Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 8, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fire Suppression Market to Gain Commendable Proceeds from Residential & Commercial Applications, Global Industry Revenue to Surpass USD 16 Billion by 2024
Mar 8, 2019 | Fractovia
By Rahul Varpe
Germany Fire Suppression Market is set to experience substantial growth on account of enhancement and improvisation of safety standards. As per European Commission, in Germany, any office or residential building with... -
U.S.-China Trade Deal Isn’t Imminent So No Summit Date Set, Envoy Says
Mar 8, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Jeremy Page
The U.S. and China have yet to set a date for a summit to resolve their trade dispute, the U.S. ambassador to China said Friday, as neither side feels an agreement is imminent. “A date hasn’t been finalized” for a meeting between... -
Firms Back Chemical Recycling of Plastics
Mar 8, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
As pressure builds on chemical makers to solve the plastic waste problem, firms are increasingly exploring chemical recycling as a complement to traditional mechanical techniques. Eastman Chemical plans to build a facility that will... -
TSCA New Chemicals Program Continues to Suffer from Delays
Mar 8, 2019 | JD Supra
By Ryan Carra, Mark Duval, and Timothy Serie
EPA’s review of premanufactured notices (PMNs) for new chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has continued to suffer from significant delays. These delays in the PMN review process have been... -
EPA Sued as Groups Seek to Initiate Rules Regarding Asbestos Reporting
Mar 8, 2019 | Legal News Line
By Takesha Thomas
Several nonprofit public health and environmental groups have filed an amended complaint for relief in a federal district court in California asking that the EPA require companies to submit reports on potential amounts of asbestos in... -
House Subcommittee Will Hold Hearing on “EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers”
Mar 8, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change announced on March 6, 2019, that it will hold a hearing on March 13, 2019, on “Mismanaging Chemical Risks: EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers.” The... -
EWG News Roundup (3/8): Why Organic is ‘Cleaner,’ Teflon Chemicals Taint Military Sites and More
Mar 8, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
This week EWG released an analysis that shows the great divide between the number of synthetic ingredients allowed in organic foods and in conventional foods. We also detailed the strict review process that organic ingredients must go... -
Kavanaugh Ruling May Keep Judges from Backing EPA Coolant Limits
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A prior ruling on climate-warming coolants may tie the hands of federal appeals judges—even if they agree with chemical makers in support of limiting those coolants. Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of... -
Sixth Circuit Halts Qualified Immunity Claims for Bodily Integrity of Flint Residents
Mar 8, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lucy K. Infeld, Kirstin K. Gruver, and Eric L. Klein
In Guertin v. State of Michigan, the Sixth Circuit held that officials responsible for the decision to change Flint, Michigan’s water supply, leading to lead-contamination of water is not protected by qualified immunity. The Court also... -
CDC's PFAs Exposure Study Looks at Military Bases across US
Mar 8, 2019 | Water World
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention selected eight communities for a study of PFAS exposure from military bases. While not a health study, the goal of the assessment is "to provide information to communities about... -
EU Court Halts Authorization for Two Lead Substances (1)
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
It could become harder for companies to obtain authorizations to continue using prohibited chemicals in the European Union after the bloc’s General Court annulled an authorization granted to Canadian company Dominion Colour Corp. -
EU Court Rules Commission Authorisation of Lead Chromates Was Illegal
Mar 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The EU General Court has ruled that a European Commission decision to allow a company to sell pigments for paints containing lead chromates in the EU was illegal. In 2016 the EU executive granted a REACH authorisation application... -
As Politics Shift, Colorado Energy Sector Faces Emboldened Opposition
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Colorado’s new Democratic-controlled legislature is advancing a sweeping bill that would restrict oil and gas development by affirming public health as the state’s top priority instead of energy production, while the sector faces... -
Bill Looks to Bolster Manufacturing Efficiency
Mar 8, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan proposal this week to promote energy efficiency in manufacturing. The bill, from Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), comes as policymakers are increasingly circling... -
One of Largest U.S. Gas Pipes May Get Bigger Amid Shale Boom
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
Williams Cos. is proposing an expansion of its existing pipeline system to bring natural gas capacity to the U.S. Northeast, where companies have struggled to move forward with new conduits amid regulatory hurdles and... -
Big Oil Is Settling into the Permian, so Where Will the Wildcatters Go Next?
Mar 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
Move over little dog cause the big dog’s movin’ in. ExxonMobil and Chevron have announced plans to more than double oil production from the Permian Basin, confirming the maturity of shale drilling technology and ending the... -
Trump Budget Said to Again Propose End of Chemical Safety Board
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Trump administration’s budget proposal will again call for eliminating the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an independent federal agency that investigates major industrial accidents, according to a person... -
(ACC Mentioned) Vending Machine Can Help Save the Environment
Mar 8, 2019 | KOAM News Now
In the battle against plastic pollution, Henry Pino has devised a weapon. He calls it the Ecopod, or as he likes to describe it: A vending machine with an environmental conscience. The Ecopod dispenses biodegradable cleaning... -
The Energy 202: Lawmakers Turn up Heat in Global Warming Debate on Senate Floor
Mar 8, 2019 | Washington Journal
By Dino Grandoni
Temperatures aren't just rising outside. They were also going up this week in the Senate as lawmakers from both parties squabbled over the Green New Deal. In reality, that nonbinding resolution — it's not an actual bill — calls for... -
Republicans Seize on Tenuous Price Tag to Attack Green New Deal
Mar 8, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
A shockingly high cost estimate largely plucked from thin air has become a prominent talking point for Republicans denouncing the Green New Deal — allowing them to attack progressives’ sweeping-but-vague vision statement without... -
Latest Battle for Climate Change: Lesson Plans
Mar 8, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Michael Melia
A Connecticut lawmaker wants to strike climate change from state science standards. A Virginia legislator worries teachers are indoctrinating students with their personal views on global warming. And an Oklahoma state senator ... -
EPA Advisers Blast Draft Soot Assessment
Mar 8, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
An EPA advisory panel has issued a scathing critique of a draft agency assessment that had offered support for tightening national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates. In a preliminary report posted online yesterday... -
The Green New Deal Must Transform the Economy
Mar 8, 2019 | Truthout
By Ryan Gunderson & Diana Stuart
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal on February 7, a resolution that deserves praise for putting forth the boldest climate change proposal in U.S. history. Considering two recent...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Mar 8, 2019 | Fractovia
By Rahul Varpe
Germany Fire Suppression Market is set to experience substantial growth on account of enhancement and improvisation of safety standards. As per European Commission, in Germany, any office or residential building with height of over 60 m must be provided with two stair cases as a safety exit and a sprinkler system must be installed to meet the safety standards.
Global Fire Suppression Market size will exceed USD 16 billion by 2024. Stringent government regulations towards public safety along with growing consumer awareness will drive the fire suppression market size. Growing commercial floorspace along with introduction of safety codes and standards will stimulate the product penetration. As per American Chemistry Council, the fire codes set by NFPA and IFC states that all areas with upholstered furniture including healthcare facilities and educational institutes must have sprinkler system installed.
U.S. is projected to reach over annual installation of 150 million units by 2024. Upsurge in construction industry along with technological advancement in the product design and development will embellish the U.S. market share. Increasing demand for environment friendly, less toxic, automatic and new generation systems will propel the product growth. In 2016, the country construction industry continued its rebound with 5.3% with another 2% expected increase by the end of 2017.
Growing awareness toward the adoption of fire protection systems to mitigate the hazards and accidents will foster the fire suppression market share. Introduction of green buildings in Europe coupled with stringent safety regulations will fuel the business growth. As per European Commission, 70,000 people are hospitalized due to severe injuries caused by fire with an estimated damage of USD 148.6 billion every year.
To access a sample copy or view the fire suppression market report in detail along with the table of contents, please click the link below: https://www.gminsights.com/request-sample/detail/2059
Rapid industrialization across developing economies along with increasing demand for safety equipment will drive the global fire suppression market. Ongoing investments across Asia-Pacific and Africa towards the expansion of industrial, commercial and residential establishments will boost the product demand. As per Central Banks and Governments’ statistics bureau, investments across Asia Pacific for the development of Industrial sector was USD 10.6 billion in 2016.
China fire suppression market is set to witness growth over 3% by 2024. Expansion of industrial and commercial sector along with growing measures to reduce the fire accidents will positively influence the business landscape. In 2015, China surpassed the U.S. as the world’s major safety and security products market with an annual rise of 10.8%.
Saudi Arabia fire suppression market in 2016 was valued over 150 million. Ongoing O&G projects along with expansion and establishment of other available industries will boost the demand for suppression systems. In 2015, number of operating industrial units have reached up to 7,007 with the investment of USD 290 billion.
Notable players in global fire suppression market include TYCO, United Technologies Corporation, Minimax, Lubrizol, Bristol Fire Engineering, Halma PLC, SFFECO, Firetronics, NAFFCO, Master Fire Preventions Ltd., National Fire Equipment Ltd. and Amerex Corporation.
https://www.fractovia.org/news/fire-suppression-market/344
-
U.S.-China Trade Deal Isn’t Imminent So No Summit Date Set, Envoy Says
Mar 8, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Jeremy Page
The U.S. and China have yet to set a date for a summit to resolve their trade dispute, the U.S. ambassador to China said Friday, as neither side feels an agreement is imminent.
“A date hasn’t been finalized” for a meeting between President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Terry Branstad, the U.S. envoy to Beijing, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. He said preparations for such a meeting aren’t yet under way either.
Mr. Branstad said negotiators need to further narrow the gap in their positions, including on enforcement of an eventual deal, before summit arrangements are made.
“Both sides agree that there has to be significant progress, meaning a feeling that they’re very close before that happens,” Mr. Branstad said in his office at the U.S. embassy in Beijing. “We’re not there yet. But we’re closer than we’ve been for a very long time.”
Mr. Branstad’s remarks add to growing doubt that Washington and Beijing can speedily resolve their yearlong trade battle that has rattled global markets and businesses.
Trade negotiators in the world’s two largest economies in recent weeks have been trying to put together a trade agreement for their presidents to clinch face to face. Progress made in talks last month led both sides to discuss holding the summit this month, possibly around March 27 in Florida, after Mr. Xi finishes a trip to Italy and France.
In recent days, especially after Mr. Trump’s failed meeting in Vietnamwith North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, senior Chinese officials have become increasingly wary of agreeing to a summit without a guarantee from Washington on a final deal, according to people familiar with the leadership’s thinking.
Remarks by some White House officials also suggest that any meeting between the two leaders could be delayed into next month.
Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said “there is hope that perhaps by the end of this month or early April the two leaders will get together and finalize an agreement.” He then said: “Don’t hold me to that because it’s not written in cement yet.”
For a summit, the Chinese side wants more of a signing ceremony than a final negotiation, fearing Mr. Trump could make last-minute demands, said the people familiar with the leadership’s thinking. Mr. Branstad suggested U.S. officials want some leeway at the summit.
The U.S. side aims to have “the agreement pretty much worked out, and maybe a few final touches, or final things resolved by the two leaders,” he said, adding there was “good chemistry” between the two men.
“It has been a long and difficult process,” the U.S. ambassador said of the negotiations. More positively, he said: “Considerable progress has been made. So I’m more hopeful now than I’ve been throughout the last year that we can see an effective agreement reached.”
As part of the potential deal, Beijing so far has offered to purchase more U.S. agricultural and energy products, allow American businesses greater access to certain sectors such as financial services and autos, and improve the protection of U.S. intellectual-property rights.
Mindful of what it sees as China’s poor follow-up record, Washington also is pressing for an enforcement mechanism to ensure Beijing keeps its promises. The plan under discussion calls for meetings of officials from both countries to adjudicate disputes. If those don’t produce agreement, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has said the U.S. would then impose tariffs.
It is unclear if Beijing has agreed not to retaliate—at least in some cases—should the U.S. take such actions. That would be a big concession for Beijing, as the leadership fears being criticized domestically for agreeing to an “unequal treaty” of the sort imposed by Western powers in the 19th century.
“That’s been a challenge and a problem that the Chinese did indeed retaliate,” Mr. Branstad said, referring to the sanctions Beijing imposed on American products in response to the U.S. tariffs last year.
Another disagreement involves subsidies and other government support that the U.S. argues gives Chinese domestic firms an advantage, especially state-owned enterprises. In a key national address this week, Chinese Premier Li Keqiangdropped any mentionof “Made in China 2025,” a policy savaged by the Trump administration as protectionist. Mr. Li, however, committed the government to nurturing key emerging industries—the same goals as “Made in China 2025.”
In the interview, Mr. Branstad sought to play down expectations the Communist Party would agree to significant changes in China’s industrial policy as part of the trade deal. “We’ve got to be realistic that this is a one-party authoritarian system. We don’t’ see that changing.”
Another priority for the U.S., Mr. Branstad said, is getting Beijing to honor its commitment to label fentanyl, the powerful opioid responsible for a rising number of American drug deaths, a controlled substance. Mr. Xi made the promise during a meeting with Mr. Trump in December. Such a move could help stem fentanyl flowing into the U.S.
“As recently as yesterday, I was assured by the Chinese minister of foreign affairs that’s a commitment they intend to abide by and implement,” Mr. Branstad said.
Mr. Branstad dismissed suggestions that U.S. concerns about Huawei Technologies Co. would figure in any trade deal. The Trump administration has sought to dissuade allies and others from using Huawei networking equipment, citing security risks. It is also pursuing the extradition of Huawei’s chief financial officer from Canada on bank fraud charges related to sanctions violations.
Mr. Branstad denied that as part of a deal the U.S. would drop its case against the executive, Meng Wanzhou. “It is really a separate issue and it’s really in the hands of the Southern District of New York, certainly not with the president,” said Mr. Branstad.
Huawei has mounted an aggressive strategy, filing a lawsuit this week challenging a U.S. government ban on using the company’s gear and accusing the U.S. of hacking into the company’s servers, stealing source code and monitoring its emails.
Mr. Branstad said Huawei’s lawsuit looked “retaliatory,” comparing it to China’s detention of two Canadian citizens after Ms. Meng’s arrest. On the company’s allegations of U.S. hacking, “coming from Huawei, that’s very interesting,” said Mr. Branstad. “They’re the ones that have been accused of doing that all over the world.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-trade-deal-isnt-imminent-ambassador-branstad-says-11552031163?mod=hp_lead_pos3
-
Firms Back Chemical Recycling of Plastics
Mar 8, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
As pressure builds on chemical makers to solve the plastic waste problem, firms are increasingly exploring chemical recycling as a complement to traditional mechanical techniques.
Eastman Chemical plans to build a facility that will use methanolysis to depolymerize polyethylene terephthalate (PET), used in food packaging and soda bottles, into dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol. The company developed the process decades ago, as Eastman Kodak, to recycle polyester waste such as X-ray film.
Tim Dell, Eastman’s vice president of corporate innovation, is confident the company can build a commercial-scale plant in 24–36 months. “Polyester is one of the chemistries that can be unzipped fairly easily,” he says. “The trick in all of this is to be able to design, engineer, scale, and actually operate a facility.”
Eastman, which makes polyester copolymers, hasn’t decided on a size or location. It is in talks with potential partners to source raw materials. The company is seeking difficult-to-recycle plastics that are unsuitable for mechanical recycling.
In a similar initiative, Loop Industries and the polyester maker Indorama plan to build a plant based on Loop’s PET depolymerization process by 2020. And Aquafil recently opened a facility in Phoenix that recovers nylon from used carpet for later depolymerization.
Seeing such projects as a market, Circular Polymers has opened a plant in Lincoln, California, that will process 14,000 metric tons per year of used carpet into nylon, polyester, and polypropylene. The company aims to provide a reliable feedstock for chemical recycling projects.
“While chemical recyclers can take a higher degree of contamination than mechanical recyclers, they still require a specification,” says Circular CEO David Bender.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/sustainability/Firms-back-chemical-recycling-plastics/97/i10
-
TSCA New Chemicals Program Continues to Suffer from Delays
Mar 8, 2019 | JD Supra
By Ryan Carra, Mark Duval, and Timothy Serie
EPA’s review of premanufactured notices (PMNs) for new chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has continued to suffer from significant delays. These delays in the PMN review process have been exacerbated by the federal government shudUR) for new chemicals has also been delayed.
Manufacturers and importers of new chemicals should continue to anticipate delays in the PMN review process and plan for additional time before the manufacture or import of a chemical substance can commence. Manufacturers and importers should also consider the prospect of negotiating a TSCA section 5(e) order that imposes controls or restrictions on the use of the new chemical and/or requires testing.
Growing Pains After Enactment of the LCSA
Upon enactment of the Frank A. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA) on June 22, 2019, EPA had to revamp its PMN review process to reflect changes to the new chemical review framework. As part of this process, EPA also restarted the 90-day clock for 331 PMNs that were pending at the time of enactment of the LCSA. Within the first year after enactment, the backlog exceeded 600 “new chemical” applications according to EPA. Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt committed to eliminating the backlog of new chemical reviews that were stuck in EPA’s PMN review processes when he was confirmed.
On August 7, 2017, EPA announced that the new chemical backlog had been eliminated. EPA reported that it had only 382 open new chemical cases (which likely included PMNs, microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), significant new use notices (SNUNs), and exemption applications). According to EPA, that caseload had returned to the baseline and was in line with a typical workload for the TSCA New Chemicals Program. EPA also highlighted its efforts to continuously improve EPA’s TSCA New Chemicals Program by redeploying full-time staff to work on new chemicals, initiating streamlined work processes around new chemicals, and institutionalizing a voluntary pre-PMN submission process so that submitters understand what information is most useful to EPA and what they can expect from EPA during the review process.
Despite EPA’s announcement in 2017 and efforts to improve the PMN review process, the PMN backlog has ballooned again, and EPA’s shutdown beginning in December 2018 compounded this already growing problem.
The Effects of the Federal Government Shutdown
The recent federal government shutdown that began on December 29, 2018 resulted in another setback for EPA and the TSCA New Chemicals Program. During the shutdown, EPA’s New Chemicals Review Program, which includes the PMN review process, ground to a complete halt. EPA did not fully resume its work on the PMN program until January 31, 2019, 33 days after the shutdown began.
As a result of the shutdown, EPA issued an extension to the review periods for all PMNs, MCANs, SNUNs, and exemption applications that were pending as of December 29, 2018. 84 Fed. Reg. 2851 (Feb. 8, 2019). EPA extended the review period for these applications by 33 days – the equivalent time period from the date of the shutdown until EPA fully resumed operations of the TSCA New Chemicals Program. EPA issues this extension under TSCA section 5(c), which allows the Agency to extend the PMN review process by up to 90 days for good cause.
In addition to freezing review of all pending new chemical applications, the shutdown postponed the review of all incoming new chemical applications submitted during the shutdown. EPA did not receive notifications or process any submissions during the shutdown, and EPA did not begin its review of TSCA section 5 notices submitted during the shutdown until the TSCA New Chemicals Program resumed operations. In other words, the 90-day review clock for PMNs did not start until January 31, 2019 for all new chemical applications.
Current Backlog of PMN Reviews
According to EPA, there are currently 542 cases under review as of February 19, 2018. These include PMNs, MCANs, SNUNs, and other exemption applications. The current backlog is approaching the previous total of over 600 cases that EPA reported shortly after enactment in 2017. The current EPA statistics show over a 40% increase in EPA’s caseload since EPA’s announcement in 2017 that the backlog had been eliminated. See Statistics for the New Chemicals Review Program under TSCA.
EPA’s review of PMNs in the past year highlights the significant backlog and delays experienced by PMN submitters. Manufacturers and imports have submitted 324 PMNs to EPA since February 1, 2018 (this number does not include PMN submissions deemed invalid or withdrawn). Of these, EPA has only completed its review and made final determinations regarding 30 chemical substances, or less than 10% of the total number. In these cases, EPA has determined that 23 chemical substances are not likely to present an unreasonable risk, and has issued a 5(e) order for the other 7 chemical substances based on insufficient information or its finding that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk. The remaining 294 PMNs submitted in the past year are still under review. See EPA PMNs and SNUNs Table.
Most PMNs Subject to Some Restriction
Since enactment of the LCSA on June 22, 2016, EPA has issued 564 total determinations allowing manufacturers to commence manufacture of new chemical substances. Since June 22, 2016, EPA has: Issued a section 5(e) order for 439 chemical substances. Issued a section 5(f) order for 2 chemical substances. Made a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination for 123 chemical substances are.
This is based on a review of EPA's PMNs and SNUNs Table (current as of February 14, 2019).
A total of 78% of the final determinations have resulted in a section 5(e) or a section 5(f) order. About 22% have resulted in a “not likely to present” determination. This demonstrates that EPA has imposed controls or restrictions on chemical substances for a majority of the PMNs it has reviewed since enactment of the LCSA. PMN submitters should consider the likelihood of having to negotiate and comply with a section 5(e) order, and the associated delays with doing so.
Delays for Significant New Use Rules
EPA’s issuance of SNURs following a section 5(e) order has also been delayed. TSCA section 5(f)(4) requires EPA to initiate a SNUR rulemaking within 90 days of issuing a section 5(e) order or, by that time, explain why it is not doing so. EPA has not published any explanations.
EPA is not meeting that 90-day deadline (as indicated by publication of a direct final SNUR or a proposed SNUR), but the Agency is closing the gap. EPA has initiated SNUR rulemaking for 378 PMN chemicals with section 5(e) or section 5(f) orders effective after the date of enactment. This represents approximately 85% of the total number of section 5(e) and section 5(f) orders issued since enactment. The issuance of a SNUR has typically lagged between seven to 12 months after the effective dates of the respective 5(e) orders, with some SNURs being issued as much as two years later.
EPA is clearly struggling to meet its deadline to issue SNURs within 90 days, but manufacturers and processors of new chemical substances should monitor the situation as EPA seeks to catch up and promulgate SNURs for outstanding chemical substances subject to section 5(e) orders.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/tsca-new-chemicals-program-continues-to-38559/
-
EPA Sued as Groups Seek to Initiate Rules Regarding Asbestos Reporting
Mar 8, 2019 | Legal News Line
By Takesha Thomas
Several nonprofit public health and environmental groups have filed an amended complaint for relief in a federal district court in California asking that the EPA require companies to submit reports on potential amounts of asbestos in products.
On Feb. 19, the groups Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, American Public Health Association, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Health Strategy Center and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at San Francisco.
The complaint, which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, alleges that Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the agency "initiate rulemaking under section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require importers, manufacturers and processors of asbestos and asbestos-containing mixtures and articles to submit reports on the amounts of asbestos they import and use, the sites where these activities occur, the nature of the use and the resulting potential for exposure to asbestos by workers and members of the public."
The suit states the plaintiffs filed a section 21 petition in September to request the EPA initiate the rulemaking.
"As it explained, '[t]he discovery of asbestos in Claire’s makeup products – and previous detection of asbestos in certain crayons - raises the possibility that thousands of asbestos containing products may be imported in the U.S. for sale to consumers. However, no information about these products is provided in the problem formulation – presumably because EPA lacks reliable data on their importation and use,'" the complaint states.
The petition was denied by the EPA in December 2018.
In addition, the complaint contends that the defendants' denial of the petition "contains errors of law and fact, misrepresents the basis for the petition and ignores information in the docket and EPA's own past statements."
They are asking that the court require the EPA to initiate the rulemaking and requested that the EPA pay attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the filing, TSCA was enacted in 1976 to "create a national program for assessing and managing the risks of chemicals to human health and the environment."
Under the Act, the EPA is required to initiate risk evaluations on 10 chemical substances within 180 days of the enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), enacted in 2016, the suit says.
In June 2017, the EPA issued a scoping document "and a problem formulation in June 2018 setting out the fiber types, products, exposure pathways and health end-points that it planned to address in its asbestos risk evaluation and summarizing the information in its possession on importation and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the United States," the suit says.
However, after being notified by two of the plaintiffs in May 2017 of three U.S. companies that use "asbestos diaphragm cells" in manufacturing, the EPA advised that "asbestos imports were not subject to reporting because... reporting is not required for 'naturally occurring chemical substances'" under the law, the suit claims.
The petition also contends that the EPA "lacked critical information about consumer products contaminated by asbestos."
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Connett of Waters Kraus and Paul of El Segundo, California and Robert M. Sussman of Sussman & Associates in Washington, D.C.
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/512139465-epa-sued-as-groups-seek-to-initiate-rules-regarding-asbestos-reporting
-
House Subcommittee Will Hold Hearing on “EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers”
Mar 8, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change announced on March 6, 2019, that it will hold a hearing on March 13, 2019, on “Mismanaging Chemical Risks: EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers.” The Subcommittee will address how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “is systemically ignoring worker risks in its implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and other worker protections.” Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY) stated that protecting vulnerable populations is an essential part of EPA’s mission, but under the Trump Administration, EPA “has systematically undervalued or completely overlooked the risks workers face from exposure to chemicals on the job. Workers should not have to choose between their health and their jobs.” Information for the hearing, including the Majority Memorandum, witness list and testimony, and a live webcast, will be posted on the hearing web page as they become available.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/house-subcommittee-will-hold-hearing-epa-s-failure-to-protect-workers
-
EWG News Roundup (3/8): Why Organic is ‘Cleaner,’ Teflon Chemicals Taint Military Sites and More
Mar 8, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
This week EWG released an analysis that shows the great divide between the number of synthetic ingredients allowed in organic foods and in conventional foods. We also detailed the strict review process that organic ingredients must go through to become approved, compared to the largely unregulated approach that has resulted in thousands of chemical additives allowed for use in conventional packaged foods.
“Although many consumers choose organic to avoid toxic pesticides, few know that federal rules dramatically limit the use of synthetic substances in organic food,” said EWG nutritionist Dawn Undurraga, one of the authors of the report.
EWG also published a report and interactive map that delved into the growing number of military sites that have been contaminated with toxic fluorinated chemicals, known as PFAS. For nearly 50 years, many military sites used firefighting foams that contained PFAS chemicals – which could be a major reason for this nationwide contamination crisis.
A group of Democratic senators sent a letter demanding the Trump administration hand over all communications between key agencies and the White House about plans to address PFAS pollution.
The Food and Drug Administration released a shocking alert on Tuesday, warning consumers that three talc-based products sold by the national retailer Claire’s contained the deadly carcinogen asbestos. At the same time, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is preparing to introduce legislation that would go a long way toward fixing problems like this in cosmetics and other personal care products.
In other news, the Government Accountability Office released its annual risk report, which slammed the Trump EPA for stifling the implementation of a recently passed chemical safety law. Additionally, a report in Bloomberg News revealed that the president will be seeking a roughly 70 percent cut in funding for clean energy research and development.
And finally, EWG took a deep dive into the legislation soon to be proposed in California and South Carolina that would incentivize and protect homes and businesses making the transition to solar energy.
Here’s some news you can use going into the weekend.
Asbestos in Makeup
New York Times: F.D.A. Confirms Asbestos in Claire’s Products and Calls for Stronger Regulation
Asbestos can contaminate talc because the minerals are often intermingled in mines. It is “one of the deadliest substances in existence,” Scott Faber, the senior vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group advocacy group, said in a statement.
USA Today: FDA says tests confirm asbestos in makeup from Claire's, Justice
VIDEO: EWG and the #BeautyMadeBetter campaign is mentioned in the video.
Inquisitr: FDA Says It Found Asbestos In Claire’s Cosmetics Products
The FDA has also been battling with the cosmetics industry at large, calling on the industry to be more transparent about its products, particularly talc, which can contain asbestos because the chemicals can combine while being mined. Asbestos is considered to be one of the deadliest substances in existence according to the Environmental Working Group’s vice president Scott Faber.
Simplemost: FDA Warns About Asbestos In Some Claire’s Makeup
You can check the FDA’s website for recalls and alerts about cosmetic products, or check with the Environmental Working Group to verify that your products are toxin-free.
Organic: The Original Clean Food Report
Food Dive: Thousands of 'poorly regulated' chemicals found in conventional foods, report finds
A new report from the Environmental Working Group found most consumers aren't aware that conventional packaged foods contain thousands of "poorly regulated" chemicals, while fewer than 40 synthetic ingredients are allowed in organic packaged foods.
Mother Nature News: Thousands of unregulated chemicals are allowed in conventional processed foods
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is hard at work again, this time taking a look at the chemicals used in both conventional and organic processed foods. EWG is best known for creating the dirty dozen list of fruits and vegetables to avoid and the best sunscreens to use. This new report follows the group's ongoing theme of helping consumers understand what's in the products they buy.
Newsmax: Our Food Contains Thousands of Chemicals Not Approved by the FDA
A new study by the Environmental Working Group reveals that conventional packaged foods have over 2,000 chemical preservatives that don’t have approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Treehugger: The Shocking Truth About Organic vs. Conventional Packaged Foods
Here’s why, according to a new analysis by the consumer health watchdog, Environmental Working Group: Unlike organic packaged foods, conventional packaged food contains thousands of poorly regulated food chemicals.
FairWarning: With Long Delays in Safety Overhaul, Utility Giant PG&E Was Playing With Fire
Yummy: Now the Environmental Working Group is drawing attention to the difference between conventional and organic packaged foods. Conventional items can use a vast array of synthetic preservatives, flavors and colors, some of them linked to known health risks, the group reports. Fewer than 40 synthetic substances are approved for use in organic products, and those are subject to review by regulators.
Sierra: Over 2,000 Questionable Additives Are Lurking in Packaged Food
Now a new report by the consumer health watchdog Environmental Working Group offers a good reason to leave the crackers on the shelf. The group estimates that packaged foods contain over 2,000 additives whose safety has not been adequately studied.
New Hope: Environmental Working Group: If it’s not organic, it’s not clean
In a new analysis, the Environmental Working Group reports that conventional packaged food includes thousands of chemicals that are not regulated by the federal government. Most consumers do not know that fewer than 40 synthetic ingredients can be included in packaged organic foods; conventional foods are allowed to use more than 2,000 chemical preservatives, colors and other additives.
PFAS Contamination of Military Bases
Politico – Morning Energy: House hearing drills down on safety
The Defense Department's top environmental official, Maureen Sullivan, will also testify. In anticipation of her testimony, the Environmental Working Group today unveiled an interactive map showing the 106 sites where the nonstick chemicals have contaminated drinking water or groundwater.
Business Insider: Dangerous 'forever chemicals' have been found in US drinking water at alarmingly high rates — here's what to know about PFA
If you're worried about your own drinking water, you can check the EPA's annual drinking-water report online or look at an independent tap-water database from the Environmental Working Group . You can also use an NSF/ANSI-approved filter at home.
Asbury Park Press: Water near Joint Base and Earle polluted by possible carcinogen: report
Military bases, including the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst and Naval Weapons Station Earle, used a firefighting foam rife with dangerous chemicals for decades after being warned of the risks, according to a new report by the Environmental Working Group.
Stars and Stripes: Water crisis: Illnesses mount for families living on military bases
A comprehensive accounting of the families impacted has yet to be seen, but they have increasingly spoken out at legislative hearings and through activist groups such as Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group. On Wednesday, four families accompanied the group in the audience of a House panel, and were recognized repeatedly by lawmakers.
ThinkProgress: Toxic chemicals are poisoning communities, and those affected say EPA isn’t doing enough to stop it
On Wednesday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report mapping all of the areas where the Department of Defense (DoD) has found PFAS in water with levels above what the EPA has deemed “safe.” The report found at least 106 U.S. military sites where either drinking water or groundwater is contaminated with the toxic chemicals.
Times Union (Albany, N.Y.): Report identifies water contamination at 4 military sites upstate
PFAS pollution had been uncovered at each one but the report by the Environmental Working Group was the first to summarize the extent of potential contamination at Defense Department sites nationwide. “This is only the tip of a toxic iceberg that is largely hidden and still growing,” the group said in its report, issued Wednesday.
Washington Examiner: Daily on Energy: Pressure mounting against White House climate panel
The Environmental Working Group issued a report on Wednesday that identifies 106 military sites in the U.S. where drinking water or groundwater is contaminated by unsafe levels of PFAS chemicals.
Chemical Watch: NGO researchers call to ban PFASs from firefighting foam
The report, by the NGO Environmental Working Group (EWG), identifies more than 100 military sites where drinking water or groundwater is contaminated with PFASs at levels above the EPA’s health guidelines, after nearly 50 years of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) use on military installations.
Colorado Springs Independent: Former Fountain resident testifies on PFASs in D.C.
The hearing was held the same day that Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy organization, released an updated map with information on 106 military sites where drinking water or groundwater is contaminated with PFASs. (The Department of the Defense has said that there are 401 sites in the U.S. alone with known or suspected contamination.)
Asbestos
KTVZ (Bend, Ore.): Merkley, colleagues intro bill to ban asbestos in U.S.
The bill is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and Less Cancer.Cleaners
Reader’s Digest: 15 Spring Cleaning Mistakes That Could Make You Sick
“Start with ceilings and high shelving, and work your way to the floors to limit redistribution of dust and other particles to freshly cleaned surfaces,” says Samara Geller, a senior research and database analyst at Environmental Working Group (EWG). In addition, “look for a vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter to more effectively trap dust, allergens, and contaminants,” she says.
MSN: 19 Dangers Inside Your Spring Cleaning Products
Environmental Working Group has flagged some jewelry cleaners as toxic. Some contain perchloroethylene, a known carcinogen. Moreover, fumes from the toxic solvents can cause lung, eye and skin irritation.
One Green Planet: 15 Eco-Friendly Cleaning Products for a Sparkling Home!
According to the EWG, common cleaning products “can be laced with the carcinogenic impurity 1,4-dioxane” and “contain preservatives that release low levels of cancer-causing formaldehyde.” They can also cause chemical burns, allergies, and asthma.
Climate Change
Yes! Magazine: How to Talk to Kids About Climate Change (and Have Fun, Too)
“Every day we see more evidence that this administration is actively working against the health and safety of the most vulnerable Americans—our children,” said Ken Cook, the president of Environmental Working Group, an environmental health nonprofit headquartered in Washington, D.C., in October. “Tragically, it’s not an exaggeration to say that the Trump administration is waging a war on children.”
Cosmetics
Best Health: What Are Parabens? And Are They Really That Bad?
But researchers and organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Working Group say research must not just look at individual product exposure but must find a way to evaluate the cumulative impact of many products used over many years. EWG’s surveys show the average adult consumer uses nine personal care products a day.
Business Insider: The skin-care industry often treats body products as an afterthought — this startup is out to change that
They're accompanied by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) rating for safety and potential for skin irritation.
Family Circle: Why It's Now Easier Than Ever to Buy Sustainable Beauty Products
“Consumers are starting to push the market, and companies pick up on that,” says Carla Burns, research analyst at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG). But as lovely as it is that many big corporations have stepped up, she adds, consumers need to remain vigilant.
Cosmetics and Kourtney Kardashian
Women’s Wear Daily (WWD): Kourtney Kardashian Is Launching a Brand Called Poosh
Last year Kardashian teamed with the Environmental Working Group on a trip to Washington, D.C., to meet with staffers from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to discuss the Personal Care Products Safety Act, which would update 80-year-old FDA regulations in the beauty industry. Kardashian has been a vocal advocate for clean beauty since giving birth to her first child.
Evening Standard (London, U.K.): What is Poosh? Kourtney Kardashian’s lifestyle brand Poosh could give Goop a run for its money
Last year, she worked closely with an activist organisation called Environmental Working Group and actually went to congress as part of its #BeautyMadeBetter campaign.
Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database
Well Being: How to Switch to Green Beauty
When it comes to searching for ingredients, the Environmental Working Group is my go to. They’ve done the heavy lifting for you and created the Skin Deep Cosmetics Database.
EWG VERIFIED™
Elite Daily: The 4 Best Organic Shampoos For Color-Treated Hair
This pick from Avalon Organics meets the NSF/ANSI 305 organic standards and is also verified by the Environmental Working Group (which you can read more about here) but, in short, that means it's totally non-toxic and meets the strictest, safest manufacturing standards.
EcoParent: Indulge in the Sumptuousness of Serums
C2 California Clean’s Apple Stem Cell Regenerating Serum uses the magic of science (and apples!) to stimulate regeneration and preservation of skin cells. Proudly EWG VERIFIED, the bioactive ingredients will help reduce wrinkles, even skin tone, stimulate collagen production, encourage elastin synthesis, and bring back your gorgeous glow!
Energy
National Review: San Bernardino County Says No to Big Renewables
In January, some 600 environmental groups, including 350.org, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Working Group, submitted a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which said that the U.S. must shift to “100 percent renewable power generation by 2035 or earlier.”
Ethanol
Politico – Morning Agriculture: Ethanol retains grip on Iowa primary politics
“This should be an early test of whether candidates are really committed to attacking the climate crisis,” said Scott Faber, an Environmental Working Group lobbyist who focuses on ag issues. “You can’t be for the status quo with ethanol and also be for saving the planet.”
Politico Magazine: How the 2020 Democrats Learned to Love Ethanol
“This should be an early test of whether candidates are really committed to attacking the climate crisis,” says Scott Faber, an Environmental Working Group lobbyist who focuses on agricultural issues. “You can’t be for the status quo with ethanol and also be for saving the planet.”
Monsanto’s Glyphosate
EcoWatch: WATCH: EWG Asked People If They’d Like to Eat Cereal With Monsanto’s Weedkiller in It
On a recent afternoon, across the street from the White House, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) set up an impromptu taste test and asked participants to choose between two oat-based cereals: one that likely contained a pinch of Monsanto's weedkiller linked to cancer, glyphosate, and another that did not.
Well+Good: Are these 5 questionable ingredients lurking in your breakfast food?
One place you might not have considered pesticide residue? Your breakfast cereal. According to a recent report published by the Environmental Working Group, your morning bowl of oatmeal, oat-based cereal, or granola isn’t exactly safe from chemical weed killers, which can seep in through direct application on crops (like the oats in your ’meal) or spraying of the land itself.
Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
Woman’s World: 5 Hormones That Hold in Fat — And How to Fix Them
If it's not possible to eat an entirely organic diet, the US' Environmental Working Group advises you to at least choose organic soft berries and salad leaves, as non-organic versions more easily absorb pesticides and preservatives used than food with a tough skin, which you can remove, such as bananas and avocados.
Sunscreens
Yahoo! News: The Best Sunscreens to Protect Kids and Babies From Sun Damage
Sunology Kids & Baby Safe Sunscreen SPF 50: Along with the EWG's high marks, this fragrance-free formula is certified cruelty-free by Leaping Bunny and offers the highest level of water resistance.
KJZZ (Tempe, Arizona): How Safe Is Sunscreen? We Don't Know
AUDIO - Nneka Leiba is director of the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) [Healthy'] Living Science program. EWG is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works to protect human health and the environment.
HAPPI: Sea Change - As mineral-based options rise in popularity and by legislation, stakeholders on both sides agree that FDA needs to take action on new filters.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), for example, has been calling for a ban on oxybenzone for years (and is demanding companies drop the ingredient entirely by 2020). “We support the fact that certain stares are bringing attention to the ingredients of concern in sunscreen; in those states, like Hawaii, it is because of reef effects. We have been calling attention because of public health,” said Nneka Leiba, who is EWG’s director of healthy living science and manages its annual update to its “Guide to Sunscreens.”
PFAS in Drinking Water
E&E News/Greenwire: Frustrated by EPA, states blaze ahead on PFAS
PFOA was discovered in water sources in New York's Hoosick Falls in 2015, according to a map of contaminated sites by the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University's Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/03/ewg-news-roundup-38-why-organic-cleaner-teflon-chemicals-taint-military
-
Kavanaugh Ruling May Keep Judges from Backing EPA Coolant Limits
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A prior ruling on climate-warming coolants may tie the hands of federal appeals judges—even if they agree with chemical makers in support of limiting those coolants.
Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared sympathetic March 8 to arguments from major chemical producers Honeywell Inc. and The Chemours Company, as well as the Natural Resources Defense Council, that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to restrict the use of the coolants under the Clean Air Act.
But the three judges—Judges Judith W. Rogers, Robert L. Wilkins, and Harry T. Edwards—also raised significant questions during the arguments about whether they could support the EPA rule in light of a 2017 D.C. Circuit ruling vacating in large part a similar coolant regulation.
At issue in the case is a second Obama-era regulation limiting hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs—refrigerant chemicals that are greenhouse gases hundreds of times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Obama-Era BansThe EPA during the Obama administration adopted two regulations in 2015 and 2016 banning the use of certain HFCs.
Two chemical producers, Mexichem Fluor Inc. and Arkema Inc., challenged both rules. In 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 to vacate in large part the first set of HFC limits in a decision written by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The court already spoke on the EPA’s authority, Edwards said during an exchange with Thomas Lorenzen, an attorney with Crowell & Moring LLP arguing the case for Honeywell, Chemours, and the NRDC.
“We are bound by what the prior panel said,” even if judges were to disagree with the 2017 opinion, Edwards later added.
Lorenzen said even if the judges think they are restricted by the prior panel’s ruling, they shouldn’t leave it be.
He urged the judges to tee up another chance to hear arguments in support of the EPA’s HFC rules by outlining their criticism of the first panel’s decision. Lorenzen also suggested the full circuit court hear the issue.
“It behooves the court not to repeat the mistakes of a prior decision where there’s an opportunity to rectify it,” he said.
‘Fifth Bite at the Apple’Another potential strike against Honeywell and Chemours is the EPA’s change in position.
The EPA, in oral arguments less than a month after President Donald Trump took office in 2017, defended the first Obama-era HFC rule. But this time around, the EPA is walking away from its regulation, urging the court to reach the same decision it did in the first case.
The agency asks the court to “refuse to allow intervenors a fifth bite at the apple,” Benjamin Carlisle, a Justice Department attorney, said in arguments.
Honeywell, Chemours, and the NRDC had petitioned both the full D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court to rehear the first HFC lawsuit. Both courts rejected the request.
The EPA has said it is working to retool the Clean Air Act program under which the Obama administration set HFC limits, but it isn’t clear when the agency will issue a regulation. The majority of appliance manufacturers and chemical makers, including Mexichem and Arkema, back a 2016 global deal to limit HFCs known as the Kigali Amendment.
‘Incredible Dissent’The 2017 opinion found the EPA went beyond its authority in banning HFCs, initially used as replacements for ozone-depleting refrigerant chemicals, because the Clean Air Act program dealt strictly with chemicals harming the ozone layer.
Wilkins, who also sat on that panel, had dissented, backing the Obama-era rule.
But even Wilkins appeared hesitant that the judges could support the 2016 limits, even if they wanted to. Lorenzen argued the judges in the first case never fully addressed whether they had jurisdiction to hear challenges to the HFC rules or whether the lawsuit was timely, given that a 1994 EPA regulation laid out the agency’s authority to restrict HFCs and other substances.
“I mean, it was an incredible dissent, but it doesn’t say anything about jurisdiction,” Wilkins said in an exchange with Lorenzen.
The case is Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1024, oral argument 3/8/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/kavanaugh-ruling-may-keep-judges-from-backing-epa-coolant-limits
-
Sixth Circuit Halts Qualified Immunity Claims for Bodily Integrity of Flint Residents
Mar 8, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lucy K. Infeld, Kirstin K. Gruver, and Eric L. Klein
In Guertin v. State of Michigan, the Sixth Circuit held that officials responsible for the decision to change Flint, Michigan’s water supply, leading to lead-contamination of water is not protected by qualified immunity. The Court also allowed a claim of violation of bodily integrity under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause to continue.
The events at issue arose in 2016 when the City of Flint, facing economic turmoil, switched the source of its residential water from that supplied by the Detroit Water and Sewage Department to water from the Flint River. The Flint River water was known to be corrosive, and when it travelled untreated through old pipes, lead leached into the water. This leaching caused the drinking and bathing water for residents of Flint, Michigan to become lead-contaminated.
The plaintiffs pled a violation of their 14th Amendment Due Process right to bodily integrity. The defendants asserted a qualified immunity defense, which was denied by the District Court. The Sixth Circuit took up the appeal to decide if officials should be granted qualified immunity and protected from liability. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit took up an appeal from the City of Flint seeking sovereign immunity as an arm-of-the-state of Michigan due to Michigan’s emergency takeover of city services.
Sixth Circuit Finds No Qualified Immunity with Known Risk to Bodily Integrity
Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit. For qualified immunity to apply, an individual must be acting in their capacity as a public official and must have made a reasonable, but mistaken, judgment about an open legal question.
The plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. To do so, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.
The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause restricts government action by preventing abuses of government power. The plaintiffs in Guertin allege a violation of their right to bodily integrity, which allows individuals “to be free from forcible intrusions on their bodies against their will, absent a compelling state interest.” The right to bodily integrity also includes the right to be free from “arbitrary and capricious government action that ‘shocks the conscience’ and violates the decencies of civilized conduct.”
While there is no fundamental right to water service or to live in a contaminant-free environment, the Sixth Circuit found that the defendants did not provide notice to Flint residents about the lead-laced water and encouraged residents to continue drinking water despite knowledge about the corrosive nature. The Court held that defendants knew that water treatment was necessary. However, the water treatment plant was not ready when the defendants decided to switch the water supply for Flint. Additionally, the defendants knew the water distribution system was corroded, but announced that the water was safe to drink. In light of these actions, the Court concluded that “knowingly and intentionally introducing life-threatening substances into an individual without their consent” violates the right to bodily integrity.
Judge Griffin, writing for the majority, found that the lead-contamination was a predictable harm directly affecting plaintiffs' bodily integrity. However, these decisions did not arise out of a time-is-of-the-essence necessity, thus city officials were able to think through their decision making. Moreover, Flint is legally required to supply its residents with water and the residents are legally required to take and pay for the water. Defendants assured citizens of the water's potability, leading Flint residents to drink lead-contaminated water.
Lastly, the Court highlighted that there was no legitimate government purpose for deciding to switch Flint's water source. Judge Griffin found that the decision to switch water sources was purely economic and that the defendants’ actions rose to the level of “deliberate indifference”. The Court found that these combined facts “shocked the conscience” and are “a classic example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.”
No Sovereign Immunity for Local Government Entities
The Sixth Circuit also upheld the District Court’s denial of the City of Flint’s sovereign immunity claims. The 11th Amendment precludes suit against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that sovereign immunity does not extend to counties and similar municipal corporations.
Flint noted that it was so financially distressed at the time of its decision to change water sources that the State of Michigan had taken over day-to-day government operations through emergency provisions. Flint contends that this made the city an arm of the state and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity.
The Court held that the City of Flint, however, did not meet its burden to show that it qualified as an arm of the state. The City of Flint is not a state. The Court noted that the City of Flint enjoyed significant autonomy over its local government functions, even with the state emergency manager present. Additionally, Judge Griffin observed that although the State of Michigan regulates water quality, Flint maintained control over its water service. Finally, local elected officials remained in place and local government functions still took place. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit found the City of Flint did not meet the standard to qualify as an arm of the state and is not entitled to sovereign immunity.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/sixth-circuit-halts-qualified-immunity-claims-bodily-integrity-flint-residents
-
CDC's PFAs Exposure Study Looks at Military Bases across US
Mar 8, 2019 | Water World
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention selected eight communities for a study of PFAS exposure from military bases.
While not a health study, the goal of the assessment is "to provide information to communities about levels of PFAS in their bodies," according to the CDC.
Information gathered will also be used to help inform future studies evaluating the impact of PFAS exposure on human health, the CDC said.
People in each of these communities will be randomly selected to participate in these exposure assessments:
-Berkeley County, West Virginia (Shepherd Field Air National Guard Base)
-El Paso County, Colorado (Peterson Air Force Base)
-Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska (Eielson Air Force Base)
-Hampden County, Massachusetts (Barnes Air National Guard Base)
-Lubbock County, Texas (Reese Technology Center)
-Orange County, New York (Stewart Air National Guard Base)
-New Castle County, Delaware (New Castle Air National Guard Base)
-Spokane County, Washington (Fairchild Air Force Base)
Funding for the $10 million study came from a Defense Department spending bill last year.
The exposure assessments, which will begin this year and continue through 2020, are the first step in a two-part evaluation. The next phase will look for connections between exposure to PFAS and health problems.
https://www.waterworld.com/articles/2019/02/cdc-s-pfas-exposure-study-looks-at-military-bases-across-us.html
-
EU Court Halts Authorization for Two Lead Substances (1)
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
It could become harder for companies to obtain authorizations to continue using prohibited chemicals in the European Union after the bloc’s General Court annulled an authorization granted to Canadian company Dominion Colour Corp.
The General Court, the EU’s lower court, said in a March 7 ruling that an authorization granted to Dominion under the EU’s REACH chemicals law to continue to use two lead substances was unlawful because safer alternatives to the substances are available.
Environmental groups applauded the ruling and said it could have broader implications for continued-use authorizations for hazardous substances under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals).
The judgment could lead to better scientific underpinning of such decisions as the court is forcing the the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, “to avoid rubber-stamping what expert committees or agencies conclude, in the context of regulatory decision-making procedures,” said Peter Kugel, an environmental law specialist at VVGB Law in Brussels.
The ruling also means that companies might have to do more to prove that alternatives to hazardous substances aren’t available, and would put more pressure on the commission to check the recommendations it receives on authorizations from the European Chemicals Agency, watchdog group ChemSec said in a March 8 statement.
“This ruling is especially important as it shows that the commission has been handing out wrongful authorisations. We now hope that this will set a new precedent for how REACH authorisations should be handled,” said ChemSec Senior Policy Adviser Frida Hok.
Dominion Colour didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment phone calls and emails seeking comment.
Alternatives Overlooked
The commission granted the authorization to Dominion in 2016, covering a number of uses of two cancer-causing substances that are banned under REACH: lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate.
The authorization gave Dominion permission to use the substances to produce custom paints for road markings and traffic signs, among other things.
Authorizations for banned substances can be granted under REACH, providing companies show that there are no alternatives and the substances can be safely handled.
The Swedish government took the European Commission to court over the authorization, saying the commission erred in accepting the claim that alternatives weren’t available.
“In this case, it is obvious that there are alternatives because lead chromates have been almost completely phased out in the EU. In Sweden, lead chromates have not been used for 30 years,” Sweden’s environment ministry said in a March 7 statement welcoming the court ruling.
“This authorization was a farce and exposes just how permissive the EU is to conservative business interests at the expense of our health and environment,” said Elise Vitali, chemicals project officer at the European Environmental Bureau.
Immediate Annulment
The court annulled the authorization granted to Dominion with immediate effect.
This will likely have “serious negative consequences” for Dominion, but because the authorization was granted illegally, and because of the potential effects of the lead substances on human health, no transition period could be granted, the court ruling said.
The judgment is relevant for commission decisions “that are taken on the basis of complex and lengthy regulatory procedures and that involve scientific complexity, in areas like chemicals, biocides, plant protection products, food, or other highly regulated industries,” VVGB Law’s Kugel said.
The ruling also will likely have consequences for the European Chemicals Agency, because authorization requests are examined by the agency’s scientific committees, which then issue opinions to the European Commission, which bases its authorization decisions on those opinions.
The court ruling said ECHA’s Socio-Economic Analysis Committee‘s assessment of alternatives to the two lead substances wasn’t convincing and relied too much on information that Dominion provided.
“We are analysing the judgment in detail. The possible implications will be discussed by ECHA’s management in due time,” the chemicals agency said in a March 8 statement to Bloomberg Environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-court-halts-authorization-for-two-lead-substances-1
-
EU Court Rules Commission Authorisation of Lead Chromates Was Illegal
Mar 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The EU General Court has ruled that a European Commission decision to allow a company to sell pigments for paints containing lead chromates in the EU was illegal.
In 2016 the EU executive granted a REACH authorisation application for Canadian company Dominion Colour Corporation (DCC) for six uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red in the trade bloc. These cover a wide range of applications including industrial coatings, plastics and road markings.
Lead is a neurotoxin that can harm the nervous system and chromium VI is a carcinogen.
The 7 March ruling means that, effective immediately, DCC can no longer sell these pigments on the EU market. The Court dismissed the Commission's request for the effects of its authorisation decision to be maintained until it can conduct a review and ordered it to pay its own costs and those incurred by Sweden, which brought the case.
In 2017 the country argued that "it was known to the Commission that the use of lead chromates had been almost entirely phased out in several member states and that plenty of alternatives to lead chromates are available".
The Commission subsequently dismissed the challenge, only to face a second one by four NGOs, which said the EU executive had "clear evidence" showing the availability of alternatives but still granted the authorisation.Reaction
The Swedish environment ministry said in this case, it is "obvious" that there are alternatives because lead chromates have been "almost completely phased out" in the EU and they have not been used for 30 years in Sweden.
"The judgment strengthens the principle that particularly hazardous substances should be phased out when there are suitable alternatives. It is of great importance for future licensing decisions in the area of chemicals."
Lawyer Alice Bernard from NGO ClientEarth said the ruling sends a clear message to the Commission and its supportive national governments that they "must stop trying to bend chemical law to protect industry laggards" and instead put human and environmental health first.
It served as a reminder, she added, that according to the law the burden to prove suitable alternatives are not available lies with the company applying for authorisation.
"Awarding this authorisation on the condition that the company provided the necessary evidence at a later date was not only too lax but illegal," Ms Bernard said.
It is also a victory for the companies whose investment in safer solutions decades ago was "effectively disadvantaged" by the Commission’s authorisation.
Elise Vitali, chemicals policy officer for the European Environmental Bureau, said this authorisation was a "farce and exposes just how permissive the EU is to conservative business interests" at the expense of health and environment. "With elections on the horizon and populism on the rise, EU chemical controls are badly in need of a fresh lick of paint."
The case brought by these two NGOs, as well as Chemsec and the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen), against the Commission for refusing to review the same authorisation is still pending.
The REACH authorisation process has been under the spotlight recently. The report on the second REACH Review from 2018 highlighted authorisation as an area requiring urgent action.
Last month, based on a Commission recommendation, EU member states for the first time voted not to grant an application for authorisation for a specific use of a substance of very high concern (SVHC).
Dominion Colour Corporation did not respond to CW's request for comment in time for publication.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74898/eu-court-rules-commission-authorisation-of-lead-chromates-was-illegal
-
As Politics Shift, Colorado Energy Sector Faces Emboldened Opposition
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Colorado’s new Democratic-controlled legislature is advancing a sweeping bill that would restrict oil and gas development by affirming public health as the state’s top priority instead of energy production, while the sector faces twin pressures in the form of planned environmentalist lawsuits arguing state drilling permits are too weak.
The dynamic underscores the shifting politics in Colorado -- a major gas-producing state that has been relatively moderate but is moving more to the left -- while advocates in other states are struggling to curtail oil and gas production over climate change and air quality concerns.
After the November midterms, Democrats emerged with large majorities in both legislative chambers, after four years of divided control.
Also, newly inaugurated Gov. Jared Polis (D), who favors aggressive renewable energy targets, is seen as much more skeptical of the oil and gas industry than former Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), a former engineer in the sector who recently launched a bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
Now, Democrats are advancing legislation that would elevate health and environmental protections over energy development, which current state law says is a bigger priority. SB 181, which also allows cities to impose significant siting restrictions on new drilling projects, cleared a key state Senate committee on a party-line vote March 5, over strong objections by the oil and gas industry.
Meanwhile, the environmental group WildEarth Guardians is preparing citizen lawsuits targeting what it says is lax Clean Air Act permitting for oil and gas drilling under the Hickenlooper administration.
Last month, the group filed notices of intent (NOI) to sue seven oil and gas companies, alleging they are violating the Clean Air Act at 15 facilities by “drilling and fracking oil and gas wells before obtaining legally required air pollution permits.”
Environmentalists in other major oil and gas states, including Virginia and Texas, have long pushed their own state governments to regulate the industry more closely, without much success.
A key aspect of the Colorado bill is that it would enhance local governments’ ability to protect public health, safety and the environment by broadening their authority over oil and gas development, which is now largely regulated by the state.
For example, it would remove a restriction on local governments’ land use authority over oil and gas extraction areas. Currently, cities and counties can only exercise such authority if the area has been identified as a special designation area by the state oil and gas commission.
The bill also directs state air regulators to adopt rules requiring operators to install continuous emissions monitoring equipment for the potent greenhouse gas methane, as well as for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants. It also requires methane and other hydrocarbons be minimized “from the entire oil and gas fuel cycle.”
The bill further clarifies that local governments have authority to restrict the siting of oil and gas locations and to inspect and fine operations.
‘Threatening’ Jobs
Industry is sharply criticizing the measure. For instance, the Colorado Petroleum Council argues the bill would “at the very least hinder, if not prohibit energy development in Colorado, directly threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of state revenue, and hundreds of millions in education funding.”
The group criticizes the Democratic lawmakers for being “intent on pushing this misinformed bill forward, despite it being fraught with unintended consequences” that would halt all permitting until every rulemaking outlined in the bill is in effect. It says Democratic leadership is accelerating the process with “little regard for those impacted by their bad policy.”
The bill “all but guarantees that industry will be forbidden from operating in certain jurisdictions,” the statement adds, and calls for its progress to be slowed.
The council also notes that Colorado voters in the November midterms rejected a ballot measure, Proposition 112, which would have imposed strict setback requirements on new drilling near homes and schools. The plan was opposed by then-candidate Polis.
The Associated Press in a March 5 report noted that the bill has prompted sharp divides in the state, with supporters calling it a flexible and common-sense approach while opponents warn it could lead to a virtual ban on drilling.
One high-profile Democrat -- former Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO), who also served as the Obama administration’s first Interior secretary -- came out against the proposal in a March 6 Denver Post op-ed. Salazar is now a partner with WilmerHale, representing oil and gas firms.
Legal Risks
At the same time, Colorado’s oil and gas industry is facing renewed litigation risks. WildEarth Guardians’ Feb. 19 NOIs allege that several companies operating in the Front Range area near Denver -- which is out of attainment with ozone standards -- have “knowingly violated the Clean Air Act” and continue “to enjoy enormous economic benefits due to ongoing violations.”
The group alleges that the state allows the companies to begin operations and then issues a non-enforceable “synthetic minor source” permit that does not go through a public review process. It also charges that the permits are issued months -- or in some cases years -- after production begins.
For example, WildEarth says one of the companies, Bonanza Creek, submitted an after-the-fact application for a permit that anticipates producing up to nearly 1 million barrels of oil per day. With prices at nearly $50 per barrel, the company could make more than $46 million this year “because of its ongoing violation,” the NOI says.
The NOI demands that Bonanza cease production, apply for a nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit, comply with air toxics limits and pay penalties.
The notice adds that the fact that Bonanza has since submitted permit applications “does not shield the company from enforcement under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, to the extent the Colorado [Air Pollution Control Division] may have negotiated some kind of agreement not to enforce, this does not preempt the ability of WildEarth Guardians to file suit. Under the Clean Air At, there is no bar to citizens filing suit over a company’s failure to obtain legally required nonattainment [NSR] permits.”
The group says in a statement that if its planned lawsuits are successful, the companies face more than $1.3 billion in penalties, based on air law fines of up to $99,681 per violation per day.
“The oil and gas industry is willfully violating our clean air laws at a massive scale along Colorado’s Front Range,” said Jeremy Nichols, the group’s climate and energy director. “With our health at risk, we can’t afford to let fracking companies keep trouncing our clean air.”
The group alleges that the companies typically construct wells and begin production before applying for clean air permits, and that the state’s air regulators “appear to have condoned this illegal practice.”
In addition to Bonanza Creek, NOIs were sent to Noble Energy, Extraction Oil and Gas, Crestone Resources, Great Western Operating, Mallard Exploration and PDC Energy, all of which are major producers in the area.
WildEarth says all 15 facilities are still operating without legally required NSR permits -- what Nichols calls “a brazen violation of federal law.”
He adds that the violations are believed to be widespread, and that what the group discovered at the seven companies is “just the tip of the iceberg.”
In an interview with Inside EPA, Nichols explains that Colorado routinely allows the companies to begin operations and emit VOCs, an ozone precursor, at hundreds of tons per year (tpy) -- in some cases more than 1,000 tpy -- even though NSR limits emissions to less than 100 tpy.
Front Range industry should have to undergo stringent NSR permit requirements because of the health risks from high ozone levels, which Nichols argues are exacerbated by emissions from drilling in the populated area.
When the state does issue permits after the fact, it generally issues “synthetic minor source” permits that allow the facilities to avoid NSR requirements or any federal limits even though their potential to emit “is huge.”
Nichols says it is unclear why the state is condoning this because it is inconsistent with its ozone compliance plan. “The state has gotten in the habit of accommodating industry,” Nichols says.
He stresses that SB 181 and the NOIs are not related or coordinated, but they do address “some of the same issues involved -- industry being held accountable, heightened scrutiny on air emissions, etc.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/politics-shift-colorado-energy-sector-faces-emboldened-opposition
-
Bill Looks to Bolster Manufacturing Efficiency
Mar 8, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan proposal this week to promote energy efficiency in manufacturing.
The bill, from Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), comes as policymakers are increasingly circling energy efficiency gains as a consensus way to combat climate change.
Vermont Democratic Rep. Peter Welch and New York Republican Tom Reed introduced a House companion.
Bill backers estimated the bill's provisions could provide $5 billion in energy costs savings and a reduction of carbon emissions that would equal taking 116 million cars off the road.
The legislation would give the Department of Energy three years to form a national strategy to deploy more "smart manufacturing" technologies across the country.
The strategy would help identify manufacturing plants that could prove more efficiency with new technologies that combine real-time productivity and energy use decisions as way to drive down energy use.
"High-tech manufacturing and innovation is the most dynamic sector of New Hampshire's economy, and smart technology programs represent the latest innovations needed for manufacturers to streamline and improve work-flow," Shaheen said in a statement.
The bill would authorize $40 million in state grants over the next four fiscal years to help small and medium-sized manufacturers adopt smart manufacturing technologies. The financing program would come with a state matching requirement.
DOE would also have responsibilities to expand access to the national laboratories for small and medium- sized manufacturers to provide technical assistance in adopting the technologies.
"Our state has worked to develop new and innovative ways to manufacture goods, and this legislation will help create even more new job opportunities while saving energy and improving competitiveness," Alexander said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/08/stories/1060123557
-
One of Largest U.S. Gas Pipes May Get Bigger Amid Shale Boom
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
Williams Cos. is proposing an expansion of its existing pipeline system to bring natural gas capacity to the U.S. Northeast, where companies have struggled to move forward with new conduits amid regulatory hurdles and landowner opposition.
The company is seeking interest from gas producers and other potential customers for a project it’s calling the Regional Energy Access Expansion, which would add more than 1 billion cubic feet a day of capacity on its massive Transcontinental gas pipeline.
The expansion would help connect booming gas supply from the Marcellus, the country’s biggest shale gas play, to markets in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where residents see occasional price spikes when temperatures drop in the winter.
The project would maximize use of Transco’s existing rights of way, according to a statement March 8, and is currently designed to include additional compression and about 34 miles of pipeline looping. It would still need to get approval from regulators.
“Using existing rights of way might be the only way to expand capacity out of Appalachia these days,” Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Brandon Barnes said in an email.
Delayed Projects
Dominion Energy Inc.’s Atlantic Coast and EQM Midstream Partners LP’s Mountain Valley gas pipelines have seen costs balloon and timelines pushed back as their sponsors continue to fight court battles even after construction had started. Others, including Williams’ Constitution gas pipeline, have yet to get a final sign-off from regulators.
Constitution is now being reviewed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission again after the agency said it needed to have another look at a decision by New York regulators to deny the project a key water permit. The pipeline was originally supposed to be built by December 2016 but has been granted extensions until December 2020.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/one-of-largest-u-s-gas-pipes-may-get-bigger-amid-shale-boom
-
Big Oil Is Settling into the Permian, so Where Will the Wildcatters Go Next?
Mar 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
Move over little dog cause the big dog’s movin’ in.
ExxonMobil and Chevron have announced plans to more than double oil production from the Permian Basin, confirming the maturity of shale drilling technology and ending the latest era of wildcatting. The transition is a time to profit and a time to reconsider what’s next for an industry reliant on stubborn geniuses to revitalize it.
If Exxon and Chevron keep the pledges they made last week, each will pump 1 million barrels a day from West Texas and Eastern New Mexico. The entire Permian Basin’s liquids production was less than 1 million barrels a day in 2010.
Wildcatters made the difference. These small oil exploration and production companies took the hydraulic fracturing technology that George Mitchell pioneered to release natural gas from the Barnett Shale and applied it to the oil-rich shale rock underlying the Permian Basin.
By economic necessity, these innovative entrepreneurs refined horizontal drilling and fracking to obtain the maximum amount of oil for the least amount of money. The shale revolutionaries showed the major and supermajor oil companies what was possible in a basin that the big dogs had mostly abandoned.
But as with every revolution, once it takes hold, business people push aside the rebel leaders.
“Now that the code has been cracked and the industry understands how best to develop the Permian, the way to do it is to have a whole lot of capital at low cost,” said Dave Asmus, a co-leader of the energy practice at the law firm Sidley Austin. “And who has that more than the majors and very large independents?”
For Exxon and Chevron to meet their goals, they will need to expand at break-neck speed. Chevron is pumping 350,000 barrels a day and plans to hit 900,000 by 2023. Exxon is starting at less than 300,000 barrels and plans to pump 1 million barrels by 2024. Royal Dutch Shell has doubled Permian production to 145,000 barrels in just two years and also plans more.
All three corporations have been on a buying spree to add acreage and expand drilling. Many of the additional acres were purchased outright; many came from mergers and acquisitions.
Smaller oil companies find it difficult to compete when oil prices drop, drilling costs rise and the cost of obtaining capital becomes prohibitive. Wall Street investors are turning their back on risky wildcatters who typically move into speculative plays with unproven technology.
These days energy investors want a sure thing, which is putting pressure on companies in the Permian to rationalize and consolidate, Asmus said. He’s expecting extra work negotiating mergers and acquisitions.
“You have companies who have been long-time players in the business playing a larger role in the M&A market,” he added. “They’ve taken the backseat over the last few years to private equity and other players, but I think with a relatively stable price environment, they are happy to do deals that enhance their portfolios. You are going to see more of the majors and the large independents doing deals.”
Smart wildcatters will take a good deal and stick with their strategic advantages: nimbleness and willingness to experiment. Tell a wildcatter that a basin is out of oil, or it's too expensive to extract, and they will figure out a better way.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Big-Oil-is-settling-into-the-Permian-so-where-13670505.php
-
Trump Budget Said to Again Propose End of Chemical Safety Board
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Trump administration’s budget proposal will again call for eliminating the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an independent federal agency that investigates major industrial accidents, according to a person familiar with the plan.
The board, with an annual budget of just $12 million, was informed by the White House Office of Management and Budget of the plans, according to the person, a senior government official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the budget proposal before its release next week.
Calls to kill the agency have been previously ignored by Congress and likely will be again. The board’s budget was increased by $1 million as part of a spending bill signed into law by Trump last month.
The request marks the third time President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating the independent board, which is charged with finding the causes of industrial disasters and recommending ways to prevent them.
Among the incidents it has investigated is BP Plc’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blowout in 2010 and a chemical spill that tainted drinking water for hundreds of thousands of West Virginians in 2014.
“It’s a remarkably stupid move,” said Mike Wright, the United Steelworkers’ director of health, safety and environment. “In my opinion they are one of the best bargains in Washington.”
Representatives of the Chemical Safety Board and the White House Office of Management and Budget did not a return a request for comment.
In its last budget request the administration said the safety board’s work duplicated that of other agencies and that its previous focus on greater regulation had “frustrated both regulators and industry.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-budget-said-to-again-propose-end-of-chemical-safety-board
-
(ACC Mentioned) Vending Machine Can Help Save the Environment
Mar 8, 2019 | KOAM News Now
In the battle against plastic pollution, Henry Pino has devised a weapon. He calls it the Ecopod, or as he likes to describe it: A vending machine with an environmental conscience.
The Ecopod dispenses biodegradable cleaning products — laundry detergent, fabric softener, all-purpose cleaner, dishwashing gel and dish soap — into refillable containers.
Pino is hoping the refills, which he says cost about 50% less than what consumers pay for a new bottle of cleaner or detergent, will help cut down on single-use plastic bottles, which are polluting oceans and piling up in landfills.
In the United States alone, 9.5 billion pounds of plastic bottles were discarded in 2017, and only 30% of those bottles were recycled, according to The Association of Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council. While the vast majority are beverage bottles, there was still 1.8 billion pounds of plastic containers for products like detergent, cleaning products and shampoos.
Creating a 'circular economy'
EcoPod is built upon the circular economy model, which aims to reduce waste by prolonging the use of items like plastic containers by finding ways to refill or reuse them.
"I've always been in love with the beautiful marine environment that surrounds my home city of Miami," said Pino, 55. "With the circular economy [model], our goal is to help facilitate a more sustainable retail model that protects the health of our planet."
Susan Collins, president of California-based nonprofit Container Recycling Institute, thinks Ecopod has potential. "I already refill my shampoo bottle at my local convenience store," she said.
The idea has been gaining momentum among big consumer products makers as well.
At the World Economic Forum in January, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Nestlé, PepsiCo and other big global brands announced that they are teaming up on an effort called Loop, which will offer about 300 common household items — from Tide detergent to Häagen-Dazs ice cream — in reusable packaging, with refills delivered direct to consumers' doorsteps.
A chance to do things differently
More than two decades ago, Pino owned another detergent company called Environmental Control Group. That business, which he launched in 1993, produced commercial strength detergent and supplied it to hotels, hospitals, dormitories, restaurants and area jails.
"We had a fleet of trucks, similar to a fuel truck and we would pump and refill the detergent into our clients' laundry machines," he said.
The Miami-based business grew quickly, adding more than 1,000 clients. In 2001, Pino decided to sell the company for about $800,000 and go into real estate instead.
But when the recession hit, his real estate business suffered.
"I couldn't get loans. So I thought about what else I could do," he said. "I knew how to make detergent."
But with this business, Pino decided to focus on the environment.
"This time, I was more aware of the impact of plastic pollution and the environmental consequences of synthetic ingredients," said Pino. "I wanted to do my part to shift the industry to refill using eco-friendly ingredients."
In 2010, Pino launched Environmental Solutions Group to create the Ecopod and the biodegradable detergent and cleaning products that would be sold through the machine. He backed the venture with $1.2 million of his own money and hired engineers to design a scaled down detergent production system similar to the one he used at his old business.
"I condensed it into a small machine built to service the domestic market," he said.
It took him about two years to create a prototype. He filed for a patent in 2015 and was granted one a year later. Production began in September 2017.
Not just about generating income
Pino started installing the machines, which cost about $4,000 each to make, about 10 months ago.
So far, Ecopods are available in five Miami apartment buildings that Pino has had a hand in developing, and at the Dadeland North Shopping Center. In January, the company opened its first retail location, where people can buy an Ecopod starter kit for $20 and get refills.
Currently, the company loans the vending machines out to its clients for free. The businesses then receive a percentage of the profits from the refills.
Tenants in apartment buildings where the Ecopod is installed get a free starter kit that includes a one-gallon container of laundry detergent and three 32-ounce containers of dishwashing liquid, degreaser and all-purpose cleaner. Refills cost $5 for 64-ounces, or $3 for 32-ounces.
Maurice Bared, CEO and owner of a chain of Miami-based convenience stores called Farm Stores, agreed to install 10 Ecopod vending machines in his stores later this month.
"Each of our stores are tiny drive-thru concepts of about 645 square feet," said Bared. "Detergent bottles take up a lot of shelf space. With Ecopod, we eliminate that issue because we can place the machine either outside or at our entrance."
He thinks budget-conscious shoppers will gravitate toward Ecopod's lower prices. If customers like it, Bared is open to adding more machines as Farm Stores looks to expand to locations in the Northeast.
Pino said he's also in talks to partner with a large Fortune 500 consumer products company. He declined to disclose the name, however, citing a confidentiality agreement.
"For me, this isn't about generating an income," said Pino. "I want to grow Ecopod faster because of my love for marine life and my concern for the environment that we were leaving for our children."
https://www.koamnewsnow.com/news/national-news/vending-machine-can-help-save-the-environment/1053962639
-
The Energy 202: Lawmakers Turn up Heat in Global Warming Debate on Senate Floor
Mar 8, 2019 | Washington Journal
By Dino Grandoni
Temperatures aren't just rising outside. They were also going up this week in the Senate as lawmakers from both parties squabbled over the Green New Deal.
In reality, that nonbinding resolution — it's not an actual bill — calls for the United States to drive down climate-warming emissions over the next decade while addressing economic inequality.
But in practice, the proposal has become a Rorschach test for lawmakers. And a number of them have spoken at length on the Senate floor over the past few days to trade barbs when describing what they see in it.
For Democrats, especially those running for president, it's a way of differentiating themselves from the GOP and demonstrating their seriousness in addressing what many young voters — a key Democratic demographic — see as the most important problem facing the country and world.
“Where is the Republican plan? What is their answer? Of course, they don't have one,” said Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the chief Senate sponsor of the measure.
For Republicans, it's a chance to paint their opponents as socialists trying to take away their hamburgers and ice cream all in the name of climate action.
“This is a massive shift,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said. “A shift to the left that goes far beyond anything that Democrats have proposed before.”
President Trump sees a political opportunity in talking about the Green New Deal. “I think it’s really something that they should promote,” he joked Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland.
The only thing that Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on is that the Green New Deal is a good way of rallying their respective bases.
On the Senate floor, Republicans are accusing its supporters of trying to entirely eliminate certain sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as cattle agriculture and air travel.
But the resolution itself mentions neither planes nor meat patties. Instead Republicans have latched onto a fact sheet accidentally published on the website of the main House sponsor, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), that contained a line about getting rid of “farting cows and airplanes.”
“To put it mildly, the Green New Deal is ambitious,” Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “To frame it more accurately, it is an unworkable pie-in-the-sky attempt to reshape every aspect of everyday Americans’ lives.”
Grassley added the resolution was “eerily reminiscent of the five-year plans of the former Soviet Union or the 'Great Leap Forward' under Chairman Mao of China.”
The elevated rhetoric from Republicans even had some Democrats who have not endorsed the Green New Deal perplexed.
“I just have to say that it’s pretty silly if it wasn’t so serious how the Republican majority and the Republican majority leader is mocking what is probably the most serious issue of our time,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said in her own floor speech that same day.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has told reporters he wants to hold a vote on the Green New Deal resolution in the “next couple of weeks.” His hope is to put Democrats on record on the plan he views as political toxic.
The Senate's top Democrat, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), responded with the party's own set of resolutions, both to create a Senate committee on climate change and defund what Democrats deemed a "fake climate panel" being set up at the White House to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/03/08/the-energy-202-lawmakers-turn-up-heat-in-global-warming-debate-on-senate-floor/5c818bcd1b326b2d177d6020/?utm_term=.a385adaefa58
-
Republicans Seize on Tenuous Price Tag to Attack Green New Deal
Mar 8, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
A shockingly high cost estimate largely plucked from thin air has become a prominent talking point for Republicans denouncing the Green New Deal — allowing them to attack progressives’ sweeping-but-vague vision statement without explaining what the GOP wants to do about climate change.
The number — $93 trillion, or more than four times the size of the U.S. economy — is essentially vapor: It originated with a report from the conservative think tank American Action Forum but does not appear anywhere in the report itself. And AAF President Douglas Holtz-Eakin confessed he has no idea how much exactly the Green New Deal would cost to implement.
“Is it billions or trillions?” asked Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “Any precision past that is illusory."
The Green New Deal isn’t even a plan yet — at the moment it’s a 14-page non-binding resolution that calls for sweeping action to stop greenhouse gas pollution while reducing income inequality and creating "millions of good, high-wage jobs."
That isn’t stopping top Republicans from repeatedly citing the $93 trillion number to argue the climate plan would bankrupt the United States. The eye-popping figure has found its way to the Senate floor, the Conservative Political Action Conference and even “Saturday Night Live.”
To come up with the total, Republicans added together the cost estimates that the report's authors placed on various aspects of a Green New Deal platform. Most of those were based on sweeping assumptions about universal healthcare and jobs programs rather than the costs of transitioning to carbon-free electricity and transportation.
“There’s a race for think-tankers, analysts and academia to be the first to come up with a number, and you can see why — look at how many people latched onto that $93 trillion number,” said Nick Loris, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “A lot of times you just see the number and you don’t get a lot of the backstory behind the number.”
Holtz-Eakin told POLITICO that he was interested only in “ballparks,” adding that the study is best viewed as “a sincere but a heroic estimate of a not very well-specified proposal.” When asked whether he had a problem with the way Republicans had characterized his study and the $93 trillion figure, Holtz-Eakin said, "We did try to play it straight here. We never added it up."
Green New Deal supporters acknowledge their preferred polices won't be free, but they say Republicans are acting in bad faith by trying to paint the resolution with a specific brush so early and refusing to acknowledge that unchecked climate change poses its own economic risks. For instance, a United Nations report last fall estimated a global price tag of as much as $69 trillion from even a modest rise in global temperatures.
“We all knew this vacuum was here, but you can’t put a price on it until you have a piece of legislation that you can score,” said Greg Carlock, Green New Deal research director with progressive think tank Data for Progress. He said the AAF study “was an attempt to fill that vacuum, but it does it in a mean-spirited way.”
Yet the figure is already a fixture of GOP talking points about the Green New Deal — echoing attacks the party has made on environmental regulations going back decades.
“That’s always been the crux of the Republican argument against making all these changes," said Rory Cooper, a Republican strategist and managing director at Purple Strategies, a bipartisan consulting firm. "It’s significant lifestyle changes in exchange for an undefined benefit.”
The GOP’s eagerness to wield the price estimate underscores the prominence that climate change has achieved in Washington for the first time in nearly a decade. When they set out to put a price tag on the Green New Deal last month, Holtz-Eakin and his associates had no real policy or plan to evaluate, so they made one up to perform back-of-the-envelope calculations. AAF's analysis extrapolated from the various ideas laid out in the non-binding resolution — S. Res. 59 (116), from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — such as switching the electric grid entirely off fossil fuels, providing jobs and health care for everyone and other concepts.
Democrats dismiss the AAF study as a fabrication. And on Wednesday, as Republican senators railed on the floor about the $93 trillion estimate and the dangers of socialism, several Democrats interrupted them to demand that the GOP acknowledge the reality of climate change.
"That is a completely made up number by the Koch brothers," Markey, who also co-sponsored the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, said on the Senate floor this week.
Markey interrupted a speech by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who is expected to be among Democrats' top targets in next year's elections.
"I don't care if it is $93 trillion, $43 trillion or $10 trillion — it is unsustainable," Tillis shot back. "We can sit here and question the sources, but at the end of the day, we all know that this was theater."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also kept pushing the talking point, noting that $93 trillion is “more than the combined annual GDP of every nation on Earth” — as well as more than enough to “buy every American a Ferrari.”
The figure has been a fixture of GOP messaging since AAF released its report on Feb. 25.
Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) wielded the $93 trillion figure last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) took to a USA Today op-ed with the price estimate. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) proudly displayed it on a poster from the Senate floor. It worked its way into an online skit from “Saturday Night Live” that parodied Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) interaction with a group of young climate activists.
The number is so large as to be nearly incomprehensible, but it dwarfs other massive endeavors such as building the Interstate Highway System, which cost $241 billion in today's dollars, for example. And the AAF study does not distinguish between government and private-sector spending, nor does it attempt to quantify the benefits of reducing pollution or other policies. For example, Stanford University's Mark Jacobson estimated eliminating electricity sector carbon emissions would avoid $265 billion in annual U.S. damages beginning in 2050.
“A central challenge to climate policy-making is there are costs right away and the benefits emerge over time,” said Michael Greenstone, an economist and director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. “But just because the benefits happen over time doesn’t mean it’s not real.”
In fact, $80.6 trillion of the costs in AAF’s study come from a jobs guarantee and universal healthcare. The Green New Deal resolution calls for "guaranteeing a job" and providing "high-quality health care" to everyone, but it is primarily focused on outlining a set of goals to get the U.S. economy to net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century. While liberal activists say economic justice must be a part of any eventual policy based on the resolution, most see the Green New Deal itself as a vehicle for an energy transition and industrial economic policy, rather than something more sweeping, like "Medicare for All."
“Given that the [Green New Deal] is at this point simply a set of long-term goals, without any specification of how those goals would be achieved, any estimate of cost is itself likely to be exceptionally speculative,” Robert Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard University, said in an email.
Many studies that warn of dire economic effects overstate the potential harm, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts review of environmental policies.
Nevertheless, having a specific figure to cite can define the contours of policy conversation, said Margo Thorning, a senior economic policy adviser with the American Council for Capital Formation. Thorning was a frequent Capitol Hill witness when Congress debated cap-and-trade legislation in the early years of the Obama administration. She was coveted partly because her organization published an influential study that used U.S. Energy Information Administration statistics to show the policy would curb economic growth $3.1 trillion between 2012 and 2030.
Similarly, a National Association of Manufacturers-backed study on the potential effects of tightening standards for ozone would cost $1.1 trillion and surrender $1.7 trillion in economic growth between 2017 and 2040.
“I think it helped shape the debate because if people realized we were going to be losing two to three percent of GDP or more and other countries weren’t, we were going to be losing a lot,” Thorning said of her organization’s study on cap-and-trade.
Climate hawks say Republicans dismissing the Green New Deal as unaffordable are ignoring the cost of doing nothing, such as property damage from extreme weather, public health effects from continued fossil fuel pollution and the like. The AAF study makes no attempt to address potential benefits of avoiding those consequences.
“Not talking about the cost of inaction is incredibly misleading,” said Rhiana Gunn-Wright, policy director with New Consensus, one of the groups working on the Green New Deal. “It's about how, when and where you want to spend your money, because you're going to spend it.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in October the global cost of temperatures rising 1.5 degrees Celsius — the target the Green New Deal aims to avoid — is $54 trillion in 2100. That would rise to $69 trillion in a 2-degree scenario. Those targets also served as the basis of the Paris Climate agreement, which Trump has announced plans to abandon.
Global temperatures are on track to rise by at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to projections from the Trump administration. That would lead to even greater economic devastation — for example, damaging $3.6 trillion of coastal property by 2100 without measures to adapt to climate change, according to the National Climate Assessment published last November.
Some GOP strategists see a long-term risk in a dismissive approach to climate policy.
“With the Green New Deal, Republicans are excited to talk about climate change for the first time because we can point out how silly Democrats are being,” said Alex Conant, a GOP strategist and partner at Firehouse Strategies. “It’s likely not a long-term position. Ultimately Republicans, if we want to be taken seriously on climate change, we will have to offer conservative solutions to it.”
At least one Republican has kept her criticism of the Green New Deal more muted: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose home state is warming more quickly than the rest of the country. Chairing an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on climate this week, Murkowski pointed to dwindling fisheries and melting permafrost, which her constituents are already dealing with. She has never publicly cited the American Action Forum study.
"This has got to be a priority for all of us," she said of confronting climate change. "It is directly impacting our way of life."
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/03/republicans-seize-on-tenuous-price-tag-to-attack-green-new-deal-1250859
-
Latest Battle for Climate Change: Lesson Plans
Mar 8, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Michael Melia
A Connecticut lawmaker wants to strike climate change from state science standards. A Virginia legislator worries teachers are indoctrinating students with their personal views on global warming. And an Oklahoma state senator wants educators to be able to introduce alternative viewpoints without fear of losing their jobs.
As climate change becomes a hotter topic in American classrooms, politicians around the country are pushing back against the near-universal scientific consensus that global warming is real, dire and man-made.
Of the more than a dozen such measures proposed so far this year, some already have failed. But they have emerged this year in growing numbers, many of them inspired or directly encouraged by a pair of advocacy groups, the Discovery Institute and the Heartland Institute.
"You have to present two sides of the argument and allow the kids to deliberate," said Republican state Sen. David Bullard of Oklahoma, a former high school geography teacher whose bill, based on model legislation from the Discovery Institute, ran into opposition from science teachers and went nowhere.
Scientists and science education organizations have blasted such proposals for sowing confusion and doubt on a topic of global urgency. They reject the notion that there are "two sides" to the issue.
"You can't talk about two sides when the other side doesn't have a foot in reality," said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said these legislative proposals are dangerous, bad-faith efforts to undermine scientific findings that the fossil fuel industry or fundamentalist religious groups don't want to hear.
In the mainstream scientific community, there is little disagreement about the basics that greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and gas are causing the world to warm in a dangerous manner. More than 90 percent of the peer-reviewed studies and scientists who write them say climate change is a human-caused problem.
A Nobel Prize-winning international panel of scientists has repeatedly published reports detailing the science behind climate change and how the world is likely to pass a level of warming that an international agreement calls dangerous. The U.S. government last year issued a detailed report saying that "climate-related threats to Americans' physical, social and economic well-being are rising."
The battle over global warming resembles the fight that began decades ago over the teaching of evolution, in which opponents led by conservative Christians have long called for schools to present what they consider both sides of the issue.
Some of those who reject mainstream climate science have cast the debate as a matter of academic freedom.
James Taylor, a senior fellow at Heartland, an Illinois-based group that dismisses climate change, said it is encouraging well-rounded classroom discussions on the topic. The group, which in 2017 sent thousands of science teachers copies of a book titled "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming," is now taking its message directly to students. A reference book it is planning for publication this year will rebut arguments linking climate change to hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather.
"We're very concerned the global warming propaganda efforts have encouraged students to not engage in research and critical thinking," Taylor said, referring to news reports and scientific warnings.
Neither Discovery nor Heartland discloses the identities of its donors.
Instruction on the topic varies widely from place to place, but climate change and how humans are altering the planet are core topics emphasized in the Next Generation Science Standards, developed by a group of states. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards, and 21 others have embraced some of the material with modifications.
Still, a survey released in 2016 found that of public middle- and high-school science teachers who taught something about climate change, about a quarter gave equal time to perspectives that "raise doubt about the scientific consensus."
By early February, the Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit National Center for Science Education flagged over a dozen bills this year as threats to the integrity of science education, more than the organization typically sees in an entire year.
Several of them — including proposals in Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Dakota — had language echoing model legislation of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which says teachers should not be prohibited from addressing strengths and weaknesses of concepts such as evolution and global warming.
Similar measures became law in Louisiana in 2008 and Tennessee in 2012. In states where they may not be feasible politically, Discovery has urged legislators to consider nonbinding resolutions in support of giving teachers latitude to "show support for critical thinking" on controversial topics. Lawmakers in Alabama and Indiana passed such resolutions in 2017.
Discovery officials did not respond to requests for comment.
Florida state Sen. Dennis Baxley is pressing legislation that would allow schools to teach alternatives to controversial theories.
"There is really no established science on most things, you'll find," the GOP legislator said.
Elsewhere, lawmakers in Connecticut and Iowa, which both adopted the Next Generation Science Standards, have proposed rolling them back. Connecticut state Rep. John Piscopo, a Republican who is a Heartland Institute member, said he wants to eliminate the section on climate change, calling it "totally one-sided."
Other bills introduced this year in such states as Virginia, Arizona and Maine call for teachers to avoid political or ideological indoctrination of their students.
"If they're teaching about a subject, such as climate change, and they present both sides, that's fine. That's as it should be. A teacher who presents a skewed extension of their political beliefs, that's closer to indoctrinating. That's not good to kids," said Virginia state Del. Dave LaRock, a Republican.
While there are many details about climate science hotly debated among scientists, it is well-established that global warming is real, human-caused and a problem, said scientist Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
"When people say we ought to present two sides, they're saying we ought to present a side that's totally been disproven along with a side that has been fundamentally supported by the evidence," Field said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/08/stories/1060123537
-
EPA Advisers Blast Draft Soot Assessment
Mar 8, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
An EPA advisory panel has issued a scathing critique of a draft agency assessment that had offered support for tightening national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates.
In a preliminary report posted online yesterday, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee said that the draft assessment failed to look comprehensively at all available research and did not follow "widely accepted scientific methods for deriving sound, independently verifiable, scientific conclusions from available data." The draft also lacked "scientific support for policy deliberations and decision-making" and used "unverifiable opinions to draw major policy-relevant conclusions," according to the preliminary report.
The seven-member committee, usually known by its acronym, CASAC, urged EPA to produce a second draft. The panel has scheduled a public teleconference for March 28 to discuss the preliminary report, described as "a work in progress." In an email exchange last night, CASAC Chairman Tony Cox said the document is not final until committee members approve and send it to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
The report's release comes as the committee remains under fire from critics in the scientific community who doubt both its competence and commitment to carrying out an objective review of the standards for fine particulates, which are technically known as PM2.5 and are linked to an array of heart and lung ailments. The report represents the committee's first take on the draft "integrated science assessment" released by EPA last October (Greenwire, Oct. 16, 2018).
That almost 1,900-page roundup of research on PM2.5's health effects acknowledged evidence that the current standards are not tight enough to adequately protect public health. While the existing annual exposure standard, set in 2012, is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the assessment noted evidence of harm at levels as low as 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
That's a concern for the oil and gas companies and other politically influential industries that say the report overstates the risks posed by lower levels of PM2.5. "The causal framework is not adequate," an American Petroleum Institute adviser said in prepared testimony at a CASAC meeting in December.
The new draft report similarly raises questions about cause and effect. While Cox has said that he is fully committed to an impartial review of the standards, critics have noted his past work as a consultant for API. They are also skeptical of the ability of the full committee, dominated by members with little direct background in air pollution research, to conduct a rigorous review.
John Vandenberg, director of the branch of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment that produced the draft integrated science assessment, did not immediately reply to email and phone messages today seeking comment on CASAC's critique.
But in an email yesterday, Chris Frey, a North Carolina State University environmental engineering professor who chaired the committee from 2012 to 2015, also pointed to Wheeler's decision last October to abruptly disband an auxiliary panel created to provide added scientific muscle to the review. Wheeler's move, which came five days before the draft assessment was released, helped to "undermine the quality, integrity and credibility" of the review process, Frey said.
In individual comments folded into the new draft report, two other CASAC members, James Boylan of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and Mark Frampton, a retired professor of medicine from the University of Rochester, reiterated calls for EPA to reconstitute the auxiliary panel.
The actual report does not go that far but recommends that CASAC "be provided with access to additional technical expertise as needed, to thoroughly review the second draft" of the integrated science assessment.
Under the Clean Air Act, CASAC is supposed to provide independent expertise to EPA in periodic reviews of the thresholds for particulate matter and five other "criteria" pollutants. While those reviews are supposed to play out on a five-year cycle, EPA has rarely, if ever, met that timetable. Adding to the pressure on CASAC are fast-track deadlines imposed last year by then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for completion of both the particulate matter review and a separate assessment of ozone standards by late next year.
In an open letter late last year, Frey and other former CASAC members had urged the committee to reject the current schedule for the particulate matter review (Greenwire, Dec. 10, 2018).
PM2.5, often labeled soot, refers to fine particles that are no bigger than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or one-thirtieth the width of a human hair.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/08/stories/1060123565
-
The Green New Deal Must Transform the Economy
Mar 8, 2019 | Truthout
By Ryan Gunderson & Diana Stuart
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal on February 7, a resolution that deserves praise for putting forth the boldest climate change proposal in U.S. history.
Considering two recent projections of catastrophic climate change — namely scientists’ warning of a runaway “hothouse Earth” scenario and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special reportdetailing the impacts of a 1.5 degree Celsius (1.5°C) rise in global temperatures — an increasing number of scientists and activists are calling for a dramatic policy response to tackle climate change. The IPCC specifically calls for “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” to prevent the 1.5-degree scenario.
While centrist and self-fashioned “pragmatic” Democrats deny the scope of change necessary to address climate change by pushing ineffective, market-based solutions, the Green New Deal elevates the seriousness of climate change proposals and includes bringing the U.S. to net-zero carbon emissions in 10 years, increasing resiliency to climate impacts, investments in public transportation and “smart” energy infrastructure, overhauling transportation systems with high-speed rail and zero-emission vehicles, supporting sustainable agricultural practices, and using reforestation to absorb carbon.
Although currently limited, as Representative Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges, the Green New Deal is the only climate change proposal to date that approximates what is necessary to avert catastrophe. The deal deserves widespread support. The left’s aim should be to identify where it does not go far enough, and to push for amendments and improvements early on to create a deal that is truly transformative. In addition to the proposals in the resolution, several additional measures would help to more rapidly, directly and effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Two achievable and transformative additions to the deal are considered here: nationalizing and decommissioning fossil fuel companies, and work-time reduction.
Fossil Fuel Nationalization
A concerning omission from the current Green New Deal is a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels: net-zero emissions are not the same thing. While avoiding specific targets to reduce fossil fuel use may appease politicians with ties to the industry, there is good reason to be skeptical of approaches that rely on increasing investments in carbon sequestration and renewable energy without also specifically creating targets to reduce fossil fuel use.
We already know that a commitment to increasing renewable energy sources is not the same as a commitment to phasing out fossil fuel use. Although decarbonization implies as much, developing renewable energy does not necessarily displace fossil fuel energy. Evidence suggests that a unit of energy produced by non-fossil fuel-based energy does not displace a unit of fossil fuel-based energy because we are not simultaneously reducing fossil fuel development. Further, alternative energy development that does not reduce fossil fuel energy development may actually increase total energy use.
Any successful energy transition cannot just be energy addition: We must explicitly plan how to phase out fossil fuels, not just grow renewables. In addition, there are significant unknowns, costs, risks and barriers to widespread deployment of proposed carbon capture and sequestration strategies. To rely on these approaches, instead of directly reducing fossil fuel use, means a slower and less effective response. Others have proposed that the fastest and most effective way to phase out fossil fuels is through buying out fossil fuel companies.
Nationalizing and decommissioning fossil fuel companies is a just and effective means to reduce fossil fuel development while growing renewables and further developing carbon sequestration strategies. One way to nationalize fossil fuel companies in the U.S. is by creating a Social Energy Fund to purchase fossil fuel companies at market value. Purchasing 51 percent of fossil fuel shares would cost about $410 billion. This cost is small compared to the long-term costs that climate change will incur. Nationalization would allow the state to support those formally employed in the fossil fuel industry, especially through guaranteed retraining and re-employment in, for example, alternative energy industries.
Considering that a third of the world’s wealth is currently tied up in fossil fuels, state intervention now to buyout fossil fuel companies could avert another global financial crisis. Government buyouts are not uncommon and have occurred throughout U.S. history with banks, companies producing products for war, and the buyout of tobacco companies that took place between 2004 and 2014.We must explicitly plan how to phase out fossil fuels, not just grow renewables.
Without nationalization, there is no reason to believe that fossil fuel companies will stop further exploration and extraction. Thus, fossil fuel nationalization should be adopted as an essential strategy for a transformative Green New Deal that replaces fossil fuel energy with renewable energy. In addition, relying on carbon sequestration to offset continued fossil fuel use is a higher risk, slower and likely much less effective strategy.
An additional consideration for the Green New Deal is the fact that it is very unlikely that renewable energy can supply current, let alone increasing, total energy demands because, among other reasons, the amount of energy return on energy invested in solar and wind is lowerthan fossil fuel-based sources. Thus, a transition to 100 percent renewable energy will likely require decreases in total energy use. For this reason, among others, the Green New Deal should not aspire to be a new growth engine. “Green growth” is a myth and deep emissions reductions would require overall economic “degrowth.” This future should be embraced and does not require neoliberal austerity. In fact, many consumption-conserving policies are in line with left-wing goals, including a shorter workweek.
Work-Time Reduction
Work-time reduction (WTR) is a long-standing goal of the socialist movement. Shorter working hours have numerous social benefits and long working hours are associated with many negative health effects, including higher smoking rates and less sleep. One central social benefit of WTR is absorbing structurally unemployed labor, the reason why “work sharing” is used as a synonym. The most important social benefit for socialists is the “realm of freedom” WTR opens for creative and autonomous activity. WTR can be combined with a job guarantee, as proposed in the Green New Deal’s social goals.
WTR also has major climatic benefits. Shorter working hours are associated with lower energy use and carbon emissions. For example, among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, those with shorter working hours have significantly lower carbon emissions and ecological footprints. If the U.S. chose to use productivity gains for WTR instead of for more production, it would consume around 20 percent less energy. If working hours were reduced 0.5 percent annually for the next century, it would “eliminate about one-quarter to one-half, if not more, of any warming that is not already locked in.”Fossil fuel nationalization should be adopted as an essential strategy for a transformative Green New Deal.
There are many ways to reduce working hours, including more vacations, paid maternity and paternity leave, and early retirement. One especially appealing option is a four-day workweek. Another path adopted in the Netherlands allows individuals to adjust weekly working hours. Those who decide to work part time have the same rights as those who work full time. Dutch workers are also able to take leave from work without penalty, funded by a Life Course Savings account.
Work-time reduction is a necessary but not sufficient change for a truly decarbonized economy. For one, policies like advertising limits and regulation and other society-wide sustainable consumption strategies can address the possible threat of more energy-intensive activities during expanded leisure time. Further, a sustainable society would also invite qualitative changes in the nature of work itself. WTR too requires qualitative assessments of jobs. For example, so much labor power today is wasted in “bullshit jobs,” or jobs which even those who perform them deem unnecessary. In the long term, the Green New Deal should strive to replace these jobs with climate jobs and free people from useless toil. Because evidence shows WTR to be an effective approach to reach both the social and climate goals in the Green New Deal, it should be included as a central strategy.
Moving Forward and Responding to Opposition
As record levels of U.S. citizens believe in climate change and that addressing it is personally important to them, now is a critical time to support the Green New Deal. It polls well, especially among young people. The Green New Deal is an unprecedented proposal and would represent an important step for avoiding catastrophic climate change and addressing inequality in the U.S. However, it should not be a compromise to appease fossil fuel interests through indirect, slower and less effective measures that avoid purposeful reductions in fossil fuels. Nationalizing fossil fuel companies is a promising strategy to immediately reduce fossil fuel consumption. The Green New Deal should also embrace WTR, which represents an effective strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with numerous social benefits, including more leisure time and lower unemployment rates.
There is no doubt the Deal will face fierce opposition moving forward. Two framings of the Deal are particularly misleading, and serve to protect the vested interests that benefit from current levels of social inequality and continued fossil fuel use.
First, critiques focused on cost should be ignored. Climate change inaction will be far more expensive than any form the Green New Deal takes. For example, climate-change-related impacts caused $91 billion in damages in 2018 and, if we experience extreme warming later in the century, climate change is expected to cost the U.S. economy $500 billionannually. Because climate impacts, and the lives and costs associated with those impacts, will increase with every year we fail to implement effective policies, there is no excuse not to move forward and invest heavily in the Green New Deal. While it deserves full support, we should also keep pushing the deal and future climate proposals and policies to be as swift, direct, just and effective as possible.
Second, despite certain depictions, especially among conservatives, the deal is far from “radical.” While it is a critically important step forward to address climate change, it represents a minimum response to avoid dire climate change projections and should be strengthened and expanded to more effectively address climate change and social inequality. It is an entry point to avert a climate catastrophe but represents our best chance yet.
https://truthout.org/articles/the-green-new-deal-must-transform-the-economy/
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested