legislation."
"We'll be looking for land mines," said Trump, who promised a "very serious look" at the bill and said he appreciated all the work Republicans had done in going up against the "radical left" in negotiations.
The president reiterated that he does not want to force a shutdown. "A shutdown would be a terrible thing. I think a point was made with the last shutdown; people realized how bad the border is, how unsafe the border is. And I think a lot of good points were made. But I don't want to see another one. There's no reason for it," he said.
Notably, Trump is due to fly to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida for the weekend, something he avoided doing during the last lapse in funding.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) the head of the Freedom Caucus and a close Trump ally, said the president would either sign the legislation or a stopgap spending bill if there are too many extraneous provisions included in the deal.
Indeed, the Freedom Caucus, which pushed for the last shutdown, introduced a bill yesterday that would provide a week's worth of funding in case Trump rejects the bipartisan legislation.
"I fully expect the government to continue to operate," said Meadows.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/14/stories/1060121041

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) PFAS, the ‘Forever Chemicals,’ Become EPA Problem: QuickTake

Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Kary

What do you do about lab-made chemicals that are in 99 percent of people in the U.S. and have been linked to immune system problems and cancer? Whose bonds are so stable that they’re often called “forever chemicals”?
Meet PFAS, a class of chemicals that some scientists call the next PCB or DDT. For consumers, they are best known for making products like Scotchgard and Teflon. For businesses, PFAS are a puzzle that have already created billions of dollars worth of liabilities.
But 70 years of unchecked proliferation may be ending as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it will unveil its PFAS action plan Feb. 14.
1. What are PFAS?
They are used to make hundreds of everyday products, from stents to firefighting foams, and turn up in the supply chain of the textile, paper, and electronics industries. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS (“PEE-fas”), previously called PFCs, FCs, or fluorocarbons, come in 5,000 or more varieties. Some have been made since the 1950s by companies like 3M Co. and DuPont (now DowDuPont’s spinoff Chemours Co.). They’re characterized by bonds between carbon and fluorine that are among the strongest in organic chemistry. Consumers may be more familiar with the names of two of the most studied forms, PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), once used in Scotchgard; and PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid), also sometimes called C-8, once used to make Teflon. PFAS are also found in high levels in the water of some U.S. communities.
2. What are they in?
Their consumer-friendly abilities were discovered by accident—in 1938 when a DuPont scientist was experimenting with refrigerants, and in 1952 when a 3M researcher splashed an experimental mixture on shoes, which then became stainproof—giving rise to 3M’s Scotchgard. Now, they’re in many types of outdoor clothing, camping gear, shoes, textiles, coated papers for fast-food takeout, firefighting foams, and surfactants for electronics manufacturing, for a start. Chemours’ Teflon manufacturing process also relies on them. The medical equipment and construction industries depend on them too. Private labs have warned of cross-contamination from PFAS in blue chemical ice packs, sunscreens, and Post-It Notes. Some varieties surprised grocer Whole Foods Market and suppliers of its takeout containers. And because the chemicals also get around on their own, they pop up in polar bears, newborn babies, and kale.
3. Are they dangerous?
It depends who you ask. A scientific panel that monitored the blood and health of about 70,000 people in West Virginia and Ohio from 2005 to 2013 who lived near a DuPont Teflon plant found a “ probable link” between PFOA and cases of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, and pre-eclampsia. Animal studies have shown PFOS affects the ability of cells to communicate with each other—potentially hampering the immune system’s ability to destroy viruses and the rogue cells that cause cancer. In Minnesota, near a 3M plant, there’s been a debate over whether they’re linked to problems like lowered fertility and childhood cancer.
4. Is there a big difference between varieties?
That’s not clear. Manufacturers distinguish between what are known as long-chain and short-chain varieties. Long-chain PFAS have more than eight fluorine-carbon bonds. Around 2000, manufacturers began switching to short-chain PFAS, some of which have been shown to spend less time in the body. The FluoroCouncil, which represents some manufacturers, says PFAS are “diverse” and that as a whole, PFAS “meet relevant standards for the protection of human health and the environment.” It also says current PFAS used are all “short-chain” types, which “do not meet criteria for chemicals of concern based on their environmental fate and potential for adverse health effects.” Chemours, in an emailed statement, said Teflon nonstick coatings meet “regulatory standards and are safe for their intended use.” 3M said that studies haven’t found Scotchgard ingredient PFBS at quantifiable levels in the general U.S. population. “We are committed to responsible environmental stewardship and take significant steps to ensure our products are safe,” the company said in a statement.
5. Do people agree with that?
Many scientists do not. Some signed a “Helsingor Statement” in 2014 and a “Madrid Statement” in 2015, saying industries should consider avoiding all PFAS. They caution that even if short-chain PFAS accumulate less in living tissue, they persist in the environment, where their carbon and fluorine bonds can recombine to create other varieties of PFAS. Companies also may use more of them to get the same effects that long-chain versions provided. While the American Chemistry Council questioneda recent draft EPA analysis that raised concerns about immunotoxicity, environmental and health advocates said the agency didn’t consider the mix of PFAS any one person is exposed to. They said the data suggest that some short-chain PFAS—including those currently used in Scotchgard spray and Teflon manufacturing—may be as harmful to the liver, thyroid, and kidney as the long-chain versions they replaced. Chemours, in its own January response to the EPA analysis, took issue with some of the liver findings.
6. Who’s been affected?
Around 110 million Americans have drinking water with traces of PFAS, according to the Environmental Working Group’s map data. And that’s just water—indoor dust and food are also said to expose people. There are also reports of pollution in Belgium, Germany, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands, and contamination through agricultural use of biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, and landfills where chemical-laden products were disposed of.7. What kind of action has there been on PFAS?
The Environmental Protection Agency has been considering setting nationwide limits. Currently, it has no enforceable rules on their hazards or levels in drinking water. In recent years, many states have lowered guidelines for acceptable levels in water, putting pressure on polluters and municipalities, which have had to install costly water filters. Lawsuits have also spurred action: A settlement forced DuPont and its Chemours spinoff to pay $671 million to people in West Virginia and Ohio after the science panel found the “probable links” to the six diseases. And in 2018, Minnesota got an $850 million settlement from 3M to spend on filtration and cleanup. Many suits have merged into a “mega” case. One on behalf of a firefighter seeks to become a class action for anyone in the U.S. with the chemical in their blood.8. What’s this mean for firms who made or used PFAS?
Many makers of the chemicals face lawsuits, while DowDuPont has been partly distanced from liability because of the Chemours spinoff. Companies that use PFAS or may unwittingly have it in their supply chains face potential for new regulations, backlash from consumers and costs to reformulate. Some, like Patagonia Inc. and Columbia Sportswear Co., seek to phase the chemicals out, with Columbia even boasting PFAS-free products. Others, like Procter & Gamble Co., have responded to legal claims by saying they didn’t use the chemicals. And still others have made changes in response to pressure from advocates, including Whole Foods and its supplier Cascades Sonoco Inc., which recently moved away from the chemicals.
9. Can I do anything to limit my risk?
Those who suspect high levels should try and get tested by a physician. Some studies suggest blood-drawing, or phlebotomy, might reduce PFAS in blood, but research is preliminary. Childbearing can decrease levels, though unfortunately that’s by passing them on to the child. When it comes to avoiding exposure, you can:
Check to see if PFAS are in your area on the EWG map, check if your municipality filters for them or get an in-home filter.
Some groups say to ditch non-stick cookware—from pie pans to rice cookers—especially if they’re scratched. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has a guide.
Dr. Philip Landrigan, a children’s health advocate, has recommended not using Scotchgard “even as we wait for more definitive information” about the current formulation.
Articles abound that identify PFAS or PFAS-free cosmetics, stain-proof fabrics and outdoor gear.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/to-the-epa-forever-chemicals-are-a-big-problem-now-quicktake

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Top Leaders Stymied Research Unit, Report Finds

Feb 14, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal

By Heidi Vogt

An Environmental Protection Agency research unit tasked with evaluating chemicals’ health risks has had its work hindered by the agency’s top leadership, according to a government watchdog.
The unit, known as the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, is responsible for identifying dangers from chemicals in products such as paint and pesticides, and releasing assessments of their potential threats to human health.
A draft Government Accountability Office report found that “the IRIS program has been unable to release any work since June 2018 while it was waiting for feedback from the Administrator’s office,” according to a copy reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The GAO is a nonpartisan federal auditing agency that provides information to Congress.
“IRIS program progress toward producing assessments was delayed by EPA leadership deliberations about priorities,” the draft said.
The findings reflect a fundamental shift in thinking at agencies like the EPA, where Trump administration officials are challenging longtime practices, particularly around the use of science, said Bernard Goldstein, a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health who oversaw EPA scientific programs under President Reagan.
“They’ve had these standard approaches, and now the standard approaches are gone,” said Mr. Goldstein, adding that he found this development troubling.
EPA officials disputed the report’s findings and said Obama administration policies needed revision.
“The Trump EPA believes it is using the best available science to determine its proposed rules and regulations, just as the former administration believed it was doing the same thing,” agency spokesman James Hewitt said. “However, this administration clearly has huge disagreements with the way the Obama administration carried out the agency’s mission.”
The report, dated last month, said EPA leadership in October directed the heads of the agency’s various programs to limit the number of chemicals they wanted IRIS to study or continue researching. Nine of 16 assessments were then dropped, including one that looked at whether exposure to formaldehyde increases the risk of leukemia that “has been drafted and is ready to be released for public comment,” according to the GOA report.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told lawmakers in January that “each program was given complete latitude to select its own priorities.” Mr. Wheeler said the formaldehyde analysis was dropped because it wasn’t identified by any of the program offices as a priority. He said it could be added later should that change.
A senior EPA official said while the agency did remind its program officers in October to submit their lists of chemicals for research, it didn’t put a cap on how many they could request.
Democratic lawmakers have been demanding the release of the formaldehyde report for months.
“This study is a congressional priority, it’s a priority of career staff within the EPA, and it’s a priority of families all over the country who don’t want to be exposed to a dangerous chemical,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D., Mass.).
The issues cited by the draft report reflect a broader push by the EPA under the Trump administration to re-evaluate the agency’s handling of scientific findings, including limiting the use of certain types of outside research—a move welcomed by business groups.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative advocacy group, issued a report this week criticizing IRIS’s assessments for sounding false alarms about chemical risks and creating “unwarranted health scares.”
Formaldehyde is used in products ranging from particleboard to disinfectants and embalming fluid. A large body of scientific research, including studies by the National Cancer Institute, backs the likelihood of a link between the chemical and leukemia, particularly among people with high levels of workplace exposure.
Industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council have disputed that idea. “There is no biologically plausible link,” said Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products and technology at the ACC.
“It appears that this process has been guided and shepherded through by political appointees that have really strong conflicts of interest on certain chemicals,” said Richard Denison, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, referring to the EPA’s changed approach toward scientific research.
Mr. Wheeler previously worked as a lobbyist for energy companies. Nancy Beck, the head of the agency’s chemical-safety office, previously worked at the ACC. And David Dunlap, the head of the program that oversees IRIS, previously worked for Koch Industries.
The GAO’s draft report doesn’t name individuals, alleging only that “EPA leadership” stymied IRIS research. James Hewitt, the EPA spokesman, rejected the assertion that those at the agency were acting in the interests of former employers.
“All EPA employees receive an ethics briefings when they start and continually work with our ethics office regarding any potential conflicts,” Mr. Hewitt said.
The GAO produced its 35-page report in response to a request by Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.), the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. The draft is currently being circulated inside the agency for comments before being finalized.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epas-top-leaders-stymied-research-unit-report-finds-11550149201

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Suffolk County Contemplating Restrictions On Plastics, Styrofoam

Feb 13, 2019 | CBS New York

By Jennifer McLogan

Suffolk County is mulling a crackdown on plastics and foam containers.
Lawmakers say, if successful, they hope it would lead to state legislation, CBS2’s Jennifer McLogan reported Wednesday.
Suffolk may soon go strawless, vying to be the first county in our area to apply such restrictions.
“Plastic straws that were found on the beach. ‘Polystyrene clam shell,’ they’re called,” Suffolk legislator Kara Hahn said.
Hahn said she hopes her four-part bill will pass as early as this spring.
Suffolk restaurants could give out straws only on request. Polystyrene containers, plates and cups would be banned.
Biodegradable containers and straws are more expensive to produce and purchase. The plastics ban bill is being challenged by the New York State Restaurant Association, and the American Chemistry Council is defending foam packaging.
“As soon as the industry catches up with the bills I think it’s going to be great for everybody,” said Nick Voulgaris, owner of Kerber Farms Provisions, adding when asked how he’d absorb the costs, “I think as small businesses integrate that it’s sort of taking a little bit off the bottom line, but I’m a sailor.”
As a sailor, Voulgaris said he is aware of the global result when man-made materials don’t decompose. They litter our beaches and roadways, killing our sea life and wildlife.
Recently, Brentwood High School students said they spent a semester studying the crisis.
“These are pieces of plastic and polystyrene that we found in our marshes while conducting research,” student Catalina Garcia said.
“It’s really dangerous to see the impact that it has on our environment and how it affects our animals,” Linda Mejia added.
Suffolk was the first county in our area to charge for plastic bags.
“These things are bold. I know with the plastic bags there was a lot of push-back,” county legislator William Spencer said.
But lawmakers said it is reducing use and predict the same for straws and Styrofoam.
Chains such as Starbucks, McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts say they are voluntarily phasing out plastic straws.
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/02/13/suffolk-county-mulling-ban-on-plastic-straws-styrofoam/

Return to headline | Return to top
What the Trump EPA Should Do to Tackle the PFAS Pollution Crisis

Feb 13, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

By Liz Hitchcok

Communities across the U.S. are suffering from drinking water contamination from poly- and perfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals due to industrial releases and use in firefighting foam. Found in a wide range of products, from food packaging to stain-resistant furniture, human exposure comes from multiple sources and routes. With their remarkable persistence and mobility—these chemicals are not known to break down in the environment and move through soil to drinking water—PFAS have become global pollutants that threaten the health of people and wildlife.
Tomorrow morning, the EPA will release its first federal PFAS management plan. We haven’t seen the plan yet and will report back when we do, but here’s what EPA and other federal agencies should do.
Find out where PFAS contamination is coming from and where these chemicals are in use.
·       Adding PFAS chemicals to the Toxic Release Inventory would disclose who is releasing them into our air and water. Polluters should also be required to tell neighboring communities.
·       Requiring water systems and regulators to monitor for PFAS in drinking water, air, and food, and improving the tools to measure contamination, would tell us the extent of the PFAS contamination crisis. Agencies like EPA and CDC should also conduct body burden testing, medical monitoring, and health impact studies of people impacted by PFAS contamination, especially military families.
Turn off the tap on these dangerous pollutants:
·       Stop approving new PFAS chemicals. An estimated 5,000 PFAS chemicals are in use, so there’s no reason for the EPA or Food and Drug Administration to let any more PFAS chemicals on the market. EPA should also finalize a rule that would require companies to get EPA approval before using some kinds of PFAS chemicals.
·       Stop adding more PFAS chemicals to the environment. PFAS should be banned from consumer products, including cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, and textiles including carpeting and clothing. PFAS chemicals should also be banned from firefighting foam, especially foam used at civilian airports and in training exercises. EPA should also regulate the discharge of toxic PFAS chemicals into our air and water.
Clean up existing PFAS pollution and hold polluters accountable:
·       Add PFAS to the Clean Water and Superfund cleanup laws. Classifying PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Clean Water Act and Superfund will help communities begin to clean up contaminated sites. EPA should make sure PFAS chemicals are properly disposed of.
·       Set an enforceable limit for PFAS in tap water. More than 1,500 drinking water systems serving more than 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS chemicals. Setting a legal limit, known as a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), for the class of chemicals will require utilities to treat tap water to remove or lower PFAS contamination. States should also set their own legal limits. Since the EPA has not begun the process to establish an MCL, state action is especially important.
·       Direct the military to quickly clean up contaminated bases. Pentagon data shows that at least 36 military installations have on-base drinking water contamination that exceeds the EPA’s health advisory for the PFAS chemicals formerly used to make DuPont’s Teflon and 3M’s Scotchgard. The Department of Defense has identified 401 military installations with known or potential contamination.
·       Make polluters pay their fair share. Many of the companies who manufactured or used PFAS understood the risks to human health but failed to protect workers or nearby residents. Adding PFAS to Superfund will ensure that polluters pay. Polluters should also be responsible for taking back and safely disposing of their PFAS products, like firefighting foams. But other measures, such as a clean-up trust fund, should be created, and Americans impacted by PFAS pollution should be allowed to take action through the courts.
In the absence of federal action, states are taking the lead to protect communities:
The good news is that states are not waiting for the EPA to make PFAS a priority. At least 28 states will consider more than 100 bills, ranging from bills to require more PFAS disclosure to bans on PFAS in food packaging, fire fighting foam, and flame retardants.
·       Banning PFAS in food packaging: At least 8 states will consider policy to eliminate or reduce PFASs in food packaging. States considering bans include: CT, MA, ME, MN, NJ, NY, RI, VT.
·       Banning PFAS in firefighting foam: At least 9 states will consider policy to ban the use of PFAS in firefighting foam. Washington State passed a ban on PFAS in foam last year and the Federal Aviation Administration has been directed to rewrite regulations to allow for PFAS-free foams at airports. States considering bans are AK, CT, MI, MN, NH, NY, RI, VA, VT.
·       Addressing PFAS in drinking water: Beyond regulating PFAS in firefighting foam, at least 7 states will consider policy to limit levels of PFAS in drinking water, as well as fund cleanup of contaminated drinking water, including medical monitoring and testing. States considering actions include AK, MI, NH, NJ, NY, VT, WA.
To learn more, visit http://www.saferstates.com/news/2019map/
Congress is taking action:
Some members of Congress have introduced or are considering bills to expand PFAS monitoring, to ban some PFAS uses, and to set tough clean up standards, among other priorities. Last year, Congress passed legislation to study PFAS health effects and to allow civilian airports to use PFAS-free firefighting foam. Bipartisan bills to monitor PFAS in drinking water sources and accelerate PFAS clean-up at military bases were introduced in the last Congress and a bill to designate PFAS a hazardous substance under Superfund already has been reintroduced in this Congress.
https://saferchemicals.org/2019/02/13/what-the-trump-epa-should-do-to-tackle-the-pfas-pollution-crisis/

Return to headline | Return to top
The Science Behind PFOA Safe Concentrations

Feb 14, 2019 | Natural Resources Defense Council

By Michael Dourson

Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) is a simple 8-member carbon molecule that is combined with fluorine molecules. The end result is a chemical that resembles simple forms of fat that occur naturally in our bodies or the environment, but that do not break down to any significant extent. Although PFOA does not occur naturally in the environment, it is very useful (e.g., fire-fighting foam) and stable, and as a result very low concentrations are found in the environment in many places with a few places having much higher levels that may be harmful to our health.
One way governments protect our health from harmful PFOA exposures is to develop a safe or low-risk dose, essentially a dose of PFOA to which we can all be exposed during our lifetimes without experiencing any harmful effects. This dose is determined by qualified scientists after all available and appropriate studies are reviewed. Most of these studies are done in laboratory (experimental) animals, but when human exposures occur these are also considered. These safe or low-risk doses go by various names, for example, the Reference Dose (RfD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Barnes and Dourson, 1988).
Several safe or low-risk doses have been estimated for PFOA by different governments. Unfortunately, these safe doses differ widely. This is due in part because scientists have not agreed on PFOA’s critical effect, which scientists define as the first effect judged to be harmful at the lowest dose. For example, US EPA (2016) judges the critical effect to be fetal toxicity in mice exposed during pregnancy. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2018) judges the critical effect to be an increase in serum total cholesterol in humans.
However, another, and perhaps more important reason for the disagreement among governments is that many scientists assume that the critical effect of PFOA is due to the length of time it takes to clear PFOA from our bodies (i.e., its half-life) rather than due to its peak concentration in blood (i.e., its maximum concentration or Cmax) (Health, 2019). For example, EPA assumed that the critical effect used to develop its safe dose for PFOA was due to its half-life and not its Cmax. Scientists associated with Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) are not so sure (TERA, 2018). Thus, it has become important to consider whether the critical effect of PFOA is due to its half-life or its Cmax.
In this regard, a preliminary research case study is being proposed at a Beyond Science and Decisions workshopin February 2019. Here, half-life and Cmax information are compiled from experimental (laboratory) work in mice described by Lau et al. (2006) and Lou et al. (2009), and compared with new half-life and Cmax information found in humans exposed to PFOA as part of a cancer clinical trial (Elcombe et al., 2013, Convertino et al., 2018). Although human populations are generally exposed to much lower levels of PFOA than those used in these experimental animals or clinical human studies, the comparison of half-life and Cmax values between these studies are in agreement with current guidelines of IPCS (2005) and EPA (2014).
Safe or low-risk doses for PFOA and related chemicals by various governments are currently widely disparate. Fortunately, recent findings in humans may reduce some of this disparity. Efforts to use this newer information should allow for harmonization, or at least more consistency, in government positions.
This article was written by Michael L. Dourson, PhD., DABT, FATS, FSRA (who also serves on ACSH's Board of Scientific Advisors), Bernard Gadagbui, MS, PhD, DABT, ERT, and Patricia M. McGinnis, PhD, DABT.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/02/13/science-behind-pfoa-safe-concentrations-13814

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Sets Toxins Response Plan Amid Criticism From Lawmakers

Feb 14, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)

By Ellen Knickmeyer and John Flesher

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce a plan for dealing with a class of long-lasting chemical contaminants amid complaints from members of Congress and environmentalists that it's not moved aggressively enough to regulate them.
So-called forever chemicals, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, or PFAS, pose "a very important threat," acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in an interview with ABC News Live ahead of a scheduled briefing Thursday in Philadelphia.
Wheeler said the agency was moving forward with the process under the Safe Drinking Water Act that could lead to new safety thresholds for the presence of the chemicals in water, but he did not commit in the interview to setting standards.
The chemicals are found in consumer products ranging from fabrics, rugs and carpets to cooking pots and pans, outdoor gear, shampoo, shaving cream, makeup and even dental floss. Increasing numbers of states have found them seeping into drinking water supplies.
Scientific studies have found "associations" between the chemicals and cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and other health issues.
With the Senate considering whether to confirm him as EPA chief, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pressed Wheeler to establish mandatory limits for PFAS in public water systems.
Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, whose state of West Virginia was one of the first where PFAS contamination was linked to human health problems, said she voted for Wheeler's appointment in committee earlier this month only after he privately assured her the EPA would tackle the problem.
Capito was one of 20 senators who wrote to Wheeler demanding ceilings on two phased-out types of PFAS chemicals. They pressed Wheeler for other "immediate actions" to protect the public from other versions of the industrial compounds.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also called for legal limits and said if EPA balked, Wheeler "didn't deserve" to run the agency.
But environmental groups said they expected the EPA response to do little to move the agency forward from its 2018 pledges to tackle PFAS.
Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group said that without firm action and deadlines, he expected the EPA announcement to be no more than a "plan to plan."
In the ABC interview, Wheeler also indicated that the agency would target communities most affected.
"We need to make sure that every American regardless of ZIP code has safe, reliable drinking water," he said, adding that "we haven't slowed down, we've actually speeded up the process."
Betsy Southerland, a former science and technology director in EPA's Office of Water, told The Associated Press that Wheeler's plan appeared designed to slow the federal response and encourage states to set their own standards.
That would create more uncertainty about the proper threshold for requiring water treatment for PFAS, said Southerland, who resigned in 2017 to protest the Trump administration's environmental policies.
"It allows industry and federal agencies that should be actively cleaning up to sit back and say, 'It's a big mess, no one knows what the correct number is, so we won't take any action until the confusion is settled,'" she said.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/02/14/us/politics/ap-us-forever-chemicals.html

Return to headline | Return to top
As Pressure Mounts, EPA Expected to Continue Weighing MCLs for PFAS

Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

EPA is set to announce that it will continue to weigh whether to set an enforceable drinking water standard for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a step that will likely address widespread concerns that the agency had decided not to proceed with such an approach though any final determination is likely still months or years away.
The agency is slated Feb. 14 to release its long-awaited PFAS action plan, a document that will include some new and widely expected steps the agency is taking to address the ubiquitous class of chemicals, according to a Feb. 13 media advisory, including continued enforcement actions, revised cleanup strategies, expanded monitoring and enhanced research.
But the advisory also notes that the agency will continue weighing whether it can legally meet the three-part test spelled out in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that is required to make a threshold determination that the agency can then move forward with developing an enforceable standard, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL).
“EPA’s Action Plan will move forward with the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act for [perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)] -- two of the most well-known and prevalent PFAS chemicals,” the advisory says.
The decision is significant because recent press reports from Politico indicated that the agency would not in fact move to set an MCL.
But the report drew a firestorm of protest, including from Republican senators, like Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), whose home states face significant contamination from PFAS releases. In response, EPA said Politico's report was premature and indicated it had not yet made a final decision on how to proceed.
But the reaction from Capito and others underscored the significant demand from lawmakers, states, citizens, environmentalists and others for an MCL -- an enforceable drinking water standard that can be used as a cleanup level to address drinking water contamination.
Supporters say such a standard is needed to avoid a patchwork approach that states have established and to set a federal standard with which the Defense Department (DOD) -- which is potentially liable for billions of dollars of PFAS cleanup costs -- complies.
But prospects that the agency will quickly make a determination -- let alone set MCLs -- are limited.
Under the SDWA, EPA is required to assess contaminants listed on the agency’s Contaminant Candidate List against three criteria: whether the substance may have an adverse effect on human health; is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that it will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and, in the judgment of the EPA administrator, regulation presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reductions for people served by public water systems.
Agency officials have long indicated that monitoring data from utilities shows the contamination is not widespread enough to justify a determination. And some industry attorneys have suggested the agency may lack adequate science to meet the risk reduction prong.
'Lengthy & Rigorous'
One former EPA official tells Inside EPA, “Based on my experience, [EPA’s statement in the advisory] is saying ‘we’ll follow our process and make the right decision at the right time.'”
The source notes the regulatory process for setting an MCL “is lengthy and rigorous,” and EPA “has never rushed to establish an MCL,” with political pressure not always working.
That said, the source notes PFAS seems to have “a much different feel to it” than perchlorate -- a chemical where the source says political pressure has not been effective in getting EPA to set an MCL.
EPA is slowly developing a proposed drinking water standard for perchlorate.
But, the source says, with PFAS, there is a growing push by state and lawmakers that an MCL is needed. “So in this case, Congress could and may force the Agency’s hand,” the source says.
PFAS are a class of over 4,000 chemicals that are widely used for their nonstick properties. But they have been linked to adverse health effects including certain cancers and ulcerative colitis and other conditions, a concern that has mounted as their presence in community drinking water supplies has grown.
But the agency has been relatively slow in responding to the contamination. In 2016, the agency set recommended health advisories of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, leaving states without federal guidance and creating a patchwork of standards across the states.
In addition, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry last year issued draft risk levels for the two substances that suggested the need for significantly stricter levels than those EPA had set.
As a result, many lawmakers, states, environmentalists and others have called on the agency to craft MCLs, though agency officials have downplayed prospects for such an action.
Nevertheless, officials have recognized the need to act. For instance, Lee Forsgren, the politically appointed deputy in EPA's water office, told drinking water advisers late last year that PFAS is “a hyper-local national issue.”
There are "vast areas unaffected" but it is "cropping up in sufficient places" that EPA "can't brush it off," he said, adding, "We've got to address it."
As such, the forthcoming action plan could reinvigorate what has been a sluggish response from EPA to an issue deemed a high priority by both Wheeler and his predecessor, Scott Pruitt.
For example, the agency is expected to formalize its commitment to list PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund and/or other laws, a step that would impose liability on DOD and other responsible parties.
In addition, the agency has indicated it may use other enforcement authorities, such as those under SDWA, to address local contamination.
The agency may also unveil long-awaited groundwater cleanup guidelines, though those have been stalled due to an inter-agency dispute over their adequacy.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pressure-mounts-epa-expected-continue-weighing-mcls-pfas

Return to headline | Return to top
What Are PFAS Chemicals, and What Are They Doing to Our Health?

Feb 14, 2019 | CNN

By Nadia Kounang

PFAS chemicals are known as "forever chemicals," a family of potentially thousands of synthetic chemicals that are extremely persistent in the environment and in our bodies. PFAS is short for perfluoroalky and polyfluoroalkyl substances and includes chemicals known as PFOS, PFOA and GenX.
They are all identified by signature elemental bonds of fluorine and carbon, which are extremely strong and what make it so difficult for these chemicals to disintegrate in the environment or in our bodies.
PFAS chemicals have been highly utilized in various industries because of their ability to repel oil and water. They've been manufactured since the 1940s and can be found in Teflon nonstick products, stains and water repellants, paints, cleaning products, food packaging and firefighting foams.
Persistent chemicals, persistent health effects
A growing body of science has found that there are potential adverse health impacts associated with PFAS exposure, including liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression and cancer.
These chemicals can easily migrate into the air, dust, food, soil and water. People can also be exposed to them through food packaging and industrial exposure.
"I think that people should be concerned about the amount of PFOA and PFOS that is in our environment," Susan M. Pinney, a professor in the Department of Environmental Health at the University of Cincinnati, wrote in an email. "These are chemicals with long half-lives," meaning they persist in the environment as well as the body. They can also accumulate over time.
In the body, they primarily settle into the blood, kidney and liver. A study from 2007 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that PFAS chemicals could be detected in the blood of 98% of the US population.
Regulators take some action
"Exposure in utero may have the greatest effect on developing children ... and effects may last into adulthood," Pinney said, adding that the science is still early.
PFOS and PFOA are the two most-studied PFAS chemicals and have been identified as contaminants of emerging concern by the Environmental Protection Agency.
PFOS was voluntarily phased out of production in the United States by 3M, its main manufacturer, starting in 2000. In 2006, PFOA began to be phased out as well. PFOA and PFOS are no longer manufactured or imported in the United States, but similar "replacement chemicals for PFOA and PFOS such as GenX, may be just as persistent," Pinney said.
In November 2016, the EPA released a non-enforceable lifetime health advisory that limited combined PFOA and PFOS exposure to just 0.07 parts per billion in drinking water.
In May, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the initiation of a PFAS action plan to eradicate PFOA and PFOS from drinking water. His four-step plan included initiating steps toward establishing an enforceable maximum contaminant standard for the two chemicals and regulating them as a "hazardous substance." Current acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is expected to announce finalized details of the plan.
Pervasive contaminant
In June, a draft report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, indicated that the "minimal risk levels" for oral exposure to PFOS and PFOA should be lower than the threshold currently recommended by the EPA. The report found that the EPA's levels were 10 and 6.7 times higher, respectively.

The Department of Defense has identified at least 400 active or closed military installations or bases with potential PFOS or PFOA. At many of these sites, the contamination is due to the use of firefighting foam that utilized the contaminants as an ingredient and has migrated into the groundwater. The Pentagon has identified at least 36 military installations where drinking water levels of PFOS and PFOA exceeded the EPA's health advisory.
According to the environmental advocacy group Environmental Working Group, more than 1,500 drinking water systems that serve nearly 110 million Americans may be contaminated with the chemicals.
They are resistant to most conventional chemical and microbial clean-up technologies, but drinking water can be effectively treated with activated carbon filtration.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/what-are-pfas-chemicals/index.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical Plan Tests Wheeler with Pruitt's Promises

Feb 13, 2019 | PoliticoPro

By Annie Snider

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday is set to release a long-awaited "action plan" on a class of toxic chemicals that are raising alarm in communities across the country — an effort that began as a series of bold promises then-Administrator Scott Pruitt made last spring, as he was fending off unrelated ethics scandals.
Now, seven months after Pruitt resigned, the task of following through on those promises has fallen to his aspiring successor, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who is poised to finally unveil the plan Thursday. And the plan — already behind schedule — does not appear to go as far as Pruitt had led people to believe, a factor that could influence Wheeler's prospects in a Senate confirmation vote expected in the coming weeks.
The chemicals, called PFAS, were used for decades in everything from Teflon cookware to firefighting foam to carpeting. But the very quality that made them so useful — strong molecular bonds that resist water and other stains — also causes them to persist in the environment, and human bodies, for decades. Dubbed “forever chemicals,” they are found in 98 percent of Americans’ blood, and at least 16 million Americans’ drinking water, and have been linked with kidney and immune problems, as well as cancer.
A formal decision on whether to set drinking water regulations on the two best-studied chemicals in the class, PFOA and PFOS, "is something that we will begin in earnest post this meeting,” Pruitt said in May at a two-day summit of state and federal experts he convened in Washington on the subject. He also promised to decide whether to deem them hazardous for the purposes of Superfund cleanups, among other steps. He said EPA would release a national management plan for the chemicals that would come out in the fall of 2018.
When EPA sent a draft of that management plan to the White House Office of Management in Budget in December, it did not include a drinking water limit for the two chemicals, also known as a maximum contaminant level or MCL. When POLITICO reported that omission last month, Wheeler faced bipartisan pressure to reverse course.
“Without enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, it is doubtful that a national management strategy will sufficiently confront the challenges PFAS chemicals pose to states and affected communities,” 20 senators — including Republicans Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.), who both represent states with major contamination from the chemicals and are up for reelection in 2020 — wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to Wheeler.
At the same time that Wheeler is unveiling the plan in Philadelphia, senior EPA political officials will be presenting the plan to affected communities across the country, including in Colorado and North Carolina — both states where vulnerable Republican senators face reelection next year.
Wheeler knew he would face criticism for not setting a limit, according to a source with direct knowledge of the conversations, especially since Pruitt’s commitment in 2018 was unambiguous.
“We will take the next step under the Safe Drinking Water Act process to evaluate the need of a maximum contaminant level for PFOA and PFOS,” Pruitt said in May 2018.
Now, EPA is selling the plan to be unveiled Thursday as advancing the process. “EPA’s Action Plan will move forward with the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act for PFOA and PFOS—two of the most well-known and prevalent PFAS chemicals,” the agency said in a press release Wednesday.
Critics say the agency is "just kicking the can down the road."
"We’re talking about PFOA and PFOS — these are the two best-studied PFAS chemicals, and should be the ones that are easiest to protect against in our drinking water. So EPA’s inaction on this is just really astounding," said Bart Johnsen-Harris with Environment America.
"If you should be able to protect drinking water against known toxic substances, this is where you should be able to start," he argued.
To be sure, setting a drinking water limit is no small feat. EPA has not regulated a new drinking water contaminant since Congress added new hurdles to the law in 1996, requiring the agency to prove that a regulation will significantly improve public health and be cost-effective.
Moreover, the agency faces powerful resistance from within the federal government: The Defense Department, which used the chemicals in firefighting foam at bases across the country for decades, faces enormous potential liability for cleaning up the toxins.
The Pentagon says it has identified 401 locations across the country with known or suspected contamination from PFOA and PFOS. It was a Defense official who raised alarm bells with the White House when a division of HHS was preparing a report last year that warned the chemicals could pose dangers at levels 10 times below EPA’s advisory level. And POLITICO reported in January that the military has sought to hire a researcher with a reputation for underestimating the risk of chemicals to reevaluate the health harms of PFAS.
As EPA has been preparing its PFAS management plan, it has also been working on a related document that would spell out guidelines for cleaning up sites contaminated with PFAS. While that guidance would lack the same legal force of drinking water regulations, it could still put the Pentagon on the hook for billions of dollars in cleanup. Pruitt said that document would also come out last fall, but it has been stuck at OMB since August undergoing interagency review, according to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs website. It is unclear whether the document will be released with the rest of the PFAS plan Thursday.
EPA has faced pressure from skeptical residents of affected communities, some of whom felt overlooked by EPA after the agency initially failed to include them in its leadership summit. Andrea Amico, a community advocate concerned about contamination at the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire, was the only activist who was eventually invited to attend the May leadership summit in Washington.
“We want to see the EPA establish a [drinking water limit] of 1 part per trillion for all PFAS,” Amico told EPA representatives at a later community engagement session it held in June in Exeter, N.H., near the contaminated site.
“We need a very strict regulatory guideline and we need it now,” she emphasized.
Another theme in the meetings EPA held across the country this summer: Communities with PFAS contaminations are often exposed to not just one chemical, but a mix of them, and residents want EPA to tackle all of the chemicals at once.
“PFAS chemicals need to be included as an entire class of chemicals and banned from being used,” Liz Rosenbaum, who leads the Fountain Valley Clean Water Coalition in Colorado, said by email. Researchers have found the chemical PFHxS in the blood of residents in her community, near Peterson Air Force Base, at levels 10 times higher than the average American’s.
EPA estimates that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 different varieties of PFAS chemicals, and advocates say that evaluating each individually would take decades — leaving people exposed to potentially dangerous toxins in the meantime. But industry has pushed back on the idea of grouping the chemicals together, saying that the chemicals' properties vary widely and that not all pose a health danger.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/02/chemical-plan-tests-wheeler-with-pruitts-promises-1171311

Return to headline | Return to top
Give EPA Chemical Risk Data or Face Possible Controls: Attorneys

Feb 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Information that firms provide the EPA in the next few months could persuade the agency that certain chemicals used in making cars, computers, textiles, and other products don’t warrant regulatory scrutiny, attorneys said Feb. 13.
Even if the Environmental Protection Agency decides that a particular chemical needs a strong spotlight, which could lead to restrictions, the information companies provide could be useful, said Gregory Clark, an associate attorney, and James G. Votaw, a partner, with Keller and Heckman LLP.
Companies should be prepared to respond quickly to both media and customer questions stemming from EPA’s release next month of a list of 40 chemicals likely to be in the agency’s spotlight, the attorneys said during a webinar.
Companies may know that particular uses of a chemical have been discontinued, or they may have monitoring studies showing worker, consumer, or other people’s exposure is low, they said. The webinar focused on a pre-regulatory prioritization process that the EPA must launch no later than March 22.
Such information could help persuade the EPA that a chemical raises fewer health or environmental concerns than the agency thinks, they said.
Media, Customer Attention
It shouldn’t take much work to prepare a simple statement for media and customers, Clark told Bloomberg Environment after the webinar.
The company can explain that the EPA’s selection of a chemical they make or use doesn’t say anything about the risks that chemical poses, he said.
The company also can highlight actions it takes to ensure the safe use of the chemical, Clark said.
The 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments require the agency to sort those 40 chemicals and place each into one of two buckets by Dec. 22.
Each chemical will either be a high priority—meaning the agency will scrutinize it more closely and possibly restrict it down the road—or it will be a low priority, meaning it doesn’t warrant a closer look now.
Whichever bucket the chemical ends up in may depend on the data different industrial sectors submit about ways they use, or no longer use, a particular chemical, Clark said.
Companies up and down supply chains should gather information and prepare talking points as soon as they know a compound they make or use is on EPA’s priority list, Votaw said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/give-epa-chemical-risk-data-or-face-possible-controls-attorneys

Return to headline | Return to top
Thinktank Calls for EPA IRIS Programme to Be Scrapped

Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

In the latest development in a years-long battle over the US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), non-profit thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is calling for the programme to be shut down and its functions folded into other agency offices.
Despite strong support for the programme among environmental and consumer advocates, a recent CEI report, 'EPA’s Flawed IRIS Program Is Far from Gold Standard', pushes for abandonment or "massive overhaul" of the risk assessment scheme.
Report author Angela Logomasini – who in recent months has defended the EPA’s controversial ‘science transparency’ proposal and pressed for Congressional oversight on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) ongoing work on organohalogen flame retardants – says IRIS "has a long history of sloppy research and lack of transparency that has advanced faulty and often counterproductive regulations that impose needless burdens on the public".
"Poorly conducted IRIS assessments have sounded false alarms about risk and produced unwarranted health scares," she adds.
The CEI supports legislation, such as a bill (HR 6468) introduced in the last session of Congress, to move IRIS functions into individual EPA programme offices.‘Excessive caution’
Ms Logomasini argues that IRIS assessments suffer from "excessive caution". Agency risk reviews, she says, tend to "focus on preventing worst-case scenarios – even absurd ones – and ignore more plausible scenarios, while ignoring more serious risks created by EPA’s own regulations".
The report highlights the IRIS review of ethylene oxide (EtO) as an example of where the programme "released such a low and excessively cautious reference concentration" for the widely used medical equipment steriliser that it is fuelling "hysteria" over its emissions.
Uses of EtO for sterilisation are now at risk across the US, says Ms Logomasini, and their abandonment could pose a significant public health concern.
"A reasonable approach would seek to ensure emissions are low enough to protect public health, while benefiting from EtO uses, particularly for important medical applications," she says. "Yet the excessive caution in IRIS assessments has basically thrown such rational approaches out the window."Dissent
Environmental groups, however, have dismissed the CEI’s report as simply the latest in a long industry campaign to take down the programme.
"The chemical industry has targeted IRIS time and time again, because any new assessments that come out of this office may lead to more stringent standards," Genna Reed, a science and policy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Chemical Watch.
Following through on industry’s suggestion to break IRIS assessments into individual programmes, she said, would result in "less than thorough" reviews, because those evaluations would be limited to the scope of that specific agency office.
Daniel Rosenberg, director of the toxics programme at the Natural Resources Defense Council, added that concerns about ‘over-regulation’ are unfounded.
TSCA, for example, has resulted in "essentially zero regulation of 62,000 grandfathered chemicals in 40+ years", he told Chemical Watch.
He also dismissed as "nonsense" the idea that understandable concern over EtO emissions would spell the end of sterilisation of medical equipment.
The NRDC’s Jennifer Sass, meanwhile, said that the science underlying both the ethylene oxide and formaldehyde IRIS assessments is "solid", and based on decades of epidemiological and animal studies.
"Industry’s scepticism comes from litigation defence strategies, not science-based evidence," she said.Debate over IRIS
The IRIS programme conducts independent toxicity reviews of substances of concern.
Its findings are intended to inform future regulatory actions by individual programme offices at the EPA and to provide other federal and state agencies with toxicity information.
But a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) critical report in 2011, following release of a controversialdraft assessment of formaldehyde, suggested significant reforms. And in the meantime, IRIS has remained under intense scrutiny from industry Congressional Republicans alike.
Last year, the NAS took a fresh look at the programme and determined that the EPA has made "substantial progress" in incorporating its recommendations.
But Ms Logomasini says the programme avoided a more critical review by keeping the scope of NAS's "extremely narrow".
"All the NAS was asked to do was validate the efforts the EPA has undertaken to improve the process, not whether it finally achieved its goals or whether it had substantially improved its assessments," she says.
Ms Reed, however, says that the scope was simply designed to avoid repetition with a 2014 NAS review. The more recent update, she added, shows that IRIS has "made serious improvements with regard to transparency and implementing other programme changes".
The EPA told Chemical Watch it "recognises the importance of conducting assessments based on sound science – and of conducting them in a timely and transparent manner". This is why it continues to "press for improvements in the IRIS programme".
To ensure greater accountability and bring further stability and confidence, it has instituted a process where EPA programmes request priority assessments, and clearly outline information needs and a timeline. This review process was recently completed, it said, and IRIS is moving forward with 11 priority assessments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74308/thinktank-calls-for-epa-iris-programme-to-be-scrapped

Return to headline | Return to top
Setting the Record Straight on IRIS Reform Progress

Feb 13, 2019 | Competitive Enterprise Institute

By Angela Logomasini

The Competitive Enterprise Institute published my paper this week on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This is a research program that assesses chemical toxicity, generating assessments that EPA program offices use to develop regulations under federal laws. As I point out in the paper, IRIS has a long history of sloppy research and lack of transparency, which the National Academies of Sciences pointed out back in 2011, along with recommended reforms. IRIS staff have supposedly been working to fix the program since then, but have by-and-large failed.
In a Greenwire story, Environmental Defense staffer Richard Dennison disputes my assertion that IRIS reform progress has been sluggish at best. The Greenwire story states that “a 2018 report from the National Academies found the program has made ‘substantial progress’ in implementing recommended reforms.” Dennison says that I “glossed over or omitted” this progress “in an effort to continue to demonize the program.”
In reality, my effort sets the record straight. The NAS “report” documenting such “progress” was basically a charade orchestrated by EPA staffers seeking to save IRIS and their fiefdoms therein. I addressed this reality in detail. Here is an excerpt from my paper:
Reform efforts supposedly have picked up pace since President Obama selected Kristina Thayer—a former contractor/employee of the left-of center Environmental Working Group, which has a long history of exaggerating risks and supporting regulations that raise prices and limit consumer choice—to take over the office in January 2017. Shortly before leaving office, Obama also selected Tina Bahadori to head the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), which houses IRIS within EPA’s Office of Research and Development.
In early 2018, President Trump’s budget proposed significant cuts and the Senate Omnibus reconciliation bill proposed IRIS elimination. Working to save the program, Thayer and Bahadori called for a NAS workshop and review. For a day and a half in February 2018, Thayer and Bahadori briefed the NAS panel on the procedural reforms and activities they were implementing. NAS released this review in April 2018. This time the EPA managed to get some modest praise for its reforms. EPA staff apparently wanted to use the NAS review to demonstrate that the IRIS has finally made some real progress, but a closer look suggests otherwise.
IRIS staff garnered some praise and avoided a critical review by keeping the scope of the NAS review extremely narrow. They asked the committee to assess only whether the “current trajectory of the program agrees with past recommendations of the National Academies” in 2011 and 2014. The NAS report explains further that the committee “was not asked to evaluate the overall value of the IRIS program,” and it “was not tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of the IRIS program.” In other words, all the NAS was asked to do was validate the efforts the EPA has undertaken to improve the process, not whether it finally achieved its goals or whether it had substantially improved its assessments.
The EPA got what it requested, as the 2018 NAS report appears very positive but actually says little. Of the 130 pages, about 90 simply republish EPA presentations and posters, and much of the rest includes background information, title pages, and appendices. Twelve pages provide a history of the issue. The report offers a few sentences of praise for some procedural reforms, but also points out that IRIS has still not achieved some basic goals. For example, IRIS has not even finalized a handbook outlining its process, which NAS asked for in 2014.
The 2018 NAS report may have helped IRIS program staff generate good press, but it raises the question of whether their limited process reforms have translated into sound assessments or improved productivity. That information is not part of the NAS report.
https://cei.org/blog/setting-record-straight-iris-reform-progress

Return to headline | Return to top
California Eyes Cosmetics Oversight Legislation

Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

California legislators are considering making a commitment to enact a new law aimed at improving the oversight of "harmful" cosmetics.
Existing California law – the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 – requires cosmetic manufacturers to provide notification for products sold in the state that contain chemicals identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. The California Safe Cosmetics Program (CSCP) collects and publishes this data.
But a bill (AB495) introduced this week, if approved, would "state the intent of the legislature to enact legislation that would improve the oversight of harmful cosmetics" by the state’s Department of Public Health. This future proposal also "would require the [department] to investigate harmful cosmetics."
The measure is one of several state-level actions on cosmetics being mulled in this legislative session. Bills have also been introduced on such issues as:banning the sale of cosmetics tested on animals (Hawaii SB756 and Maryland SB540, among others);prohibiting triclosan in sanitisers and cleansing products (Iowa SF24);barring the sale of nail products containing dibutyl phthalate (DBP), toluene, or formaldehyde (New Jersey A4543 and New York A1114); andprohibiting the sale of cosmetics and cleaning products containing 1,4-dioxane (New York A4459 and S99).
https://chemicalwatch.com/74316/california-eyes-cosmetics-oversight-legislation

Return to headline | Return to top
Exposure to Weed Killing Products Increases Risk of Cancer by 41% – Study

Feb 14, 2019 | The Guardian

By Carey Gillam

A broad new scientific analysis of the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate herbicides, the most widely used weed killing products in the world, has found that people with high exposures to the popular pesticides have a 41% increased risk of developing a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The evidence “supports a compelling link” between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the authors concluded, though they said the specific numerical risk estimates should be interpreted with caution.
The findings by five US scientists contradict the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) assurances of safety over the weed killer and come as regulators in several countries consider limiting the use of glyphosate-based products in farming.
Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG face more than 9,000 lawsuits in the US brought by people suffering from NHL who blame Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides for their diseases. The first plaintiff to go to trial won a unanimous jury verdict against Monsanto in August, a verdict the company is appealing. The next trial, involving a separate plaintiff, is set to begin on 25 February , and several more trials are set for this year and into 2020.
Monsanto maintains there is no legitimate scientific research showing a definitive association between glyphosate and NHL or any type of cancer. Company officials say the EPA’s finding that glyphosate is “not likely” to cause cancer is backed by hundreds of studies finding no such connection.
The company claims the scientists with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) who classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015 engaged in improper conduct and failed to give adequate weight to several important studies.
But the new analysis could potentially complicate Monsanto’s defense of its top-selling herbicide. Three of the study authors were tapped by the EPA as board members for a 2016 scientific advisory panel on glyphosate. The new paper was published by the journal Mutation Research /Reviews in Mutation Research, whose editor in chief is EPA scientist David DeMarini.
The study’s authors say their meta-analysis is distinctive from previous assessments. “This paper makes a stronger case than previous meta-analyses that there is evidence of an increased risk of NHL due to glyphosate exposure,” said co-author Lianne Sheppard, a professor in the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences department at the University of Washington. “From a population health point of view there are some real concerns.”
Sheppard was one of the scientific advisers to the EPA on glyphosate and was among a group of those advisers who told the EPA that it failed to follow proper scientific protocols in determining that glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer. “It was wrong,” Sheppard said of the EPA glyphosate assessment. “It was pretty obvious they didn’t follow their own rules. “Is there evidence that it is carcinogenic? The answer is yes.”
An EPA spokesperson said: “We are reviewing the study.” Bayer, which bought Monsanto in the summer of 2018, did not respond to a request for comment about the study.
A Bayer statement on glyphosate cites the EPA assessment and says that glyphosate herbicides have been “extensively evaluated” and are proven to be a “safe and efficient weed control tool”.
The study authors said their new meta-analysis evaluated all published human studies, including a 2018 updated government-funded study known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Monsanto has cited the updated AHS study as proving that there is no tie between glyphosate and NHL. In conducting the new meta-analysis, the researchers said they focused on the highest exposed group in each study because those individuals would be most likely to have an elevated risk if in fact glyphosate herbicides cause NHL.
Looking only at individuals with real-world high exposures to the pesticide makes it is less likely that confounding factors may skew results, the authors said. In essence – if there is no true connection between the chemical and cancer then even highly exposed individuals should not develop cancer at significant rates.
In addition to looking at the human studies, the researchers also looked at other types of glyphosate studies, including many conducted on animals.
“Together, all of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs are associated with an increased risk of NHL,” the scientists concluded.
David Savitz, professor of epidemiology in the Brown University School of Public Health, said the work was “well conducted” but lacking “fundamentally new information”.
“I would suggest it sustains the concern and need for assessment but doesn’t put the question to rest in any definitive sense,” Savitz said.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer

Return to headline | Return to top
European Chemicals Agency Acts to Head off Brexit Chaos

Feb 13, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Alex Scott

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the body responsible for implementing the European Union’s chemical legislation, is changing its rules to accommodate UK chemical firms in an attempt to avert trade chaos when the UK exits—or Brexits—the EU on March 29.
Despite two years of negotiating, the EU and UK have yet to strike a trade deal ahead of Brexit. If no deal is brokered by March 29, chemicals exported to the EU by UK firms will no longer comply with the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program and will be rejected.
To avoid this scenario, ECHA will open a “Brexit window” between March 12 and March 29 when it will allow UK chemical firms to transfer the REACH registration of their products to a representative in a country that will remain in the EU. Cross-border trade disruption is still anticipated, however, because starting on March 30 all goods entering the EU from the UK will be subject to additional customs and excise procedures.
The UK’s Chemical Industries Association (CIA) and Cefic, Europe’s leading chemical industry association, are repeating their call for UK and EU legislators to strike a free-trade agreement. “What our industry and the whole economy needs is an agreed Brexit deal,” say Cefic Director General Marco Mensink and CIA CEO Steve Elliott in a joint statement.
Brexit is also a threat to UK scientific research and the training of UK scientists in the EU, according to a new report by the UK’s House of Lords. The UK currently receives about $6.5 billion annually from the EU for scientific research—equivalent to 4% of all UK science funding—but this will disappear after Brexit. The UK government has agreed to fund only 44% of this sum and only until 2020.
Terms have yet to be reached for managing existing EU-UK research projects in the absence of a Brexit deal. The report also concludes that international scientific collaborations involving the UK won’t be replicated.
https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/European-Chemicals-Agency-acts-head/97/i7

Return to headline | Return to top
ECHA Considers Reopening Concluded Reach Evaluation in ‘Exceptional’ Move

Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Emma Davies

Echa is considering reopening a substance evaluation for resorcinol, under the Community rolling action plan (Corap).
Finland closed its evaluation in 2017 but France is now proposing to relist the chemical because it believes further investigation into its environmental effects is required. No other substance has ever been considered for a repeat Corap listing.
Resorcinol is listed in a draft Corap update 2019-2021, which Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) discussed during its meetings in December 2018 and February 2019.
Reintroducing a chemical to Corap "really is exceptional", said MSC chair Watze de Wolf. "Reintroductions are to be avoided." The MSC noted comments from an industry observer that revisiting evaluations could make the Corap process "unpredictable".Potential EDC
Finland first put resorcinol forward for evaluation because of concerns that it is a potential endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC). The substance is used in hair dyes and cosmetic products as well as being an industrial intermediate for chemicals such as flame retardants and industrial dyes. In hair dyes, the chemical reacts with a developer chemical to produce the required colour. It is not manufactured in the EU but is imported in volumes of 10,000-100,000 tonnes a year.
The Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency (Tukes) closed its substance evaluation in October 2017 without asking registrants for additional information. Its "conclusion" document pointed to studies suggesting that resorcinol may affect thyroid function, with a thyroid peroxidase (TPO) mode of action, but also found significant data gaps. Tukes decided not to ask for more test data but opted for a risk management option analysis (RMOA) to help decide whether resorcinol could be considered a substance of very high concern or proposed for restriction under REACH.
But the French competent authority for REACH is "convinced" that the substance requires further investigation as a potential environmental EDC, according to MSC minutes. France and Finland have "slightly different views on available data and the conclusions you could draw", said Dr de Wolf. "There is a possibility for France now to start the substance evaluation process," he added. Member state competent authorities can then review a draft decision and "we can start resolving those diverging views", he said.RMOA
Finland published its RMOA conclusions in 2018, suggesting that current evidence does not highlight an SVHC or REACH restriction route. Instead it focused on changes to classification and labelling. It pointed out that resorcinol is only used on industrial sites and exposure of consumers to the substance in products "has been excluded", based on information in its registration dossier. The RMOA also suggests that the thyroid studies had used "unrealistic exposure conditions".
The MSC adopted its Opinion on the draft Corap update during its February meeting. Echa now has to decide whether to include resorcinol in the update. The agency has already clarified that the evaluation could be reopened legally.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74317/echa-considers-reopening-concluded-reach-evaluation-in-exceptional-move

Return to headline | Return to top
RNA Study Points to Therapy for Nanomaterial Inhalation

Feb 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Andrew Turley

A study has shown that manipulating non-coding RNA can reduce the adverse effects of inhaling titanium dioxide on the cardiovascular and metabolic systems. The US-based scientists who conducted the study say the results point to a therapy for individuals exposed to large quantities of engineered nanomaterials (ENM).
The manipulation of a microRNA (miRNA) that controls metabolic and mitochondrial function provides a potentially novel therapeutic strategy for controlling cellular insults precipitated by ENM exposure, they say.
RNA is a polymeric molecule found in cells and similar in structure, composition and function to DNA. Treating diseases using drugs that target RNA is an established concept in medicine.
Led by John Hollander at West Virginia University School of Medicine, the scientists investigated the role of a molecule called miRNA-378a in the effects of inhaled titanium dioxide nanoparticles.
They exposed mice of various strains to the nanoparticles. In one of the strains, the genes responsible for miRNA-378a were inoperative, having been deliberately "knocked out" during breeding. In general, inhalation of titanium dioxide nanoparticles caused adverse effects on the heart and metabolism, but the effects were significantly less severe in the knockout mice.
"This is the first study to determine the impact of altered miRNA expression on the response to ENM exposure in vivo," the scientists say in their paper, published in Nanotechnology on 1 February.
"We provide evidence to support the therapeutic benefit of miRNA-378a downregulation as a means of mediating the ENM toxicological response through metabolism, mitochondrial function, and other cellular processes during ENM inhalation exposure."
The paper lists 13 authors, of whom 11 are affiliated with West Virginia University School of Medicine. One author is affiliated with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and another with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh).
https://chemicalwatch.com/74318/rna-study-points-to-therapy-for-nanomaterial-inhalation

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

CCS Tax Credits Do Not Displace Renewables, Report Finds

Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

An environmental group that supports carbon capture and storage (CCS) is releasing new analysis showing that a newly revived federal tax credit for the technology could spur major carbon emission reductions, and that such cuts would be “additional” to projected deployment of renewable power.
A Feb. 12 report from Clean Air Task Force (CATF) outlines modeling the group commissioned regarding the effect of the February 2018 expansion of the so-called 45Q tax credit for CCS. It finds the credits could spur enough CCS deployments to capture and store 49 million tons of carbon dioxide annually in 2030.
CATF notes that level of emissions is greater than what was produced by the number of new cars sold in the U.S. in 2017.
“Importantly, the modeling results show that the power sector carbon reductions due to 45Q-induced deployment of CCS are additive to those achieved through renewable sources of electricity generation,” the report says. The means CCS generation “replaces uncontrolled fossil-fired power, not new or existing renewable energy. Electricity generation and corresponding emission reductions from renewables remain unaffected by the availability of 45Q.”
Such findings could be key to easing concerns from other environmentalists that CCS would merely facilitate continued use of fossil fuels while crowding out other sources of “clean” power such as renewables.
The projected deployments would come from retrofits of existing coal and natural gas plants close to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) basins, the report finds. It notes that EOR revenue is necessary to offset the high cost of CCS, meaning less of an initial focus on storing CO2 in saline reservoirs.
However, CATF notes that these results imply “rapid EOR infrastructure development,” which would require additional policy support to “increase the pace” at which CO2 pipelines and injection sites are permitted, financed and built.
“Without targeted policies made to remove bottlenecks and enable more rapid development of CO2 capture, transport and storage infrastructure, the full impact of 45Q may not be realized,” CATF warns.
CCS is one of the few affirmative climate mitigation policies that has garnered Republican support in Congress, and a bipartisan group of nine senators recently re-introduced legislation to encourage research into CCS and direct air capture technology, while also facilitating a CO2 pipeline system.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ccs-tax-credits-do-not-displace-renewables-report-finds

Return to headline | Return to top
It's Full Speed Ahead For U.S. Natural Gas Exports

Feb 13, 2019 | Forbes

By Jude Clemente

Now poised for the biggest year ever in 2019, 2018 was a record breaking year for the emerging U.S. natural gas export business. Most recent U.S. Department of Energy data indicate that LNG exports hit a record of nearly 110 Bcf in November 2018. This is a 35% jump from November 2017, with so much more to come: "U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Hits Record Highs Again. This year, we will pass Malaysia to become the world's third largest LNG exporter (Australia could surpass Qatar to take the top spot).
Currently larger than U.S. LNG sales, although holding less potential, piped U.S. gas to Mexico was also up 10-12% year-over-year. Around half of this came from two areas in South Texas, Rio Grande City and Roma. Top ranked for a long time, however, Mexico is now second to South Korea in LNG purchases from the U.S. flagship LNG terminal Sabine Pass in Louisiana (China is third). Gas to Mexico adds $6-8 billion to the U.S. economy each year and is a critical outlet so our prices do not sink to unsustainable levels and put shale producers out of business. Total U.S. LNG exports should surpass piped supplies to Mexico later this year.
Outside of the shale revolution itself, burgeoning exports and thereby increased global competition for domestic users are perhaps the single largest transformation in the history of the U.S. natural gas market. Starting only in February 2016, U.S. LNG has already reached 33 nations.
With a massive low cost natural gas resource base, rising but not overly so domestic demand, record production, and the most efficient and competitive natural gas industry in the world, the future shines bright for U.S. gas exporters. These are a rapidly growing U.S. baseload market that are our largest source of new demand.
The U.S. now accounts for 65% of Mexico's gas usage. More is surely coming because Mexico has booming gas demand amid falling domestic production. In addition, despite a whopping 550 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas, Mexico's new President AMLOhas pledged to not allow large-scale fracking, a shale extraction technique that could yield significant domestic supplies within the next five years or so: "When Will Mexico Start To Frack For Natural Gas?" To be sure though, AMLO has contradicted and backtracked himself on a variety of energy positions.
We do know that Mexico is trying to get away from U.S. LNG because it is 50-60% more expensive than piped supplies from Texas. Higher cost energy is a particularly destructive force for a country where half the people are poor. Additional U.S. funding for more border pipelines is expected.
But, there has been surprisingly strong resistance from environmental and indigenous rights groups in Mexico against the required pipeline build-out. And narco traffickers siphoning off billions of dollars in products from pipelines is compromising the integrity of the transmission system. Now, state-utility CFE owes billions of dollars to the firms building the pipelines, despite them being incomplete and unable to deliver gas.
Turning to U.S. LNG, decarbonization efforts around the world will mean more natural gas. LNG demand is set to rise 6-9% over the next few years, and experience non-stop growth for as far out as major forecasting bodies are modeling. This surge in consumption could quickly reverse the global LNG market from a current 3-4 Bcf/d surplus to an equivalent deficit within five years.
To be ready, those U.S.-based projects hoping to pass their Final Investment Decision process this year will need to be green lighted soon to meet this approaching global supply shortage. It takes a number of years to bring an LNG export terminal online.
With leaders from both nations meeting this week, the U.S. trade war with China has been a burden for our LNG industry. In November, U.S. LNG shipments to China were just 6.6 Bcf, compared to a peak of 24.6 Bcf in October 2017. If a deal cannot be reached, the tariff could be increased on March 1 when the current truce is scheduled to end. U.S. President Trump, however, has now indicated a willingness to extend the deadline if need be.
Unfortunately, India, the second main incremental demand market, is not nearly as substantial as China. Last year, with no purchases in August and November, India took in a monthly average of just 6.5 Bcfin September and October. Yet, energy-deprived India remains a prime target and is building out the infrastructure to import 9-12 Bcf/d of LNG over the next 10 years. Slow growth and a nuclear restart could slow LNG in Japan and South Korea.
Although not as fast growing as China and India, Europe will remain a focus for U.S. natural gas shippers as well. Better late than never: "Germany set to have at least 2 LNG terminals." And last month, Northwest Europe offered the strongest netbacks to U.S. LNG sellers, with the UK netback to Sabine Pass averaging around $3 per MMBtu.
Already accounting for nearly a quarter of all internationally traded gas, Russia though will remain stiff competition for the U.S. Both the Nord Stream 2 (Russia to Germany) and Turk Stream (Russia to Turkey) gas pipelines should be completed this year. In addition, the massive 3.7 Bcf/d Power of Siberia gas pipeline connecting Russia to China is also set to be completed this year. Russia also has a grand LNG strategy that must not be underestimated by those in the U.S. Congress wanting to buffer Mr. Putin's influence.
Policy support matters greatly for U.S. gas export prospects. Wisely, given that LNG exports enjoy bipartisan support, project approvals have been getting quicker, although still not quick enough. FERC and PHMSA have been better coordinating the LNG review process since their MOU was signed on August 31. Indeed, "U.S. LNG: here comes the second wave."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/02/13/its-full-speed-ahead-for-u-s-natural-gas-exports/#5d7d48cd4d3d

Return to headline | Return to top
Texas Shale Forces Big Oil Cost Revolution, Chevron CEO Says

Feb 14, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)

By Kevin Crowley

For Mike Wirth, the future of Big Oil lies at home, under the dusty fields of West Texas.
As he celebrates his first year as chief executive of Chevron Corp., Wirth sees the Permian Basin as a plentiful source of high-quality crude for years to come, but that's not all. The low break-even costs to pump in the Permian are forcing Chevron to be more efficient everywhere, Wirth said, from the deepwater platforms in the Gulf of Mexico to its liquefied natural gas plants.
In a time of transition, where everyone from politicians to shareholder activists is bashing Big Oil, shale's success is forging a new reality, Wirth said: Lower your costs, or die.
Shale "has forced us to get smarter about how we do everything else," Wirth said in an interview in Houston. The cost of Gulf of Mexico projects is at "levels we would never have imagined a decade ago," he added. Chevron isn't becoming more efficient "because we were dumb then and we're smart now. We're doing it because we have to."
If not, he said, the alternative is to put money into the Permian.
As Wirth prepares to present his new strategy to investors in early March, his message is one of never-ending belt-tightening, always preparing for even lower energy prices and strong competition. It's a lesson than came from his days rising through the oil refining ranks at Chevron: Bad margins one year could turn even worse the next.High prices
"Let's not bet on high prices," Wirth said, sitting in a conference room in the company's Houston offices, with pictures of old Chevron retail logos on the wood-paneled wall behind him. "You make your own margin. Some of that comes through innovation and cost discipline. That's a philosophy I bring to my current role and a belief that just because prices go back up, we shouldn't accept the fact that costs have to go up."
It's a popular theme with shareholders in the energy industry who saw many companies spending billions in mega-projects that never deliver the expected returns. In Chevron's case, investors endured half a decade of intense capital spending on developments in the Gulf of Mexico and enormous LNG projects in Australia, only for the oil price to crater in 2014.
Famously, at one Australian venture, Gorgon, costs swelled by almost half to $54 billion.
"Everybody was investing in these kinds of things," Wirth said. But "it's unlikely we'd see that confluence of events come together again. I certainly don't see that in the foreseeable future."
Chevron's stock has outperformed U.S. rival Exxon over the past three years but lags European major Royal Dutch Shell PLC. Oil executives have talked about keeping costs low since the 2016 crash but the last quarter was their first real test. Chevron, along with all five western supermajors, beat expectations on earnings, producing strong cash flows in the period despite Brent crude's 38 percent decline.Investor day
Wirth declined to specify capital expenditure plans after 2020, a concern for some analysts, but said investors should expect "continual disciplined capital allocation." Chevron will announced long-term capital plans at its investor day in New York on March 5. Wirth delivered last year's version barely a month into the job.
"We won't fund everything," Wirth said bluntly, describing two deepwater projects Chevron abandoned last year that, a few years ago, it would have invested in. Instead, Chevron is now focusing on the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico, the world's biggest shale oil field, where it inherited a region-leading 2.2 million-acre position as part of its merger with Texaco in 2001.
The area has been transformed from dusty cattle pasture to the supermajor's biggest global growth project in just three years. Production has surged 84 percent in the 12 months and now accounts for more than one in every 10 barrels Chevron pumps worldwide. The Permian is on track to be cash flow positive by 2020, Wirth said.
Big Oil initially ignored shale oil, not just in the Permian but in North Dakota, Colorado and Oklahoma, with executives instead touting the majors' ability to build mega-projects in far distant countries. All that changed with the oil price collapse that started in 2014. Exxon paid $6.5 billion to expand in the Permian in 2017 and BP PLC shelled out $10.5 billion to buy acreage there.
The advantages of the Permian are manifold: a cheap source of production in an oil-friendly jurisdiction, high growth rates, low technical risk and the ability to raise and lower output depending on crude prices.
Chevron is allocating the bulk of its upstream capital expenditure to the Permian this year, which means two-thirds of its annual spending will begin generating cash flow within two years. That's almost unheard of, and an example of disruption in an industry that typically measures its capital spending and returns over decades.Protection mechanism
It's also a protection mechanism against an evolving energy future. Short-term projects are less likely to be stranded if demand or policy changes wipe out investments. It's a risk that weighs on Wirth, though he insists that oil and gas still have a strong future in scenarios laid out in the Paris Agreement on climate change.
"I'm not one who believes that even the world's best strategic planners can tell the future," Wirth said. "We can build a portfolio and an operating culture that's resilient to change, that's resilient to unforeseen developments. Let's not bet on high prices, let's not bet on a particular technology shift or a policy shift, because we can't control those things."
As such, don't expect Chevron to follow European rivals Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Total SA in diversifying into the power utility business as a hedge against declining crude demand.
"Some oil and gas companies may choose to reduce their share of oil and gas production and sales over time," Wirth said. "You'd like to believe those who are the most efficient, the most capable, the most environmentally responsible are the ones who will be the producers that increasingly the world relies on. That's a core competency of ours."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/14/stories/1060120547

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Ill. Lawmakers Urge Epa Action on Cancer-Causing Emissions

Feb 13, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

Democratic members of Congress from Illinois are once again mounting concerns that EPA is not doing enough to protect communities from ethylene oxide emissions from a sterilization facility.
In a letter to EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the lawmakers say the community of Willowbrook, Ill., is endangered by ethylene oxide emissions from a Sterigenics International LLC facility.
"It is time for EPA to move from fact-finding to acting on this public health threat in Willowbrook," they wrote.
They ask Wheeler to direct EPA to require a third-party firm to perform an emissions audit of Sterigenics and commission a nationwide study on background levels of ethylene oxide.
The letter also cites a report from CBS News in which former Sterigenics employees said supervisors instructed them to dump the chemical into drains and vents that led outside.
EPA's Region 5 criminal enforcement division should open an investigation into these allegations, the letter said. Doing this "will reassure the workers there that they have not been forgotten," it said.
They also brought up concerns about what they previously called an "unusual" risk assessment of hydrochloric acid that invited the public to comment on the risk value of ethylene oxide (E&E Daily, Jan. 30).
"EPA must abandon this comment process and use its own assessment for determining inhalation risk values," the lawmakers wrote. "Doing otherwise would be a departure and contradiction to the Agency's own longstanding policy."
An EPA spokesman said the lawmakers misunderstand the review. The proposal "makes clear that facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide or trichloroethylene are not within the scope of this source category and this part of the Clean Air Act," he said.
EPA intends to evaluate and address those emissions and risks in future rulemakings, he added.
The letter was signed by Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, along with Reps. Bill Foster, Dan Lipinski, Brad Schneider and Sean Casten.
The lawmakers yesterday introduced two bicameral bills they said will hold EPA "accountable" for ethylene oxide emissions oversight.
The first would revise ethylene oxide emissions standards for medical sterilization and chemical facilities and request that EPA notify the public no more than 30 days after it learns that the standards have been violated.
The second, the "Expanding Transparency of Information and Safeguarding Toxics Act of 2019," would close loopholes they said benefit the chemical industry.
"These bills send a clear message to the EPA that it's time to stop sitting on its hands and start taking proactive steps that protect the public health of Illinoisans from this carcinogen," Durbin said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/02/13/stories/1060120549

Return to headline | Return to top
CSB Must Disclose Chemical Emission Information After Incidents, District Court Rules

Feb 13, 2019 | Safety+Health Magazine

The Chemical Safety Board must release details about chemical emissions resulting from industrial incidents and produce a reporting regulation within 12 months, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Feb. 4.
The ruling affirms that 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act mandate CSB to “promulgate certain reporting requirements concerning accidental chemical releases” stemming from chemical fires, explosions, leaks and other incidents. Despite acknowledging the requirements of the act, the agency has claimed its inability to enact such reporting provisions does not constitute “an unreasonable delay.”
“The CSB’s only justification for its inaction is that it is ‘a small agency with very limited resources’ that has ‘prioritized its investigatory activities over [ ] rulemaking.’ … But, if that is the case, the solution to its resource constraints is not to ignore a congressional directive. It is to return to Congress and ask for relief from the statutory requirement,” the ruling states.
Watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and other environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against CSB in December 2017, about three months after an incident at an Arkema Inc. facility in Crosby, TX. Extensive flooding from Hurricane Harvey caused the facility to lose power, forcing employees to evacuate. Days later, organic peroxide products that had been stored inside a once-refrigerated trailer began to decompose, triggering a spontaneous combustion and fire.
Emergency response officials initially decided to keep an adjacent public highway open despite its proximity to the plant. As a result, 21 people sought medical attention for exposure to hazardous chemical fumes.
More than 1,000 incidents involving industrial chemicals occur annually, PEER states.
“This ruling vindicates a community’s basic right to know what chemical insult has been visited upon it,” PEER General Counsel Paula Dinerstein said in a Feb. 5 press release. “Accidents do not relieve industries of their clean air obligations or their duties to protect both worker and public health.”
The ruling represents the latest in a string of recent challenges for CSB. President Donald Trump, in his fiscal year 2019 budget, proposed eliminating the agency, but Congress has continued to provide funding. Former CSB chair Vanessa A. Sutherland announced her resignation in May, leaving two of five board seats vacant. Members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
According to the agency’s Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2018, CSB in FY 2018 issued 11 new recommendations “to improve chemical safety and reduce hazards.” Additionally, CSB completed eight safety videos, four interim investigative factual updates and three final reports – including a report covering the Arkema incident.
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/18038-csb-must-disclose-chemical-emission-information-after-incidents-district-court-rules

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Finds Safety Management Gaps Led to 2016 Gas Plant Blast

Feb 13, 2019 | Reuters

By Erwin Seba

Gaps in safety management led to a 2016 explosion that idled an Enterprise Products natural gas processing plant in Pascagoula, Mississippi, for six months, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said in a report on Wednesday.
The June 27, 2016 blast occurred after the plant’s brazed aluminum heat exchanger failed due to thermal fatigue, the board said in the report. Thermal fatigue is repeated stress on metal from heating and cooling over time.
No injuries were reported from the blast.
Enterprise took over complete ownership of the Pascagoula plant in March 2016. Prior to that change, Enterprise was a minority partner and BP Plc had majority ownership and ran the plant.
“Several gaps in the safety management of the brazed aluminum heat exchangers at the Pascagoula Gas Plant reveal deficiencies in hazard assessment, management of change and mechanical integrity programs at the site,” the board said in its report.
A BP spokesman said the company had no comment, as the plant was owned by Enterprise.
Spokesman Rick Rainey said in an email that Enterprise would consider the CSB’s “findings and recommendations, as well as findings resulting from our own investigations” to improve the company’s safety system.
“By partnering with universities, trade organizations and manufacturers, Enterprise is proactively working to conduct independent research concerning the safe operation of brazed aluminum heat exchangers (BAHXs),” Rainey said. “We believe these partnerships will lead to the improved design, operation and safety of BAHXs.”
The CSB also said the methods chosen to assess possible damage from thermal fatigue to the heat exchanger did not recognize accumulating damage over years of operation.
The board said standards for assessing and repairing damage for similar heat exchangers varied from site to site and company to company, and the industry could benefit from increased communication of safety practices.
The board recommended the American Petroleum Institute and the GPA Midstream Association produce informational and technical bulletins about safety practices and lessons to be learned from the blast.
The CSB has no regulatory or enforcement authority and is charged with determining root causes of fires and explosions at U.S. chemical plants and making recommendations for improvement to the industry.
Heat exchangers transfer heat to and from chemicals as needed while they are being processed in refineries and chemical plants.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fire-enterprise-pascagoula/u-s-finds-gaps-in-safety-management-led-to-2016-gas-plant-blast-idUSKCN1Q21X1

Return to headline | Return to top
Industry Puzzled by Trump Admin's Cryptic Cyber Warning

Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Peter Behr

Two weeks after a startling intelligence warning about U.S. gas pipelines' cybersecurity threats, the industry says it's still waiting for details.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told senators last week that China is able to launch cyberattacks that could disrupt critical infrastructure, including pipelines, for weeks in duration, causing potentially catastrophic outages of heating gas and electric power from gas-fired generation (Energywire, Feb. 5).
"We're still trying to get a briefing on that," said Suzanne Lemieux, the American Petroleum Institute's manager for midstream and industry operations, after delivering remarks to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) at its winter policy meeting in Washington yesterday.
"It's their duty to inform us," Lemieux said.
Lemieux's comment echoed a response to Coats by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America last week: "If the intelligence community has information about specific threats, we would strongly encourage them to share that information with industry."
Coats' statement hit as the pipeline industry is facing renewed questions about the oversight of its cyber defenses. Unlike energy companies operating interstate transmission grids, which must meet mandatory federal regulations, gas pipelines are subject to voluntary review by the Transportation Security Administration.
At this point, it isn't clear whether Coats' cryptic alert is based on information on China's capabilities that intelligence agencies are prepared to share.
Even without elaboration, however, the message was sounded throughout the NARUC meeting.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) cited the intelligence director yesterday, then added, "We recognize that a major cyberattack could really, truly grind us to a halt," Murkowski said.
On Tuesday, Bruce Walker, who leads the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity, also advised NARUC members to read Coats' testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Paul Stockton, the Defense Department's former assistant secretary for homeland defense, used Coats as his text, as well, in a panel discussion at the NARUC meeting yesterday.
If tensions between the United States and China or Russia should escalate to the point of conflict, he said, it wouldn't be just one bull's-eye painted on a single infrastructure sector. Regulators can expect the most advanced adversaries to target critical junctions where several lifeline networks depend on each other to do the greatest harm — gas and electric power, or electric power and telecommunications.
"You should be asking your regulated utilities in your region, in your state, 'what would that mean' in terms of damage to essential networks? Where could cascading outages occur?" he said.
"I don't mean to pick on natural gas, because the interdependencies can go other ways, as well.
"If you could begin collaborating with each other, with your staffs, when you are assessing the prudence of projects, what kinds of questions would you be asking in order to dig into these interdependencies?" he asked.'We need to do more'
Speakers at NARUC said the search goes on for strategies that could best harmonize the maze of government regulation, oversight and guidance that exists among federal agencies and between Washington and 50 state utility commissions.
Murkowski noted her committee's scheduled hearing today on cyberthreats to the energy sector (E&E Daily, Feb. 11).
Others mentioned a March 28 technical conference sponsored by DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Walker updated NARUC commissioners on DOE's first-of-a-kind assessment of how U.S. energy networks rely on each other.
"We're working on the model ... to really understand the interdependencies of these systems so that we can identify what investments can be made to the system to make it more resilient," he said.
Walker said the first phase of the project, due by the end of this year, would give officials a static model of network linkages, identifying the most critical junctions requiring the best protection. The second phase seeks to develop an active, dynamic analytical tool that would guide officials in dealing with a severe grid emergency as they happen, he said.
"The simple fact that we don't have a fully integrated, comprehensive energy model, that in and of itself would challenge any engineer," he said, provoking the question, "How do we not have a complete understanding of such a vital resource?"
At the conclusion of yesterday's meeting, Gladys Brown, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, who heads NARUC's committee on critical infrastructure, said she too wanted to know more about the threat to pipelines mentioned by Coats.
"With any statement that is made like that, you have to have a lot more information [and] understanding about how they're making that statement," she said in an interview. "What evidence [do] they have?"
She said actions by state regulators and the NARUC staff to confront cyber and physical risks to infrastructure are accelerating.
"I don't know that the strategies are actually clearer, but the fact is that we need to do more," Brown said. "The urgency is definitely clear."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/14/stories/1060120921

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Climate, Funding Concerns Emerge as Senators Mull Broad Bill

Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Maxine Joselow

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday debated how to craft a broad infrastructure package that protects rural and poor communities as well as the environment.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who last week introduced a "Green New Deal" resolution with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), said any infrastructure package should include components aimed at addressing climate change.
"Climate change is a real threat to our planet, to our own country," Markey said, noting that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last year wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post calling for an infrastructure deal to tackle global warming (E&E Daily, Dec. 7, 2018).
"As we look at this legislation that's moving forward, as we talk about infrastructure, the question's really going to be: How can we use this as an opportunity to invest in new technologies, new infrastructure, that helps to curb greenhouse gas emissions where applicable?" Markey said.
As an example, the Democrat said infrastructure legislation could include a component to support electrification of the country's truck fleet.
Markey was the only lawmaker, however, to spend significant time on climate concerns. The majority of lawmakers focused on the perennial question of how to pay for a broad infrastructure package.
The two funding mechanisms that got the most attention were an increase in the federal gasoline tax and a transition to a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) fee.
There was broad support among witnesses for raising the gas tax, which has been stuck at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. Chris Spear, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations, said an immediate 20-cent increase in the gas tax would help ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
But Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah pushed back on this idea. He expressed concern that a gas tax hike would have a disproportionate impact on poor and middle-class Americans.
"I also think it's important that we take into account what impact this will have on many Americans, particularly poor and middle-class Americans who are less able than others to go out and buy new technology, new cars that are more fuel-efficient or perhaps hybrid or electric vehicles," Lee said.
"It may well also have a bigger impact on rural Americans than Americans living in or closer to big cities," he added. "Rural Americans very often tend to have to travel farther as they go about their day-to-day business."
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) asked witnesses to identify alternatives to increasing the gas tax. "Beyond a gas tax, if I could just quickly go through each one of you, what other source of revenue should we look at?" he asked.
In response, several witnesses expressed support for transitioning to a VMT fee, which would involve charging people a fee based on the distance they drive.
Proponents of a VMT fee say it would better account for the rising number of electric and autonomous vehicles on the nation's roads. For the most part, those vehicles don't use gasoline, so they're not subject to the gas tax.
"I do think looking at a VMT, as some members have, is the right sort of next step," said William Friedman, chairman of the American Association of Port Authorities. "As we move to more fuel-efficient vehicles, [the gas tax] hasn't kept up in any event with what our needs are."
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) noted that she weighed the pros and cons of a VMT fee while serving in the Tennessee Senate.
"As we were looking at the possibility of a VMT, we realized something's gotta be done: Cars are getting more efficient; electric cars are coming," she said.
Broadband also emerged as a topic of concern yesterday. Lawmakers from states with rural areas — including Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who chaired the committee in the last Congress — repeatedly called for an infrastructure deal to expand broadband coverage for rural populations.
Yesterday's hearing marked the second one on infrastructure in the 116th Congress. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — led by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) — held the first hearing last week, with lawmakers agreeing on the need to modernize the country's surface transportation infrastructure but splitting over funding mechanisms (E&E Daily, Feb. 8).
It remains to be seen if Congress will succeed in passing a broad infrastructure package before Democrats begin gearing up for the 2020 elections and the issue gets pushed to the back burner.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/14/stories/1060120583

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Midwestern States' Strict Environmental Policies Fight Trump Deregulation

Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Newly inaugurated Democratic governors in Midwestern states are pursuing strict drinking water protections and promotion of clean energy as they fight President Donald Trump's deregulation of federal environmental policy, with the states saying their policies will address regulatory gaps created by undoing Obama EPA rules.
Illinois is among the states moving to implement strict environmental and energy policies in lieu of federal action. A transition committee set up by new Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) in a recent report sets various goals including committing to a 100 percent renewable energy and investing in drinking water improvements. The report calls the steps necessary due in part to what the panel sees as the Trump administration’s retreat on environmental oversight.
“The presence of lead pipes and Legionella pose public health threats for households with children and seniors, and Chicago’s worsening air quality is putting residents at risk for lungrelated diseases like asthma,” the governor’s commission says in the report “Powering Illinois’ Future.”
“These problems are exacerbated by a federal abdication of environmental and energy leadership.”
“Denial of climate science, withdrawal from the Paris [climate] Agreement, and active plans to weaken limits on pollution threaten environmental safeguards and the health of Illinoisans, forcing the state to take even more aggressive action to transition to a clean energy economy.”
In addition, recently inaugurated Democratic Govs. Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and Tony Evers (WI) joined the United States Climate Alliance committing their states to reducing emissions in accord with the Paris Climate Agreement, though legislatures in both states could still block changes necessary to comply with the pact.
The Trump administration announced its plan to quit the agreement and is also moving to undo a host of Obama-era rules that were designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector and other sources.
“If the federal government will not respond to climate change, Michigan must,” Whitmer says in a Feb. 4 directive for the state to join the alliance. “Smart, coordinated state action can ensure that the United States continues to contribute to the global effort to address climate change.”
The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), a state business association, opposed Evers’ Feb. 12 announcement to join the alliance, saying that complying with the Paris climate agreement would cost the country 2.7 million jobs, including 440,000 in manufacturing.
“Since the state’s largest industry is manufacturing, this will have a devastating impact on Wisconsin,” WMC President & CEO Kurt Bauer said in a statement. “In addition, electricity rates would go through the roof, making it more expensive to live here and more expensive to run a business.”
Whitmer issued the climate directive alongside two Feb. 4 executive orders on environmental policies.
One order renames the states’ Department of Environmental Quality as the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, and creates new offices within the department that are charged with investigating water quality complaints, advancing sustainable energy and ensuring environmental justice. The order also allows the state environment director to establish science advisory board panels, even as most states have traditionally relied on EPA for scientific expertise.
A second order calls for preserving an existing 2017 PFAS Action Response Team charged with investigating sources and location of PFAS contamination to protect drinking water and public health.
‘Race to the Top’
The midwestern Democrats’ proposals are an early indication of state-level pushback against the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda that environmentalists expected after Democrats picked up governorships in seven, predominantly midwestern states and flipped attorneys general posts in four -- Colorado, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.
One environmentalist said the changing political landscape would spur “a race to the top for accelerating clean energy solutions” to fight climate change.
However, an industry source said greater Democratic state control could have the paradoxical effect of easing some environmentalists' opposition to the Trump administration’s push for increased cooperative federalism, because more states on the receiving end of increased autonomy would be Democratic-led and therefore perceived as more likely to vigorously enforce environmental laws.
The Michigan executive orders and Illinois gubernatorial transition committee’s report counter the Trump administration’s planned rollback of Obama-era climate policies and build on states and environmentalists’ calls for strong federal action to reduce exposures to PFAS and lead in drinking water.
EPA is expected to finalize in the second quarter of 2019 its proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule, a narrow replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan utility GHG standards, which some argue would unlawfully allow emissions increases at some coal plants.
And while the agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance recently proposed new compliance initiatives that prioritize noncompliance with drinking water standards and reducing children’s exposures to lead for fiscal years 2020-2023, advocates have faulted EPA’s repeated delays in proposing a rule strengthening its lead and copper rule (LCR) to limit exposure to lead in drinking water.
And late last year, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler rolled out a plan for reducing children's exposures but faced criticism that the Trump administration's plan lacks any new commitments to crafting enforceable regulations.
The Illinois committee report calls for a state bill that would prioritize improving health and safety through capital investments in environmental protection and clean energy expansion.
The report recommends improvements including prioritizing lead pipe replacement in critical areas, improving storm and wastewater management systems, and expanding the states’ infrastructure for charging electric vehicles.
The focus on changing lead service lines comes after EPA recently stepped up efforts to comply with a critical Inspector General (IG) report recommending annual reviews of state drinking water programs to prevent future contamination events, such as the contamination crisis in Flint, MI.
“The new administration should explore ways, including cost-sharing, to replace lead service lines across the state in order to address public health issues associated with lead contamination in drinking water,” the Illinois report says.
“The state should test water supplies across the state to determine exposure to lead and then work with local union labor to prioritize replacements in low-income residences and facilities serving children, which have increased exposure to lead pipes and require state-level assistance in remediation efforts.”
State Orders
Whitmer’s order overhauling Michigan’s environment department also focuses on drinking water, tasking a new Office of the Clean Water Public Advocate with investigating drinking water complaints, establishing a statewide reporting system to collect and analyze water quality complaints, and better publicizing risks.
The office will “Assist in the development, and monitor the implementation, of state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to drinking water quality,” the order says. It will also “Recommend changes in state and federal law, rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, practices, and procedures relating to drinking water quality.”
In directing Michigan to join the coalition of states committed to meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Whitmer argues that “the federal government has retreated” from reducing emissions and actions needed to mitigate the severity of future climate change impacts.
In seeking to advance the goals of the Paris deal, the order calls for reducing greenhouse gas emission by at least 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and for accelerating new and existing policies to reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy deployment at the state and federal level.
Whitmer’s directive follows New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s (D) Jan. 29 decision to join the state climate alliance and setting greenhouse gas targets for that state of 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Lujan Grisham has signaled an aggressive approach to energy and climate issues and pledged that New Mexico would “fight” Trump administration efforts to expand oil and gas drilling on federal land.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/midwestern-states-strict-environmental-policies-fight-trump-deregulation

Return to headline | Return to top
Dropping Air Permit Enforcement Priority is Progress, Some Say

Feb 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

Dropping air pollution permitting as an EPA enforcement priority is a measure of the 20-year-old program’s success and not a capitulation to polluters, as some critics are suggesting, former agency attorneys said.
The Environmental Protection Agency is weighing whether to drop new source review air pollution permits from the list of enforcement priorities after nearly 21 years. The agency said it has reached dozens of settlements over permitting violations since it made permits a priority in 1998 and that regional offices are capable of handling any needed oversight.
“Now it’s ready to declare the enforcement initiative a success and move on to other concerns like drinking water utility compliance,” Andrew Stewart, who served in the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama—from 2003 to 2015—including as a division director in the civil enforcement office, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA is in the process of deciding which environmental violations should get the most scrutiny during the 2020 through 2023 time period. With limited resources and pressing concerns like lead exposure through tap water, some former enforcement officials told Bloomberg Environment it makes sense the agency would drop one of its oldest targets.
“I think it’s more a question of where the agency will deploy its limited enforcement resources on a national level,” said Stewart, who now is a counsel in the Washington, D.C., office of Sidley Austin LLP.
Under the Clean Air Act, new source review permits are required for any construction or expansion of industrial facilities like power plants or refineries that cause air pollution to increase significantly. The permits require the facilities to install best available pollution controls in a process companies often complain is costly and takes too much time.
There is general agreement among EPA’s former cops that it isn’t unusual for an administration to remove some areas previously included in the priority enforcement list in favor of new initiatives as part of the periodic review.
New Rules Mean New Priorities
The EPA under the Trump administration has vowed to streamline the permitting process to address industry concerns. Areas where the agency has updated its regulations haven’t typically been viewed as primary enforcement targets, Kevin Minoli, a partner with Alston & Bird LLP’s Washington, D.C., office who previously was the EPA’s acting general counsel, told Bloomberg Environment.
“When the agency is actively changing how those rules apply, it is often not an effective use of limited enforcement resources to hold companies accountable,” he said.
Changes to the permitting program include guidance on how industrial facilities can tally emissions from upgrades to determine whether they triggered the permitting review. The agency also has revived a 2009 rule that will allow power plants, factories, and refineries to treat multiple changes at their facilities as a single project for the purpose of getting air pollution permits.
‘Core’ Enforcement Continues
Though air pollution permitting may no longer be a national priority, the EPA said enforcement will continue through its “core programs,” which represent all the work the agency does when it isn’t pursuing national priorities.
“When they return a program to the ‘core,’ it doesn’t mean the regions won’t do investigations,” Stewart said. “Rather, it means they will have more autonomy to look into complaints.”
But the agency’s resources have shrunk, also leaving less room for core program work.
And the core enforcement program is usually focused on overseeing state programs, which traditionally have been “very soft” in pursuing new source review violations, said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project. Schaeffer worked in the EPA enforcement office from 1990 to 2002, including as director of civil enforcement, where he oversaw new source review cases.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dropping-air-permit-enforcement-priority-shows-epa-success

Return to headline | Return to top
Republicans Unify against Green New Deal in Bid to Finesse Climate Stance

Feb 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

Capitol Hill Republicans are increasingly unified in their opposition to the ambitious “Green New Deal” climate change plan championed by many Democrats, allowing them to place less of an emphasis on prior disputes over climate science that could give them problems with voters increasingly concerned about global warming.
It remains unclear whether the GOP's new stance -- which has begun to play out in the new Congress amid a heightened focus on climate issues by Democrats -- shows an early momentum toward agreement on some limited greenhouse gas policies or is merely a tactic that allows Republicans to target Democrats while avoiding their own political liabilities.
Even so, the trend has been on display in various venues, including several recent House climate hearings where multiple Republican lawmakers have embraced solutions like nuclear power and carbon capture technology paired with fossil fuel plants -- even as some in the party continue to dismiss mainstream climate science.
“We won't succeed with pie-in-the-sky policies that demand 100 percent renewable energy at the expense of reliable power from nuclear and fossil fuels and raise energy prices for businesses and consumers,” House science committee ranking member Frank Lucas (R-OK) said at the panel's Feb. 13 hearing on climate science, one of several critiques of the Green New Deal.
The proceeding was the first climate hearing in almost a decade by the panel under Democratic control.
As such, it provided a forum for discussion of recently released major reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and an inter-agency group of federal researchers that outline increasingly severe impacts from global warming and aggressive actions needed to avoid the worst climate impacts.
“I look forward to kicking off a fruitful and informative discussion that will continue throughout this Congress on why we need to act on climate change now,” said committee Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX).
The hearing was also notable because Republicans tapped Niskanen Center's Joseph Majkut as their witness. His climate change science expertise -- including as a former science fellow in the office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) -- as well as his support for reducing GHGs makes him a “constructive pick” for the hearing, according to one environmentalist, unlike some witnesses featured during prior science committee hearings under former Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX).
Yet, a central dynamic at the hearing was GOP critiques of the Green New Deal resolution recently floated by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) -- even as Republican lawmakers were split on whether to acknowledge the human influence on climate change.
President Donald Trump and top Republicans have been increasingly eager to attack the resolution, including in exaggerated terms -- including its call for “zero carbon” power or for GHG cuts in multiple sectors -- in an effort to brand Democrats as extreme or quash any momentum behind the plan.
“I really don't like their policy of taking away your car, or taking away your airplane flights. . . . You're not allowed to own cows anymore,” Trump said in a Feb. 11 campaign rally in El Paso, TX, previewing possible attacks on the plan ahead of the 2020 elections.
'Serious' Policy
Lucas during the science committee hearing expressed concerns about a 100 percent renewables goal -- a prior goal floated by some Green New Deal supporters that is not included in the resolution -- and asked Majkut to elaborate on an optimal low-carbon solution. Majkut responded that “having a broad portfolio of options seems like the best choice.”
Majkut similarly called climate action “not inconsistent with the continued use of fossil fuels in coming decades. In fact, successfully meeting these proposed targets will probably require their continued use in conjunction with carbon capture.”
Similarly, Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) said “we have seen a lot of aspirational goals. We need to be careful about crossing the line from aspiration to outlandish goals that could harm our economy and give [an] edge to our global competitors.”
At a hearing last week hosted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republicans raised similar concerns that the Green New Deal would amount to “radical” policy, even though the resolution had not yet been released.
A Feb. 13 op-ed from committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-OR) and other top panel Republicans calls climate change “real” but seeks a “serious solutions-oriented discussion.”
Such solutions should include “carbon capture and utilization, renewable hydropower, and safe nuclear power” as well as removing “barriers to energy storage and commercial batteries to help make renewable sources more viable and our electricity grid more resilient.”
Such issues are often cited as venues for potential bipartisan compromise, but the op-ed also highlights that Republicans see the Green New Deal as a political opportunity, given the plan's numerous references to the need for broader economic equity.
The op ed notes that the resolution “also includes numerous unrelated, prohibitively expensive policy goals such as government-run health care and guaranteed employment.”
The Energy & Commerce Republicans add: “While a full analysis of the Green New Deal has not been completed, the sheer scale and cost to implement such a proposal could have potentially devastating consequences on our national debt and on our economy.”
Trolling Democrats
Senate Republicans are likewise ramping up their criticism of the Green New Deal, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Feb. 12 pledging to hold a floor vote on the resolution.
“I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate to give everybody an opportunity to go on record," he told reporters.
Senate environment committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) in a Feb. 12 floor speech argued the plan is “less about climate change more about putting government in control of every facet of our lives,” calling the proposal “so far outside of America’s mainstream that it’s scary.”
One labor source who is somewhat skeptical of the Green New Deal says the GOP's stance appears to be an effort to “troll” newly empowered Democrats in order to split Democratic constituencies.
The source notes a similar dynamic in the health care context, where Walden during another Energy and Commerce hearing argued that Republicans favor pre-existing condition protections but questioned why Democrats were not discussing the “Medicare-For-All” agenda popular among many progressives.
That Democratic split is already occurring in the 2020 presidential contest, where several candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal but potential candidate Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) recently defended his decision not to sign on. “I don’t need to co-sponsor every bill that others think they need to co-sponsor to show my progressive politics, Brown said Feb. 12 according the Associated Press.
The environmentalist argues that the recent blitz of House climate hearings highlights a subtle shift by many -- though not all -- Republicans from a climate skeptic stance, driven by what is likely a mix of genuine concern and a realization that outright climate skepticism poses a political problem.
“I think there's also a group that just realized, 'I can't deny this given where people in my district are.' And frankly if any Republican is concerned about the future of their party, young people are definitely in a different place” on climate change than the party leadership, the source argues.
Even so, the source says the new stance is still a problem to the extent it places an over-reliance on the “technology fairy” as a way to achieve GHG cuts, in the absence of other policies.
Majkut's testimony in this vein appeared to prod lawmakers toward the direction of embracing more ambitious policies. He noted in response to one query that his group favors a “carbon tax in lieu of regulatory approaches.”
But signs of continued GOP resistance to any regulatory or carbon pricing policy continue to surface, including remarks from Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) that alternated between asking Majkut if “a little warming” can be a good thing and concern over the cost of carbon controls.
“There is no question that our climate is changing, but to blame everything on human activity and expect the United States of America, our taxpayers to pick up the tab . . . to pay carbon taxes for carbon footprints . . . it is hard for me to justify [paying] that kind of price,” he said.
RL Miller of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote in a Feb. 12 press release embraced Senate Republicans' plan for a vote on the Green New Deal. “To Mitch McConnell, I say bring it,” she said.
Miller in a follow-up interview downplayed the notion that the Green New Deal resolution is backfiring on Democrats, arguing that a Senate vote also puts swing state Republicans campaigning for re-election in a tough spot if they were to vote no.
And she opined on possible future press release language from her group if such no votes occur.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) “whose state was slammed by back-to-back hurricanes, has just voted against the Green New Deal that would provide the infrastructure to repair his state and help” prepare for future storms. And Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) “has just voted against the wind energy that is thriving in his state.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/republicans-unify-against-green-new-deal-bid-finesse-climate-stance

Return to headline | Return to top
From Skepticism to Acceptance, GOP Spectrum on Display

Feb 14, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Mark K. Matthews

Since the start of the 116th Congress, House Republicans have shown a new openness to serious conversations about climate change.
But if yesterday's hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee is any indication, the party still has a ways to go before that kind of attitude is universal — or even close to it.
The topic of the hearing was global warming, and — going into it — there were higher expectations about Republican participation than in the last Congress (Climatewire, Feb. 13).
Driving that hope was a witness invited by Republican leadership: Joseph Majkut, head of climate policy at the Niskanen Center.
Unlike in past hearings of the committee, in which Republicans often brought in climate skeptics, Majkut acknowledges the science of global warming and has studied potential remedies, such as a carbon tax.
"Climate change is real and global emissions of greenhouse gases are a leading driver of latter-day global warming," Majkut said in prepared remarks.
Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma — the top Republican on the committee — similarly recognized climate change in his opening statement and said that "global industrial activity has played a role in this phenomenon."
Soon after, however, the wheels started to come off.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) — who once theorized that rocks falling into the ocean contributed to a rise in sea levels — used his time to discuss glaciers and past ice ages (Climatewire, May 17, 2018).
Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) soon followed, lamenting his own experience with wind turbines. "Have you ever noticed that on the hottest day of the year the windmills aren't turning, and that's why it's the hottest day of the year?" he asked.
Ancient history was what Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) wanted to discuss. "Are you familiar," he asked the panel of climate experts, "with the Norse settlements in Iceland and Greenland around the year 1000, and that there was farming and animal husbandry in Greenland for nearly 300 years?"
The tenor changed somewhat when freshman Republican Reps. Michael Waltz of Florida and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio got their chance to speak.
Both acknowledged global warming and the need to confront the problem, but — in what's rapidly becoming a set play for some GOP lawmakers — Waltz and Gonzalez each took digs at the "Green New Deal," a very broad Democratic proposal that would address climate change through a massive jobs program (E&E Daily, Feb. 13).
"I think we need to be very careful about crossing the line from aspirational to outlandish," said Waltz, who added that he favored a broad portfolio of energy sources, including nuclear, that would speed the transition to renewable sources.
Gonzalez expressed similar sentiments but conceded that pointing fingers at the "Green New Deal" is not enough. "We do have a problem, and the government can play a role in helping solve it," Gonzalez said.
His suggestion was that Congress take steps to "make alternative energy as affordable and reliable as the traditional sources we use today."
As part of that effort, he put his faith in future, unnamed technologies.
"I want to focus on empowering the American people and unleashing the most powerful economic force in human history," Gonzalez said. "If we do this, then we will be able to reduce carbon emissions at home but also abroad as we are able to commercialize these to-be-developed technologies and sell them around the world."
The spectrum of opinions among Republicans at the hearing was enough that it left at least one Democrat reeling.
In a brief hallway interview, freshman Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) — who ran for Congress on a platform of fighting climate change — said that he thought the Republican lawmakers were "still trying to figure out who they're going to be when they grow up."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/02/14/stories/1060120827

Return to headline | Return to top
Democrats See Chance for Bipartisan Buy-In on Climate Study (1)

Feb 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

Some Democrats on the House Science Committee are optimistic that increased funding for climate and clean energy research can win bipartisan support.
The committee’s Feb. 13 hearing on climate science didn’t call any witnesses who reject human-caused global warming—a stark change for a panel that under Republican control often gave climate skeptics a forum.
And the majority of the committee’s Republicans—but not all—acknowledged the warming climate and suggested a need for policy action to address its impacts.
Witnesses at the hearing outlined the risks the world would face from increased global warming. They advocated for additional climate policies and greater federal support for climate research.
Efforts to boost research funding could get early buy-in from both parties, Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.), a freshman member of the science panel and part of the Democratic Party leadership, told Bloomberg Environment.
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), the panel’s top Republican, for example, acknowledged the need to better predict how climate is impacting weather events.
“The changing climate has intensified their impacts,” Lucas said of extreme weather events such as droughts. Communities, particularly farmers and ranchers, need to know more about the extent to which climate impacts weather patterns, he added.
Adaptation efforts could be supported by building networks of climate researchers that could sustain themselves rather than relying solely on federal grants, Robert Kopp, a climate scientist and director of Rutgers University’s Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, said.
Kopp and other witnesses also outlined spaces in climate research that need further funding, including improving climate prediction models.
“It sounds like some of that modeling will be really important and [something] people can agree on,” Hill said after the hearing. “Because we do need to be able to predict those weather events. We need to be able to allow the states to get prepared, local communities to get prepared.”
‘Constructive’ Discussion
Lucas welcomed the hearing as the start of a “constructive” discussion on climate change. But Republican lawmakers were also quick to slam climate policies that would mandate a shift entirely away from fossil fuel-powered energy.
Lucas criticized “pie-in-the-sky” policies to address climate change that transition the U.S. to 100 percent renewable energy—a reference to the Green New Deal resolution (H. Res 109) unveiled recently by progressive Democrats and led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.
That resolution outlined in broad terms a plan that would shift the U.S. to 100 percent zero-carbon energy within 10 years, as well as implement several other progressive priorities related to health care, employment, and social justice.
Despite the criticism of the Green New Deal, Democrats on the committee were in part surprised by and generally welcomed Republicans’ shift in attitude toward climate science.
Hill noted the hearing’s Republican witness—Joseph Majkut, climate policy director for the think tank Niskanen Center—backed a carbon price or similar market-based solution to climate change.
“The congressional acts that are to follow are going to be an important indicator. The solutions that they’re going to want are going to be market-based, and if that’s the case, then we need to provide that signal,” Hill said.
Hill didn’t join on as an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal resolution, but she has previously expressed support for the concept as part of a suite of solutions to consider.
Technological Innovation
Republicans on the panel were predominantly concerned with the potential cost of the Green New Deal, arguing it would raise energy prices.
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) suggested the plan to shift to all renewables would “devastate” the American economy, even as other countries continue to develop fossil fuels.
“Based on my understanding, the decarbonization that is reducing the [carbon dioxide] associated with economic activity is one of the cheapest elements of the Green New Deal,” Majkut said in response.
Instead of a Green New Deal, Republican lawmakers recommended greater investment in technology innovation, including carbon capture and storage, advanced nuclear, energy storage, and hydropower.
“While this committee cannot control the weather, it can prioritize investment,” Lucas said. “Now we must lead again and partner with industry to develop breakthrough energy technology to make our existing energy sources cleaner and more affordable.”
That message was echoed by many of the committee’s Democratic members—though they stressed the need for technological innovation alongside regulatory policy to control carbon and ambitious goals to move to clean energy.
“Aspirational goals are not things we should shy away from in the United States,” Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) said. California set a goal for 100 percent clean energy by 2045, and “it hasn’t stifled our economy,” he added.
(Updates with additional comment and detail throughout.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/democrats-see-chance-for-bipartisan-buy-in-on-climate-study-1

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Chief Downplays Drastic Climate Change Report as Based on 'Worst-Case Scenario'

Feb 13, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Michael Burke

Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Andrew Wheeler on Wednesday downplayed last year's dire federal government report on climate change, saying some of the report's conclusions "were based on the worst-case scenario."
"Some of the conclusions were based on the worst-case scenario. ... And so, I’m trying to take the report as a whole. I’ve had briefings by my career staff, here at the agency, which I depend upon," Wheeler told ABC News.
EXCLUSIVE: Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler tells @ABCNews “we are moving forward on climate change,” and says some conclusions of recent dire climate change report “are based on the worst-case scenario.” https://t.co/xEwEWOvLy6pic.twitter.com/lRrMnQteFz— ABC News (@ABC) February 13, 2019
The report, released in November, warned that efforts to counter climate change were insufficient and found that climate change posed significant threats to public health, the American economy and the environment.
President Trump dismissed the report, saying in November that he didn't "believe" its findings. Trump has frequently suggested that man-made climate change is not real, often calling it a "hoax."
Wheeler told ABC News that, in criticizing the report, Trump was referring to the media coverage of the assessment.
“I think what President Trump in particular is referring to was the media coverage of the climate assessment, and the fact that the media focused on the worst case scenario and a few other aspects that really weren’t in that report. But we are moving forward on CO2, and we are moving forward on climate change," Wheeler said.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429920-epa-chief-says-drastic-climate-change-report-was-based-on-worst

Return to headline | Return to top
Virginia Carbon Trading Link Likely to Survive GOP Objections

Feb 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew M. Ballard

Virginia Republicans’ bid to block the state’s intention of joining a Northeastern greenhouse gas trading appears doomed given Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) vow to veto the measure.
The bill, H.B. 2611, would block Virginia from joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine state emissions trading program for power plants. It narrowly passed the Senate Feb. 13 on a party line 20-19 vote.
Having squeaked through the House Jan. 29, it doesn’t appear Republicans have the votes to override Northam’s promised veto.
Northam “vetoed similar legislation last year, and he remains strongly opposed to this bill,” press secretary Alena Yarmosky, told Bloomberg Environment.
The State Air Pollution Control Board last October that would require electric power companies like Dominion Energy to keep their carbon emissions below a statewide cap of 28 million tons per year in 2020.
The rules would link Virginia with the nine states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon dioxide emissions trading program.
During House consideration, sponsor Del. Charles Poindexter (R) said the bill wasn’t a statement about regional carbon trading systems or climate change policy but rather “whether the people get to vote on the scheme.”
If it does join, Virginia, with emissions of 34 million tons per year from 33 power plants, would become the second largest state in RGGI, as measured by carbon emissions, after New York.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/virginia-lawmakers-seek-to-block-regional-carbon-trading

Return to headline | Return to top
Data Visualization to Drive Clean Air Innovation and Improve Health

Feb 13, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Aileen Nowlan

The first time I spoke at a conference about air pollution, the venue was right beside a daycare—a well-regarded chain, no doubt with significant waiting lists. But on the outside, the facility was steps from onramps to a bridge and a major highway, where horns blared and buses and trucks idled at the lights.
The pollution around this daycare was invisible, but because there is still so much we don’t know about air pollution, so were many of the risks.
As assistant professor at American University Claudia Persico recently told CityLab, “While there is a literature on how pollution affects prenatal and birth outcomes, there isn’t a lot of research on how typical levels of pollution affect kids who are already born.”
What we do know from innovative hyperlocal pollution mapping efforts is that air quality can be eight times worse at one end of the block than the other. And living at the more toxic end of the street can increase the risk of heart attack or death for the elderly by 40 percent.
But what if we could create traffic maps for air pollution throughout our cities? The sensor and AI revolutions make it possible, and the advent of instant everything and other competing demands on urban space make it necessary. Data analytics and visualization on air pollution and its solutions create unprecedented opportunities for environmental progress, if we get it right.
The power of seeing the invisible
The potential for applying data visualization to tackle air pollution was the focus of a recent “innovation salon” event in New York City. And what surprised me most was that we didn’t discuss data nearly as much as we discussed people.
Sure, we talked about data, to start. Data visualization can help describe observations about the natural world, such as weather patterns or migratory paths for birds. At their best, data platforms even help users to take action based on what they’re seeing, such as locating vacant plots of land or accessing resources to organize a community garden.
Here’s one way our emotional brain comes into play regarding data. At the innovation salon we discussed the importance of people helping to create the data that describes their world. We want to locate ourselves in the data – we immediately look for our home on a map. People already respond to these hyperlocal maps of pollution where they live, work and play in a highly personal, visceral way. Even more, people value and trust data if they participated in creating it. So imagine being able to look at a map of your neighborhood to determine the severity of pollution on your block, and knowing that you helped create insight into the risk for your family of an asthma attack. This is the power of the sensor and analytics revolution.
Further, imagine companies using this data to design, fund, and show impact of the commendable zero-emissions commitments they are making for their fleets. Advocates for clean air policies can demonstrate the value of cleaner technologies, and celebrate victories in reducing the health and economic burdens of air pollution in communities. And if the data shows a neighborhood that is exposed to dangerous chemicals or invisible gases—as many environmental justice communities are today—advocates can use this information to work directly with the biggest levers with the biggest influence, to drive immediate change.
Data visualization to spark meaningful change
At our salon meeting in New York, we noted that one of the most frequent applications of data and visualization in “smart city” systems is to improve the ease of finding parking, which I’ll admit can be difficult here in DC. It also causes pollution when cars circle around a neighborhood searching for a space.
Just fixing parking, however, leaves a lot of value on the table. For example, employers discriminate against people who live far from the job. What is the point of parking if employers won’t give you an interview in the first place? Economic mobility requires mobility, which is unpredictable and expensive in many cities. Many smart minds are investing in e-mobility technology and last mile solutions that connect shared and active transit to bus and rail.
What if we could use data visualization to help solve big challenges like safe transit access? Data and visualizations can demonstrate a shared vision of the future that inspires us to apply that uniquely human superpower, the ability to turn on a dime.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/13/data-visualization-improve-health/

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested