Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - March 11, 2019
-
Hearing on Protecting Workers from Toxic Chemicals
Mar 11, 2019 | The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 10:30 AM -
Hearing on Chemical Anti-Terrorism Program
Mar 12, 2019 | The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation
Location: 310 Cannon/ 10:00 AM -
Hearing on President's Energy Agenda
Mar 12, 2019 | The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth/ 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Surface Transportation Policy
Mar 13, 2019 | Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Location: HVC-210 U.S. Capitol/ 10:00 AM -
Hearing on State and Foreign Operations Funding
Mar 12, 2019 | The House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Location: 2008 Rayburn/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Study Report Says Chemical Industry Contributes $5.7tn to Global GDP
Mar 11, 2019 | Chemicals Technology
International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has reported that the chemical industry contributes nearly $5.7tn to the global GDP through direct, indirect and induced impacts. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Trumpets Its Role in World Economy
Mar 11, 2019 | The Nation
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released an analysis of the chemical industry’s contributions to the global economy, coinciding with the start of the Fourth United Nations Environment Assembly. -
(ACC Mentioned) Eight States Have Proposed Bills in 2019 Hyper-Criminalizing Pipeline Protest
Mar 8, 2019 | The Real News Network
Eight different statehouses have seen bills move across the desks of their legislators which, if signed into law, would dole out heavy criminal penalties to protesters who participate in direct actions on private property owned by the oil and gas industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) Europe Top Stories: Weekly Summary
Mar 11, 2019 | ICIS
...The Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) launched by private companies in January is set to broaden its membership to national chemicals trade groups as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the CEO at US trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said. -
Dow Spin-Off to Emerge as Major Chemical Company
Mar 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Chemical conglomerate DowDupont gave more detail about its planned three-way breakup Friday, giving investors a glimpse into itsspin-off strategy in which a new commodity chemical arm called Dow will emerge April 1. -
EPA Announces ORD Reorganization, Merging With Science Advisor Office
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has announced plans to overhaul its Office of Research & Development (ORD) that includes merging the independent Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) with ORD’s policy office, a move some observers have previously warned could hinder OSA’s independence but that others say addresses ongoing agency resource limits. -
TSCA Implementation Update: EPA Releases Updated Inventory and Delays Risk Evaluations
Mar 8, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Emilee Mooney Scott
As we previously outlined, the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) was amended in 2016 to provide EPA with much broader authority to regulate “existing” chemical substances (i.e., those that are already in use in commerce). -
EPA’s Process for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals Remains on GAO’s High-Risk List
Mar 8, 2019 | The National Law Review
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released on March 6, 2019, a report entitled High-Risk Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas. -
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Say Shortfall in EPA Standards Can Stymie Cases Against 3M, Others
Mar 8, 2019 | Star Tribune
By Jim Spencer
Attorney General Lori Swanson had no doubt that 3M endangered Minnesotans by dumping waste from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. -
(ACC Mentioned) County Alerts Buchtel Residents About Water-Quality Issue
Mar 11, 2019 | Athens News
By Kayla Beard
In a letter to Buchtel residents, the Athens County Water and Sewer District warned that the village’s water supply recently violated the maximum contamination level (MCL) for chemicals known as TTHM (trihalomethanes). -
Drinking Water Limits for Fluorochemicals Years Away: EPA
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Federally enforceable drinking water standards for two ubiquitous chemicals are likely about four years away—even if the EPA decides to act—the agency said March 8. -
Expert Focus: A Glimpse at US Osha’s Updated Hazard Communication Standard
Mar 11, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lynn L Bergeson
The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) is, by its very nature, perennially a work in progress. The US is committed to global harmonisation in classifying chemical hazards, and the US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) 2012 incorporation of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals into the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) was a big step forward in achieving global harmonisation. -
The Roundup Row: Is the World’s Most Popular Weedkiller Carcinogenic?
Mar 9, 2019 | The Guardian
By David Cox
As a third-generation cotton farmer in Bakersfield, California, John Barton estimates that he sprayed thousands of gallons of the herbicide Roundup over the course of his 30-year working life. -
Rule Scraps Continuous Monitoring Obligation at Power Plants
Mar 8, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
States will no longer have to require power plants and other large polluters to track their summertime releases of nitrogen oxides through "continuous emission monitoring systems," under an EPA rule that takes effect today. -
Hill Climate Fever Has DOE Funding Implications
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jeremy Dillon
As the Trump administration readies to publish its fiscal 2020 budget request, which is sure to propose cutting Department of Energy research and development, a growing Capitol Hill consensus is emerging about the importance of those programs in the fight to curb climate-warming emissions. -
‘We Need to Do a Better Job’ on Efficiency Deadlines: Energy Official
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The head of the Energy Department’s office in charge of energy efficiency rules for appliances said it needs to get back on track after missing 16 statutory deadlines for standards. -
Panel Drills down on Trump 'Energy Dominance' Agenda
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
Top officials from three federal agencies — the departments of Agriculture, Energy and the Interior — will testify tomorrow before a House Natural Resources subcommittee on the Trump administration's wide-ranging "energy dominance" agenda. -
It's CERAweek: Here Come the Energy Titans
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
International fuel fights, trade wars and looming climate concerns are poised to take center stage in Texas this week as Cabinet members and CEOs join global dignitaries at one of the world's most closely watched energy gatherings. -
Dominion's Long-Term Plan Envisions CO2 Curbs
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A central tenet of Dominion Energy's revised long-range plan is the presumption of a state or federal mandate to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. -
BP, Exxon to Help Advance Alaska LNG Export Project -Alaska Gasline
Mar 11, 2019 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino
Alaska Gasline Development Corp (AGDC) said it signed an agreement with BP PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp to help advance the state-owned company’s proposed $43.4 billion Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) project: -
Dems Plan Review of EPA's 'Loose Implementation' of Safety Law
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
A House Energy and Commerce panel this week will question EPA's protection of workers exposed to toxic chemicals. -
Hearing to Focus on Access, Infrastructure
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Scott Streater
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing this week on strategies to improve access to public lands and increase funding for infrastructure. -
Dems Shape Talks with Long List of Climate Demands
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Maxine Joselow
As infrastructure talks progress on Capitol Hill, Democrats are calling for any legislative package to address climate change. -
Murkowski, Manchin Call for 'Responsible Solutions' to Climate Change
Mar 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Two centrist senators on Friday called for the U.S. to pursue "pragmatic policies" to combat climate change instead of focusing on "drastic, unattainable measures." -
New Climate Panel’s Republicans Seek Focus on Adaptation
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Republicans on the House’s new climate-change panel see building more climate-resilient cities and coastlines as a priority—with talking about greenhouse gas emissions taking a back seat. -
Climate Panel's GOP Leader: 'More Than Willing to Push Back'
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) thinks the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis sounds "a little dramatic." -
2 Visions for a Green New Deal Face off in N.Y.
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
An alternative Green New Deal bill has secured support from a majority of legislators in New York, setting it up as a possible contender with the governor's own, rival version of the idea. -
D.C. Circuit Judges Appear Likely To Remand Obama EPA Policy On HFCs
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Appellate court judges at March 8 oral argument signaled they are likely to back calls from some refrigerant chemical manufacturers by remanding to EPA an Obama-era policy on replacing ozone-depleting or climate-warming refrigerants, over the objection of rival refrigerant makers and environmentalists. -
Lawsuits, White House Inaction Complicate HFC Phaseout
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Environmentalists and manufacturers took one more stab Friday at reinstating Obama-era restrictions on climate superpollutants used in refrigeration and cooling. -
CASAC Attacks On EPA’s PM Science Analysis Jeopardize NAAQS Review
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is condemning the agency’s approach to assessing health risks of particulate matter (PM) and is seeking a new draft of a health study underpinning the ongoing review of the PM ambient air limit, a time-consuming step that jeopardizes EPA’s plan to accelerate its review of the limit. -
Greater Climate Action in Oregon Hinges on Carbon Bill, Governor Says
Mar 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
A cap-and-trade bill moving through the Oregon statehouse that would enact a carbon price needs to pass before the state considers joining the Western Climate Initiative and a more ambitious renewable energy mandate, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said March 8.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing on Protecting Workers from Toxic Chemicals
Mar 11, 2019 | The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
-
Hearing on Chemical Anti-Terrorism Program
Mar 12, 2019 | The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation
-
Hearing on President's Energy Agenda
Mar 12, 2019 | The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
-
Hearing on Surface Transportation Policy
Mar 13, 2019 | Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
-
Hearing on State and Foreign Operations Funding
Mar 12, 2019 | The House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study Report Says Chemical Industry Contributes $5.7tn to Global GDP
Mar 11, 2019 | Chemicals Technology
International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has reported that the chemical industry contributes nearly $5.7tn to the global GDP through direct, indirect and induced impacts.
The report also highlighted that the chemical industry is accessed by nearly every good-producing sector and supports nearly 120 million jobs worldwide.
The chemical industry is the fifth-largest global manufacturing sector as it directly employs 15 million people and adds $1.1tn to world GDP.
ICCA council secretary and president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Cal Dooley said: “Over time, chemical manufacturers have become an integral part of the global economy and a critical enabler of technologies that improve people’s lives around the globe.
“This report makes clear that the chemical industry is an irreplaceable contributor to global GDP, a source of skilled employment opportunities and a major enabler of progress in the environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainable development as reflected in the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.”
According to the study, for every $1 generated by the chemical industry, $4.20 is generated anywhere in the global economy.
The report also says that $3tn was spent in 2017 by the chemical industry for buying goods and service with the suppliers. This expenditure contributed an estimated $2.6tn to global GDP and supported 60 million jobs.
The chemical industry also invested $51bn in research and development (R&D), which led to $92bn in economic activity and supported 1.7 million jobs.
The Asia-Pacific chemical industry is the largest contributor to GDP and jobs. The industry in this region alone contributes to 45% of the industry’s annual economic value and supports and 69% of all jobs supported.
The European chemical industry contributed $1.3tn to total GDP contribution and supported 19 million jobs followed by North America, which contributed $866bn total GDP and supported six million jobs.
European Chemical Industry director general Marco Mensink said: “This new analysis underscores the essential role that the chemical industry plays in driving economic growth and creating opportunity for millions of people around the world, but the chemical industry’s impact goes beyond economic value.
“Working in partnership with United Nations Environment through the Strategic Approach to Chemicals Management (SAICM), we are deeply committed to building capacity to safely manage chemicals through their production, transport, use and disposal, and have held over 230 workshops in 45 countries.”
ICCA hired Oxford Economics to provide a detailed assessment of the chemical industry’s contributions to the global economy.
https://www.chemicals-technology.com/news/study-report-says-chemical-industry-contributes-5-7tn-to-global-gdp/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Trumpets Its Role in World Economy
Mar 11, 2019 | The Nation
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released an analysis of the chemical industry’s contributions to the global economy, coinciding with the start of the Fourth United Nations Environment Assembly.
“The Global Chemical Industry: Catalysing Growth and Addressing Our World’s Sustainability Challenges” says the industry “touches nearly every good-producing sector, making an estimated $5.7-trillion contribution to world gross domestic product (GDP) through direct, indirect and induced impacts, equivalent to seven per cent of global GDP”.
It supports 120 million jobs worldwide, the report says.
“The innovations developed and produced by the chemical industry’s longstanding presence worldwide have helped turn the tide of human history,” said Cal Dooley, ICCA council secretary and president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.
“Over time, chemical manufacturers have become an integral part of the global economy and a critical enabler of technologies that improve people’s lives around the globe.
“This report makes clear that the chemical industry is an irreplaceable contributor to global GDP, a source of skilled employment opportunities and a major enabler of progress in the environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainable development as reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
The largest contributor to GDP and jobs is the Asia-Pacific chemical industry, generating 45 per cent of the industry’s total annual economic value and 69 per cent of all jobs supported.
Europe made the next most important contribution ($1.3 trillion total GDP contribution, 19 million jobs supported) followed by North America ($866 billion, six million jobs).
“This new analysis underscores the essential role that the chemical industry plays in driving economic growth and creating opportunity for millions of people around the world, but the chemical industry's impact goes beyond economic value,” said Marco Mensink, director general of European Chemical Industry.
“Working in partnership with United Nations Environment through the Strategic Approach to Chemicals Management, we are deeply committed to building capacity to safely manage chemicals through their production, transport, use and disposal, and have held over 230 workshops in 45 countries.”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/Corporate/30365576
-
(ACC Mentioned) Eight States Have Proposed Bills in 2019 Hyper-Criminalizing Pipeline Protest
Mar 8, 2019 | The Real News Network
Story Transcript
Eight different statehouses have seen bills move across the desks of their legislators which, if signed into law, would dole out heavy criminal penalties to protesters who participate in direct actions on private property owned by the oil and gas industry. The Real News published an investigation on these bills and their common origins: the American Legislative Exchange Council and Council of State Governments.
Eight states are considering bills that would hypercriminalize protests on property owned by the fossil fuel industry.
The Real News traced these bills to two industry-funded organizations: the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Council of State Governments.
They’re funded by companies like Koch Industries, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Energy Transfer Partners.
The bills were modeled after legislation proposed in Oklahoma in reaction to 2016’s mass protests at the Standing Rock reservation over Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota—protests that threatened to spread into Oklahoma.
Under the Oklahoma legislation, participants could face up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $100,000 for holding demonstrations on critical infrastructure sites.
The company whose oil flows through the Dakota Access Pipeline, Continental Resources, has its headquarters in Oklahoma City.
Its CEO, Harold Hamm, is a major donor to President Trump and served as his energy advisor during the 2016 election.
Co-conspirators, too, can see fines of up to $1 million.
Industry-funded trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council have lobbied and advocated for all eight state bills in statehouses.
And it’s not just Republicans backing them. In Illinois and Indiana, the bills have bipartisan support. In Wyoming, the legislation received Republican pushback, effectively killing the bill.
Civil liberties advocates have decried the bills as an attack on the First Amendment.
Environmental advocates call the bills wrongheaded in the age of the climate crisis, when scientists say we must phase out of fossil fuels to avoid irreversible damage.
https://therealnews.com/stories/eight-states-have-proposed-bills-in-2019-hyper-criminalizing-pipeline-protest
-
(ACC Mentioned) Europe Top Stories: Weekly Summary
Mar 11, 2019 | ICIS
Here are some of the top stories from ICIS Europe for the week ended 8 March.
Europe MMA February contracts drop on looser supply fundamentals, middling demand
European February methyl methacrylate (MMA) contracts have settled at a decrease on the back of looser global supply since mid-2018 and distinctly average demand.Europe MEG spot price recovery in sight after weeks of declines
A European monoethylene glycol (MEG) spot price recovery is set to continue after truck prices increased for a second week running.Evonik’s stock jumps on methacrylates ‘impressive’ €3bn proceeds
Evonik’s stock shot up after the company announced US private equity fund Advent is to pay €3bn for its methacrylates business as well as higher-than-expected proceeds, according to equity chemicals analysts.‘Gigantic’ return on Evonik methacrylates business sale - CEO
The €3bn deal value for the sale of Evonik’s methacrylates business exceeded market expectations and gives additional flexibility for the Germany-based specialty chemicals producer’s growth plans, CEO Christian Kullmann said.Europe acetone may lengthen on US ADDs, likelihood in doubt
The European acetone market may lengthen if US authorities place antidumping duties (ADDs) on material from the EU.AEPW to broaden membership, innovation on waste reuse key to success - ACC’s CEO
The Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) launched by private companies in January is set to broaden its membership to national chemicals trade groups as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the CEO at US trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said.Europe PP prices rise, but no shortage of supply
European polypropylene (PP) prices are moving up in March, but the market is no tighter than balanced, according to most buyers.Stand-off between PET buyers and sellers spans Europe and Asia
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) markets in both Europe and Asia are showing upward pressure on production costs in what should be the start of peak sales, yet buyers in central Europe are holding back.Europe March PE prices reverse nine-month downward trend
European polyethylene (PE) prices are moving up for the first time since June 2018.Separated UK waste collection would significantly increase costs - Suez
Although separated waste collection systems in the UK would increase quality, it would also raise costs significantly, according to an executive at waste treatment firm Suez.Chemical recycling to reach maturity in 5-10 years - execs
Chemicals recycling technology is continuing to mature and could become mainstream within the next five to 10 years, according to executives from BASF and INEOS Styrolution.https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/11/10330613/europe-top-stories-weekly-summary/
-
Dow Spin-Off to Emerge as Major Chemical Company
Mar 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Chemical conglomerate DowDupont gave more detail about its planned three-way breakup Friday, giving investors a glimpse into itsspin-off strategy in which a new commodity chemical arm called Dow will emerge April 1.
DowDuPont, which has Houston operations and a major chemicals complex in Freeport, announced its plans to break apart into three companies in 2015 after Dow and Dupont merged. Now that breakup is almost here. It will result in three new companies:Corteva Agriscience, Dow and DuPont.
The agricultural company, Corteva Agriscience, is the combination of the Dow crop chemicals business and the DuPont seed business; Dow, which will continue to produce chemicals; and DuPont, will make plastics, construction products and nutrition products. The most significant change from all these mergers and separations is the combination of two agricultural businesses.
"We believe that each of the intended three independent companies is set to be an industry leader with the right management and capital structure to better serve customers, compete in their end markets and focus on their innovation priorities," said Ed Breen, chief executive officer of DowDuPont.
The new Dow will be a significant and major chemical company. Normua analyst Aleksey Yefremov estimates that new chemical company, Dow, will generate similar cash flow to companies such as LyondellBasell of Hosuton, and have an equity value of $53 billion. The new Dow is expected to have $15 billion in net debt, giving the total enterprise a value in the $68 billion range, according to Barron's.
"The new Dow is a more focused, disciplined and market-oriented company," said Jim Fitterling, chief operating officer of the DowDupont's Materials Science division and chief executive officer elect of Dow in a statement. "We are fully prepared for our separation from DowDuPont on April 1, and ready to innovate and grow with our customers while delivering long-term value for our shareholders."
The DowDupont board of directors officially approved of the spin-off strategy, the company said Friday, as it offered details on how stocks will be broken up. Shareholders of DowDupont will get one share of new Dow for every three shares of DowDupont they hold.
Fitterling, who will lead Dow after the spin off, will speak in Houston at IHS Markit's CERAWeek next Wednesday and at IHS Markit's World Petrochemical Conference in San Antonio March 20.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Dow-spin-off-to-emerge-as-major-chemical-company-13673148.php
-
EPA Announces ORD Reorganization, Merging With Science Advisor Office
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has announced plans to overhaul its Office of Research & Development (ORD) that includes merging the independent Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) with ORD’s policy office, a move some observers have previously warned could hinder OSA’s independence but that others say addresses ongoing agency resource limits.
Under the plan, which Inside EPA reported last fall, ORD will reduce its total of 13 offices to eight, though EPA says it will not cause any job losses or relocations.
The plan will “better support the Agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment,” according the agency’s statement. “The proposed structural changes will increase the impact of ORD’s research efforts and better address the increasingly complex environmental challenges of the 21st century."
“Led by career staff, including [acting ORD chief and acting science advisor Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta], the changes achieve scientific leadership, better integrate scientific approaches to problems, support mission and customer focused solutions to environmental challenges, and create communities of practice within the organization,” according to the statement. “This reorganization does not change the important environmental and health research the office is tasked with doing. It will not result in the loss of any jobs or staff relocations.”
As Inside EPA previously reported, ORD leaders held meetings with staff last fall to discuss the potential merger of the independent OSA with the ORD Office of Science Policy.
The change will create a new division within the research office to be called the Office of Science Advisor, Policy, and Engagement, according to a March 7 Washington Examiner article.
When ORD was discussing the change last year, some environmentalists and other stakeholders feared that merging the two offices would reduce the OSA staff's independence from EPA's political leadership.
Agency staff offered mixed reviews to Inside EPA about the reorganization, with some saying the shuffle could hinder the advisor's access to the administrator.
However, others said consolidation could help address ORD resource constraints, as ORD funding and staffing levels have fallen for years under dwindling EPA budgets.
Orme-Zavaleta, the career scientist who leads ORD and serves as science advisor since President Donald Trump has yet to offer an ORD nominee, told the Examiner that the existing ORD structure “created 'siloed approaches' and 'inefficient redundancies,' with too many separate units reporting to her.”
‘Similar Functions’
The ORD shuffle is “bringing organizations with similar functions together,” she said. “The type of research we do is not impacted. The work we are doing is not changing. We are not really changing what research we do, but we are changing how we manage what we do.'”
As part of the changes discussed last fall and now formally announced, the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) -- one of ORD’s current centers, which awards research grants to outside scientists -- will be consolidated with other offices in the Office of Resource Management.
Sources told Inside EPA last fall that NCER was part of the consolidation, and described varying approaches. A union source said then that NCER would merge with two administrative ORD offices, the Office of Program Accountability and Resource Management (OPARM) and the Office of Administration and Research Support (OARS).
The source added that merging NCER, OPARM and OARS is "just a restructuring," and would not happen until sometime in 2020. "Everyone will keep their same roles, there will be no staffing change," the source said.
OSA, OSP and NCER have struggled in recent years with dwindling staff and resources, a former EPA source told Inside EPA last fall. "I can see merging these three groups and coming up with one reasonably-sized office."
But that source also said that reorganizations take a long time, noting the last ORD shuffle under Obama EPA Science Advisor and research chief Paul Anastas "took a year and a half."
The Examiner reports that the reorganization will result in the creation of four new research centers. Leadership will hold listening sessions with ORD “in the coming months, and will consult with Congress about it, with the goal of implementing the reorganization by the beginning of fiscal year 2020,” the Examiner says.
“The overarching goal is increasing the impact we have in supporting the agency's mission with the right kind of science,” Orme-Zavaleta said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-announces-ord-reorganization-merging-science-advisor-office
-
TSCA Implementation Update: EPA Releases Updated Inventory and Delays Risk Evaluations
Mar 8, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Emilee Mooney Scott
As we previously outlined, the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) was amended in 2016 to provide EPA with much broader authority to regulate “existing” chemical substances (i.e., those that are already in use in commerce). While EPA has met its statutory deadlines thus far, several critical deadlines are looming in 2019. EPA’s progress toward its 2019 deliverables has been delayed by the recent government shutdown and redeployment of resources.Risk Evaluations and Prioritizations Expected in 2019
TSCA requires EPA to systematically review selected substances that are already active in commerce through a three-step process of prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management. The prioritization step identifies chemical substances that may pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and designates them as “high priority” for further study. Those high priority substances are then subjected to a risk evaluation step to determine whether they do indeed pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Substances that do pose an unreasonable risk must then be subject to a risk management rule to mitigate such risks, though, for example labeling or work practices requirements.
The 2016 TSCA amendments directed EPA to identify a slate of ten substances that would skip the prioritization step and proceed directly to the risk evaluation step. Those first ten substances were identified in late 2016, and risk evaluation problem formulations were released in the summer of 2017. Since then, risk evaluations have been underway. Final risk evaluations are due for the first ten substances by December 19, 2019 (subject to possible six-month extension), so draft risk evaluations must be published by October 20, 2019 to allow for the required sixty-day comment period.
EPA released its first draft risk evaluation under amended TSCA in November 2018, concluding that Pigment Violet 29 does not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. EPA was expected to release the rest of the first ten draft risk evaluations this winter to allow ample time for public comment and agency reevaluation. At a conference this week, Alexandra Dunn, assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said that the remaining draft risk evaluations are instead expected this summer.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report detailing some of the factors that have led to EPA’s slower than anticipated progress. Internal EPA discussions about priorities for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) have led to delays, and amended TSCA places a significantly increased workload on the relevant office of EPA. The fast timelines imposed by the TSCA amendments have also required EPA to begin implementing the law before internal guidance and procedures are fully in place. According to GAO, EPA officials “likened it to building an airplane as they fly it.” Several of EPA’s rules implementing TSCA amendments have been challenged in court, and depending on how the challenges are resolved, additional delays could result. The government shutdown in late 2018 and early 2019 also delayed EPA’s efforts.
EPA has a significant amount of work ahead of it—dozens of TSCA-related deliverables are due at the end of 2019. In addition to the final first ten risk evaluations being due by December 19, 2019, by December 22, 2019 EPA is required to ensure that at least twenty risk evaluations on high-priority substances are underway, and must designate an additional twenty substances as low-priority.Update to TSCA Inventory
EPA has already achieved one of its most anticipated 2019 milestones: release of the revised TSCA Inventory. The TSCA Inventory is a list, maintained by EPA, of all the existing chemicals in commerce. If a substance is not listed on the TSCA Inventory it is considered “new” and subject to review before it is introduced into commerce.
In connection with the 2016 amendments to TSCA, EPA was required to revise the TSCA inventory and cull the substances that exist but are not active in commerce. EPA’s review of the TSCA inventory was informed by reporting by manufacturers and importers in 2012 and 2016, and by “Notice of Activity” forms submitted by manufacturers, importers, and processors of chemical substances in 2018.
In February 2019, EPA released the revised TSCA inventory. Of the 86,228 substances on the TSCA inventory, only 40,655 were identified as active in commerce. If there are any substances marked inactive on the revised TSCA inventory, but which are still being manufactured, imported or processed, manufacturers/importers/processors have until May 20, 2019 (90 days from publication of the revised Inventory) to submit a Notice of Activity Form B (through the Central Data Exchange) to prevent the substance from being designated as inactive. Once a substance is designated inactive, it may not be re-introduced into commerce until EPA receives a Notice of Activity form alerting it to the re-introduction.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/tsca-implementation-update-epa-releases-updated-inventory-and-delays-risk
-
EPA’s Process for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals Remains on GAO’s High-Risk List
Mar 8, 2019 | The National Law Review
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released on March 6, 2019, a report entitled High-Risk Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas. GAO’s high-risk program identifies government operations with vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or in need of transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. GAO’s report describes the status of high-risk areas and outlines actions necessary to assure further progress. GAO states that in the two years since its last high-risk report, three areas, including “Transforming EPA’s Process for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals,” have regressed in their ratings against GAO’s criteria for removal from the High-Risk List. GAO notes that since adding this area to its High-Risk List in 2009, it has made 12 recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to GAO, while EPA has taken steps to manage chemicals that pose risks to human health and the environment, leadership and implementation challenges remain.IRIS Program
GAO evaluated EPA’s IRIS Program on five criteria to assess progress in addressing high-risk areas: (1) leadership commitment; (2) agency capacity; (3) an action plan; (4) monitoring efforts; and (5) demonstrated progress. GAO states that, since its 2017 high-risk report, four criteria remain unchanged. The rating for leadership commitment declined to partially met, however. Below is a summary of GAO’s findings.Leadership Commitment: Partially Met
In 2017, GAO reported that the then EPA Administrator demonstrated leadership commitment to the IRIS Program by identifying action on toxics and chemical safety as one of her top seven priorities for the agency -- priorities that included the IRIS Program. Current EPA leadership has not made a similar statement, however. For the past two years, EPA’s budget justification for human health risk assessment work was reduced to about $22 million from its fiscal year 2017 budget of $40.5 million, contributing to a lower rating than GAO gave in 2017. GAO notes that Congress did not support these reductions. Specifically, according to the joint explanatory statements accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Congress agreed to continue providing funding at fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.
GAO states that “EPA leadership’s long-term accountability for actions has been limited, as demonstrated by four IRIS assessments that were in the later stages of development on the 2015 Multi-Year agenda but have not been released, or included on the December 2018 list of assessments.” According to GAO, EPA provided no information on the status of these assessments or whether it plans to discontinue working on them or restart them at another time. GAO notes that, as it previously reported, an overarching factor that affects EPA’s ability to complete IRIS assessments in a timely manner is that once a delay occurs, work that has been completed can become outdated, necessitating rework throughout some or all of the assessment process. Thus, it remains to be seen when these assessments can be expected to move to the next step in the IRIS process or be completed.Capacity: Partially Met
As reported in our March 6, 2019, memorandum, “GAO Reviews EPA’s IRIS Assessment Efforts and Implementation of TSCA Reforms,” GAO’s March 2019 report on chemical assessments indicates that the IRIS Program has made progress in addressing some challenges to its assessment process, including adopting project management principles and new software; streamlining the peer review process; implementing systematic review; and making changes to the frequency and type of communication, among others. GAO states that it will continue to monitor EPA’s efforts and assess the progress the agency is making. GAO’s previous work has shown that decision makers in the U.S. and around the world rely on information from IRIS assessments. Because of this key role, GAO states that it is “concerned that without adequate funding, untimely implementation of IRIS assessments could have profound impacts on chemical risk management activities.”Action Plan: Partially Met
As GAO reported in its 2017 high-risk report, EPA had not evaluated the demand for IRIS toxicity assessments with input from users both inside and outside EPA. EPA issued an IRIS Multi-Year Agenda in December 2015. According to EPA, the purpose of the 2015 agenda was to: (1) identify IRIS assessments currently under way and their status; (2) prioritize IRIS assessments that will be initiated over the next few years; and (3) evaluate assessment needs and develop an updated process for existing IRIS values. In December 2018, EPA issued the IRIS Program Outlook, but it was missing some key information. The Outlook identifies assessments currently under way and lists the next anticipated step in the IRIS process. According to GAO, the Outlook fails to list the projected date for most of the assessments and includes no information regarding assessment prioritization, however, including how these assessments will meet program and regional office needs. Moreover, GAO notes that it recommended in May 2013 that EPA should develop an Action Plan or strategy, among other things, to address the needs of EPA program offices and regions when IRIS toxicity assessments are not available; EPA is still working to do so.Monitoring: Met
In January 2018, the IRIS Program produced a report to Congress that offered an overview of progress, and it took part in a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) review of the Program in February 2018. The resulting NAS report provided a supportive assessment of ongoing transformations aimed at ensuring data quality, new systematic approaches for data analysis and expanded stakeholder engagement efforts, and increasing efficiency of assessments. According to the report, NAS reviewers were impressed with the changes instituted in the IRIS Program since 2014, including substantive reforms by new IRIS Program leadership, such as the development, implementation, and use of systematic review methods to conduct IRIS assessments. According to GAO, for EPA to sustain the rating for the monitoring criterion, it will need to provide clear milestones and metrics for its action plan and monitor progress toward them.Demonstrated Progress: Partially Met
EPA provided a list of chemicals in the December 2018 IRIS Program Outlook. According to GAO, it is not clear what data and priorities EPA used to establish its current priorities, however, or when it will assign time frames and future resources to ensure sustained performance. For example, according to the 2015 IRIS Multi-Year Agenda, the formaldehyde assessment was being revised to incorporate elements of systematic review and was to be released for public comment and external peer review. The December 2018 IRIS Program Outlook does not list the formaldehyde assessment, however, and provides no explanation of why the assessment was not included. GAO notes that the IRIS Program issued an assessment of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) in August 2018, although the assessment took almost two decades.What Remains to Be Done
Since GAO added the IRIS Program to its High-Risk List in 2009, it has made nine recommendations related to the IRIS segment of this high-risk issue. As of mid-February 2019, six recommendations remain open. According to GAO, EPA will need to implement these recommendations, along with meeting the high-risk criteria discussed above, to make progress. GAO recommends that EPA:Assess the feasibility and appropriateness of the established time frames for each step in the IRIS assessment process, including whether different time frames should be established for different types of IRIS assessments;
Publish IRIS agendas on which chemicals EPA is actively assessing and when it plans to start assessments of the other listed chemicals to demonstrate progress; and
Develop a strategy to address the needs of EPA Program Offices and regions when IRIS toxicity assessments are not available.
GAO notes that its March 2019 chemical assessments report provides information on what remains to be done to address challenges (e.g., producing assessments) in the IRIS Program.Congressional Actions Needed
GAO states that “EPA and Congress should continue to ensure that the resources dedicated to IRIS are sufficient to implement it and to maintain a viable database of chemical assessments.”TSCA
GAO evaluated TSCA on the same five criteria to assess progress in addressing high-risk areas for IRIS. GAO states that, since its 2017 high-risk report, ratings for capacity, monitoring, and demonstrated progress progressed to partially met. The rating for leadership commitment remains unchanged at met and for action plan at partially met.Leadership Commitment: Met
In January 2019, then Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler indicated his commitment to fulfill EPA’s obligations under TSCA. According to GAO, Wheeler stated that EPA had, among other things, released guidance and policy on confidential business information, a strategy to reduce animal testing, and the final mercury reporting rule. In addition, EPA's First Year Implementation Plan identified actions taken to meet the deadlines in the new law, such as: (1) identifying the initial ten work plan chemicals to be assessed under TSCA; (2) establishing a process and criteria for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation under TSCA; and (3) issuing a rule that establishes EPA’s process for evaluating risks from high-priority chemicals under TSCA.
GAO states that, as of December 2018, EPA had implemented two of GAO’s recommendations made in 2013 regarding TSCA. As GAO elaborated in its March 2019 chemical assessments report, EPA has encountered some challenges in implementing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) -- the law that recently amended TSCA, and as of mid-February 2019, several lawsuits were pending. GAO states that how EPA addresses issues such as its capacity to implement the program, collect appropriate fees, and demonstrate progress will be key to continuing to meet the leadership criterion in the future.Capacity: Partially Met
The Lautenberg Act provides EPA with greater authority to address chemical risks, but in turn increases both EPA’s responsibility for regulating chemicals and its workload. EPA recently issued a rule to collect fees from certain companies to defray a portion of TSCA implementation costs but, according to GAO, it is unclear whether the fees collected will be sufficient to support relevant parts of the program. GAO states that, according to EPA, the agency will be tracking its costs and will use that information to adjust future fees, if appropriate. As required by law, EPA will evaluate and readjust, if necessary, the fees every three years.Action Plan: Partially Met
EPA’s strategic plan discusses general approaches for meeting TSCA’s statutory requirements and mandatory deadlines. EPA issued a First Year Implementation Plan in June 2016 noting that this document is intended to be a roadmap of major activities EPA will focus on during the initial year of implementation. GAO states that as of mid-February 2019, the plan had not been updated, although EPA had indicated that the plan would be further developed over time.Monitoring: Partially Met
According to GAO, the Lautenberg Act provided EPA with significant new authorities to regulate chemicals, but EPA’s full implementation will take many years. EPA has partially met the criterion for monitoring because it is too soon to determine whether EPA’s approach to managing chemicals within the new TSCA authorities will position the agency to achieve its goal of ensuring the safety of chemicals. GAO states that it will continue to monitor TSCA as the agency implements this important legislation.Demonstrated Progress: Partially Met
As described in GAO’s March 2019 chemical assessments report, EPA has responded to many of the new provisions in the Lautenberg Act. For example, EPA has issued rules governing the prioritization and conduct of chemical assessments under TSCA. In addition, EPA informed GAO of efforts to engage its offices in a variety of ways to obtain information necessary to conduct risk evaluations and to leverage the expertise and experience of experts within the agency. GAO notes that EPA did not provide documentation that these activities have occurred, however. Moreover, GAO states that EPA “has additional Lautenberg Act requirements to address in the years ahead.”What Remains to Be Done
Since GAO added TSCA implementation to its High-Risk List in 2009, it has made three recommendations related to this high-risk issue. EPA will need to implement one open recommendation, along with meeting the high-risk criteria discussed above, to make progress. GAO states that, as noted in several criteria above, EPA needs to maintain leadership commitment and ensure that it has the resources and plans in place to facilitate progress. For example, for the demonstrated progress criterion, EPA will need to respond to provisions in the Lautenberg Act, such as having 20 ongoing risk evaluations by December 2019 and making findings on the safety of all new chemicals. In addition, GAO’s March 2019 chemical assessments report discusses what remains to be done to address challenges (e.g., process improvements) in implementing the Lautenberg Act.Congressional Actions Needed
GAO states that EPA and Congress should consider ensuring that the resources dedicated to TSCA activities are sufficient to implement TSCA reform activities.Commentary
The latest GAO high-risk report is generally consistent with its prior recommendations concerning actions needed to improve performance under the IRIS Program and TSCA implementation. It is notable that GAO identifies EPA as having regressed from “met” to “partially met” regarding EPA’s leadership commitment to the IRIS Program. As discussed above, the factors contributing to this downgrading include the lack of a restatement of commitment to the IRIS Program by current EPA leadership, an almost 50 percent decline in EPA’s budget request for IRIS, and inadequate recent reporting by EPA on the status of IRIS assessments and on the changes made. We agree that greater openness and transparency regarding EPA’s current thinking and approach would be welcome. At the same time, we question the extent to which the need to meet the legal requirements for chemical assessments under TSCA is affecting EPA’s leadership views on resourcing and prioritizing IRIS assessments. While we agree that IRIS assessments are of value to many stakeholders, domestically and internationally, and that the assessments can be a critical input to meeting statutory requirements by other EPA offices, EPA is not legally required to produce IRIS assessments per se. This situation thus differs significantly from that under new TSCA where EPA is under considerable pressure to meet statutory deadlines for risk evaluations; we wonder about the extent to which this reality is influencing the thinking of EPA leadership. We encourage EPA to be clearer about its plans and to explain its thinking regarding the best way to balance and meet its assessment priorities and statutory obligations.
Regarding TSCA implementation, GAO notes that one of its 2013 recommendations remains “open.” This recommendation (Recommendation # 3 from the March 2013 GAO report GAO-13-249) is as follows:
To better position EPA to collect chemical toxicity and exposure-related data and ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, while balancing its workload, and to better position EPA to ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, the Administrator of EPA should direct the appropriate offices to develop strategies for addressing challenges that impede the agency's ability to meet its goal of ensuring chemical safety. At a minimum, the strategies should address challenges associated with: (1) obtaining toxicity and exposure data needed to conduct ongoing and future TSCA Work Plan risk assessments, (2) gaining access to toxicity and exposure data provided to the European Chemicals Agency, (3) working with processors and processor associations to obtain exposure-related data, (4) banning or limiting the use of chemicals under section 6 of TSCA and planned actions for overcoming these challenges -- including a description of other actions the agency plans to pursue in lieu of banning or limiting the use of chemicals, and (5) identifying the resources needed to conduct risk assessments and implement risk management decisions in order to meet its goal of ensuring chemical safety.
While we agree this is an important and unmet recommendation, it appears to pertain almost exclusively to action under TSCA Section 6 in assessing and regulating existing chemicals. We noted the brief mention in the 2019 High-List Risk report of the Section 5 new chemicals program but wondered why it was limited to the “what remains to be done” section at page 208. While TSCA Section 6 implementation is a work in progress, EPA has had to implement and meet the new chemical requirements under new TSCA Section 5 for almost three years now. As readers of our writings are aware, we have identified many issues and concerns with EPA’s implementation efforts on new chemicals that, among other things, initially led to a significant slowing in the new chemicals innovation pipeline in America. We recognize EPA’s commitment to accelerate the pace of new chemical review and applaud its efforts. It would seem, however, that some greater GAO focus in this area is warranted.
We also note the absence of any mention in the recent GAO reports of TSCA Section 4, the testing provision that under new TSCA included new but as yet untried legal authority to require testing by order, in addition to rulemaking. It is our view that EPA cannot meet its broader obligations under new TSCA in the absence of an appropriately robust program to obtain the toxicity and exposure information needed to inform EPA’s scientific and assessment judgments on TSCA chemicals. While GAO has in the past focused on EPA’s limited efforts in implementing Section 4 under old TSCA, we are puzzled by GAO’s current silence in this regard.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-s-process-assessing-and-controlling-toxic-chemicals-remains-gao-s-high-risk-list
-
(ACC Mentioned) Critics Say Shortfall in EPA Standards Can Stymie Cases Against 3M, Others
Mar 8, 2019 | Star Tribune
By Jim Spencer
Attorney General Lori Swanson had no doubt that 3M endangered Minnesotans by dumping waste from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Swanson sued 3M for $5 billion.
She settled the case for $850 million in February 2018. The company never admitted guilt.
One reason it did not have to was the lack of a national toxicity standard for the chemicals involved.
The absence of mandatory, enforceable limits on the substances, known as PFAS, complicates and sometimes cripples attempts by governments and individuals to hold producers accountable for what has become a national pollution problem, legal and scientific specialists say.
“Until the federal government says it is hazardous, there is no need to admit guilt,” said Alexandra Klass, an environmental law professor at the University of Minnesota.
PFAS help make products heat-, stain-, water- and grease-resistant. Decades of use have spread the chemicals throughout the environment and alarmed public health groups and regulators. They worry about animal tests and epidemiology that link PFAS to cancer, liver problems and developmental issues in rodents, as well as weakened immune and vaccine responses in humans.
Despite two decades of study by the EPA, no mandatory limits exist for any type of PFAS. There are only advisory drinking-water limits on two major types. Companies do not have to follow these recommendations and cannot be held legally accountable if they breach them.
Companies such as 3M, Chemours, DuPont and Daikin that have been accused of deceiving government and the public about the risks of PFAS steadfastly maintain their innocence. They say they stopped using two common forms of PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — when they learned of their potential health risks and replaced them with safer kinds of chemicals.
In February, the EPA announced a program to propose official drinking-water standards for those two types of PFAS by the end of the year. The agency did not lay out groundwater pollution-cleanup guidelines. The regulatory process the EPA outlined will take months, and likely years, of legal wrangling.
Environmental and public health groups said that the EPA already has enough evidence to set mandatory limits and cleanup criteria for PFOS and PFOA. Failure to do so, they said, puts people at risk.
“You need the hazardous designation [to get] funding to do something,” Klass explained. “That’s very critical to abatement and prevention.”
In a statement to the Star Tribune, the EPA said it can sufficiently enforce clean-water laws and hold polluters accountable while continuing the regulatory process.
Deborah Swackhamer, former chair of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and its Board of Scientific Counselors, said she thinks “delays in setting new regulations such as drinking-water standards for PFAS are weakening public health protections.” She declined to comment on the legal impact a lack of standards has on punishing polluters.
“PFAS has been shown to be a widespread contaminant throughout the US [and world] and not just a problem in a few localized places,” Swackhamer, a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, said in an e-mail. “This national problem warrants prompt action from the EPA, which we have not seen.”
Writing in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS Biology, Gloria Post of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection warned of a “rapid increase in evidence” for “adverse health effects” of PFAS, which turned up in 194 public water systems serving 16.5 million people in 36 states during a 2013-2015 EPA survey.
Fears about PFAS contamination have spawned dozens of legal actions against companies such as 3M, DuPont, Chemours and Daikin that make and use the chemicals.
The U.S. House conducted a PFAS hearing last week. A Department of Defense official testified that in 2017, 36 drinking-water systems the department manages or purchases water from had PFAS levels higher than the human health safety level recommended — but not mandated — by the EPA. The military uses firefighting equipment that contains PFAS.
The level of chemicals the EPA now recommends to avoid health problems — 70 parts per trillion in drinking water for PFOA and PFOS — is far too low for the chemical industry and far too high for public health officials.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that includes 3M, wants the U.S. to set PFAS safety levels identical to those just agreed to in Canada — 200 parts per trillion for PFOA and 600 parts per trillion for PFOS.
Public health specialist Alan Stern pushed back in the other direction. “Seventy parts per trillion is not protective,” said Stern, who recently retired from New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection. The EPA “clearly missed the mark” for immune-system problems that researchers have noted in clinical and epidemiological studies, Stern explained.
Minnesota has nonbinding recommended levels of 35 parts per trillion for PFOA and 27 parts per trillion for PFOS.
At 3M, officials said they agree with the EPA setting a “maximum contaminant level” for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. But the company will not say what that level should be.
“We support regulation rooted in the best available science, which considers peer reviews and scientific rigor,” 3M said in a statement to the Star Tribune. “The science behind these legacy compounds is complex. Indeed, different regulatory agencies around the world have looked at the same body of scientific evidence and have established very different standards for drinking water. We believe this is an area where the National Academy of Sciences could play an important role resolving some of the underlying uncertainty among regulatory agencies.”
The company phased out use of PFOA and PFOS beginning in 2000. It now makes or uses two different kinds of PFAS — PFBS and ADONA, which current research shows are less toxic.
A 3M spokeswoman said the company would not comment on PFAS litigation.
The American Chemistry Council also backs “best available science” and opposes laws by Congress or state legislatures that set maximum PFAS limits. The trade group believes it is “inappropriate” to regulate all PFAS by a single standard. Instead, it wants different classes of PFAS to go through separate regulatory processes “because it will allow all stakeholders, including our industry, the opportunity to provide comments and important scientific information, which a legislative approach would not.”
Administrative law specialist Mehmet Konar-Steenberg of Mitchell Hamline School of Law said the term “best available science” is so vague it could “define away our ability to reach scientific conclusions.”
In legal filings, then-AG Swanson charged that 3M manipulated the science around PFAS by “funding friendly research ... while simultaneously paying money to ensure that less-favorable research would be suppressed.” She claimed that 3M knew in the 1970s that the PFAS it dumped into unlined pits and trenches in the east metro area of the Twin Cities were toxic, but “concealed this critical fact from government regulators and the scientific community for decades.”
The company and other producers of PFAS accused of similar coverups steadfastly maintain their innocence.
It is a pattern with plenty of precedent, said Klass, the environmental lawyer.
“Companies said for a long time that lead emissions from gas were not harmful,” she pointed out. “Now we know that lead poisoning causes harm.”
Determining the toxicity for PFAS will be more complicated than lead emissions because scientists must deal with a family of chemicals that has thousands of members. Finding common denominators among the most frequently used PFAS has become a crucible for the EPA.
In the end, it could come down to will and resources. Klass said few government agencies other than the EPA have the means to do testing necessary to determine toxicity of various kinds of PFAS. If the federal government won’t test or ignores existing evidence, the standard set for the country could be more hindrance than help. It will be hard, she said, to win a state lawsuit based on PFAS levels that are stricter than a national standard.
The EPA under President Donald Trump has generally taken an anti-regulatory approach, Stern added.
“Somebody has to be out there setting a standard for others to rely on,” he said. “In the political climate in which we live, that’s unfortunately not going to be the EPA.”
http://www.startribune.com/lack-of-federal-standards-stymies-chemical-pollution-cases/506890792/
-
(ACC Mentioned) County Alerts Buchtel Residents About Water-Quality Issue
Mar 11, 2019 | Athens News
By Kayla Beard
In a letter to Buchtel residents, the Athens County Water and Sewer District warned that the village’s water supply recently violated the maximum contamination level (MCL) for chemicals known as TTHM (trihalomethanes).
Although the letter, which was distributed last month, states that the levels detected “do not pose an immediate” health concern, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency required that the county notify residents in the affected area about the violation.
The average level of TTHM found in the Buchtel water system over the last four quarters was 0.089 milograms per liter (mg/L), the letter states, slightly higher than the “standard” (or maximum contaminant levels) of 0.080 mg/L. (Maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs, are defined as the legal threshold limit on the amount of a contaminant that is allowed in public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act.)
“You do not need to use an alternative (e.g., bottled) water supply,” the letter states. “However, if you have specific health concerns, consult your doctor.”
The letter goes on to note that “the levels detected do not pose an immediate risk to your health. “However, some people who drink water containing trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous systems, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.”
Stephanie Morris, billing clerk for the Athens County Water and Sewer District, confirmed last week in an email sent to Athens County Commissioner Lenny Eliason that a similar letter was distributed this past November.
According to county officials, there isn’t much the county can do about the violation, and the city of Nelsonville is responsible for correcting the problem.
Rich Kasler, superintendent of the Athens County Water and Sewer District, said in a brief interview Friday that the wording in the letter comes directly from the state EPA. He added that the agency’s wording is somewhat vague in regards to the “many years” of consumption that could lead to health problems.
“They’re (EPA) very undefined on if it’s a problem or not,” Kasler said. He also said that the county is “just a distribution system” for the water and does not have authority to address the contamination directly.
“Unless we switch our water supplier, there’s not a lot we can do about it,” Kasler said.
Commissioner Eliason confirmed as much in a voice message Friday. “There’s not anything we, the county, can do about it because we’re not the water provider,” he said, explaining that the county purchases the water for Buchtel from the city of Nelsonville.
“I know they’re (Nelsonville) working on dealing with the issue and with the EPA… but the county’s required to pass that (letter) on because it was found in the sample of the water that we’re re-selling,” Eliason explained.
Kasler said that the city of Nelsonville is considering making changes to its water treatment process but would need state EPA approval before any changes could go into effect.
TTHM, or “total trihalomethanes,” are a group of chemical compounds first identified in drinking water in the 1970s, according to the Water Quality & Health Council, which is self-identified as “an independent, multidisciplinary group sponsored by the Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council.”
TTHM form during drinking water treatment, and are produced “when organic matter in natural water reacts chemically with chlorine disinfectants,” according to an article on the Water Quality & Health Council’s website.
https://www.athensnews.com/news/local/county-alerts-buchtel-residents-about-water-quality-issue/article_dc3310da-435e-11e9-86e0-4b14b16c961c.html
-
Drinking Water Limits for Fluorochemicals Years Away: EPA
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Federally enforceable drinking water standards for two ubiquitous chemicals are likely about four years away—even if the EPA decides to act—the agency said March 8.
Limits for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances would take at least 3 1/2 years to finalize, if the Environmental Protection Agency takes the amount of time it’s statutorily allocated to create drinking water standards, Eric Burneson, a director in the EPA’s groundwater and drinking water office, said at the Global Chemical Regulations Conference in Washington.
The substances have been detected in a growing number of public water supplies around the country. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler wants the agency to determine by the end of 2019 whether two specific members of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance family, known as PFOA and PFOS, should be regulated in drinking water.
Within two years of making that determination, the agency also must propose an enforceable level and ask the public to comment. Once public comments are received, the EPA has 18 months to revise its proposal and publish a final version.
The chemical compounds, also known as PFAS, have been used to manufacture nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer and industrial products.
PFAS compounds may cause adverse health effects, including developmental harm to fetuses, testicular and kidney cancer, liver tissue damage, immune system or thyroid effects, and changes in cholesterol, according to the EPA.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/drinking-water-limits-for-fluorochemicals-years-away-epa-corrected
-
Expert Focus: A Glimpse at US Osha’s Updated Hazard Communication Standard
Mar 11, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lynn L Bergeson
The Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) is, by its very nature, perennially a work in progress. The US is committed to global harmonisation in classifying chemical hazards, and the US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) 2012 incorporation of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals into the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) was a big step forward in achieving global harmonisation. The road is long, however, and the administration recognises much work remains to be done. This article reports on Osha's efforts to continue the harmonisation process.Background
The UN GHS’s official text, referred to as the 'Purple Book', is updated every two years to include recent information and recommended guidance on chemical hazard classification and labeling. The GHS is a framework, not an enforceable regulation. It allows competent authorities to pick and choose the most appropriate elements for their GHS approach. The rapidity with which the Purple Book is updated sets into motion a chronic game of catch-up; the picking and choosing part virtually assures true harmonisation will likely never be achieved.
The Purple Book was first published by the UN in 2003, relentlessly updated every two years, and last updated in 2017 (GHS 7). The HCS was last updated to align with the GHS in 2012. That means the HCS is already several versions behind the GHS Purple Book. Osha’s final rule incorporating the 3rd Revised Edition of the UN GHS (Rev 3) became effective on 25 May 2012 (HCS 2012) and full implementation was required as of 1 June 2016. Currently, all substances and mixtures are required to comply with HCS 2012, as the transition period ended for manufacturers on 1 June 2015, and for distributors on 1 December 2015.
The 2012 final rule significantly altered the previous HCS, but as GHS Rev 3 was released in 2009, the HCS has not been updated since that time, even though the final rule became effective in 2012. The proposed rule that incorporated the Rev 3 changes was issued on 30 September 2009. Osha has been planning to update the HCS since autumn 2014 when RIN 1218-AC93 first appeared in the Regulatory Agenda. No action on the item was listed until the Fall 2016 Regulatory Agenda, which noted that Osha would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in October 2017. Subsequent Regulatory Agendas listed the NPRM status as "TBA" until the Spring 2018 Regulatory Agenda set the timeframe for February 2019.
The UN sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals released the seventh edition (Rev 7) of the GHS in July 2017. As a result, Osha’s HCS needs updating to conform with not only Rev 7, but also with the fourth (Rev 4), fifth (Rev 5), and sixth (Rev 6) revised editions.
The full list of edits made to Rev 3 and incorporated into Rev 4, issued in 2011, is extensive and includes creating new physical hazard categories, rationalisation of precautionary statements, and clarification of certain criteria to assist in classification processes. Edits made to Rev 4 and incorporated into Rev 5, issued in 2013, are also extensive and include:
a new test method for oxidising solids;
miscellaneous provisions intended to clarify the criteria for some hazard classes; and
revised and simplified classification and labeling summary tables.
Similarly, the edits made to Rev 5 and incorporated into Rev 6, issued in 2015, include a new hazard class for desensitised explosives and a new hazard category for pyrophoric gases.
Finally, edits made to Rev 6 and incorporated into Rev 7, issued in 2017, include changes to categories for Chapter 2.2 Flammable Gases and the inclusion of additional guidance to extend the coverage of Safety Data Sheet (SDS) Section 14 to all bulk cargoes transported under instruments of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), regardless of their physical state (Annex 4).Discussion
'Many edits need to be made in playing the catch-up game'
The foregoing makes clear that many edits need to be made in playing the catch-up game. A recurring change appearing in every edition is the rationalisation of precautionary statements. If Osha intends to conform the HCS to align with the GHS, rationalising precautionary statements could signal big changes for Appendix C (Allocation Of Label Elements) and Appendix D (Safety Data Sheets). Any textual changes to these mandatory requirements could trigger costly consequences for manufacturers and distributors if the revisions required regulated entities to make major changes in their product labeling and SDSs.
When it updated the HCS in 2012, Osha expressed its view that "modifications will significantly reduce costs and burdens while also improving the quality and consistency of information provided to employers and employees regarding chemical hazards and associated protective measures."
Alignment with GHS is not a statutory directive, but over 24 jurisdictions across the world have adopted some form of the GHS model into their respective regulatory framework, often in strikingly different ways and with varying implementation timeframes. We would hope that any changes proposed to the HCS would be made in the spirit of those made in 2012 and intended to reduce costs and administrative burdens while improving the quality and consistency of information regarding chemical hazards. If Osha’s intent is to align continually with GHS, Osha is challenged to decide how best and how often to address the relentlessly predictable updates to the UN model. The release of the 8th revised edition (Rev 8) is just around the corner and should be issued soon. In proposing to update Rev 7 in 2019, Osha would need to consider how changes from Rev 7 to Rev 8 might be incorporated in the future.
As of this writing in mid-March, it is unclear how and when Osha will act. We appreciate that Osha is committed to pursuing its regulatory agenda. It is unlikely, however, an NPRM will be issued soon as a proposal has not yet been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget. Stay tuned for the Spring Regulatory Agenda.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74876/expert-focus-a-glimpse-at-us-oshas-updated-hazard-communication-standard
-
The Roundup Row: Is the World’s Most Popular Weedkiller Carcinogenic?
Mar 9, 2019 | The Guardian
By David Cox
As a third-generation cotton farmer in Bakersfield, California, John Barton estimates that he sprayed thousands of gallons of the herbicide Roundup over the course of his 30-year working life.
“My family were farming 1,000 acres of cotton, so we’d be out in the fields spraying it, and we’d get our pants wet, our shoes wet, our socks wet, and if the wind changed it would blow in our face,” Barton tells me. “We did that spring, summer and fall for most of my life. There was really no regulation at the time that we were spraying Roundup; no one was offered any protection. But I didn’t think anything of it, as they kept telling us how safe it was.”
By ‘they’, Barton is referring to Monsanto, the corporation that produces Roundup. Monsanto, which was acquired by the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer last year, is currently facing more than 9,000 lawsuits across the US from plaintiffs, mostly former gardeners and agricultural workers who believe that Roundup exposure caused their cancer.
Last summer, former school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, who is terminally ill with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, won a landmark victory against the company when jurors ruled that Monsanto had failed to warn him of the health risks posed by Roundup. In the latest trial, which recently got under way in San Francisco, Edwin Hardeman, who suffers from an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is pursuing a similar verdict. Like Johnson and Hardeman, Barton has also developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is preparing to take legal action.
“There’s not really a lot of history of cancer in my family,” he says. “I’ve been healthy all my life, so when I was diagnosed in 2015 it surprised me that all of a sudden I had this disease. Now, as a father, I’m worried that I’ve exposed my sons, who are also farmers, to the same cancer.”
But while Johnson’s legal triumph sent reverberations across the world last year, the very question of whether a weedkiller could be responsible for a person’s cancer remains a divisive and highly charged topic across both the scientific and political worlds.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) ruled that glyphosate – the active chemical within Roundup and many other popular weedkillers – was “probably carcinogenic”. However, numerous other international agencies, including the European Chemical Agency and European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), continue to declare glyphosate as safe, and there are many scientific studies which have found no association with cancer.
An estimated 6.1 billion kilos of glyphosate-based weedkillers were sprayed across gardens and fields worldwide between 2005 and 2014 (the most recent point at which data has been collected). That is more than any other herbicide, so understanding the true impact on human health is vital.
So, what do we know, and why is there so much uncertainty?‘Where are all the bodies?’ The inconclusive data
The reason glyphosate was thought to be completely safe for many years is that it works by inhibiting an enzyme pathway behind plant growth, which does not exist in humans. Since the introduction of Roundup-resistant GM food crops – genetically engineered to resist glyphosate – in the mid-1990s, farmers in the US have been able to use it in large quantities to get rid of weeds selectively, while in the UK it is used as the weedkiller of choice, outside of the growing season.
But in the past two decades, some research has suggested that glyphosate may not be as benign as once thought. Last month, a high-profile collaborative study by three US universities reported that individuals with particularly high exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides, for instance those spraying it, could have a 41% increased relative risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
“The lifetime risk of developing NHL is usually around 1 in 50, so what this means is that in populations who are exposed to the very highest levels of glyphosate, it moves to around 1 in 35,” explains Michael Davoren, a molecular toxicology researcher at the University of California. “But the bulk of the risk, as with any cancer, is still going to be due to other factors, including in part strings of ‘bad luck’ mutations in a given set of cells.”
Multiple theories have been voiced as to why this increased risk might arise, such as the idea that glyphosate may mimic the behaviour of certain hormones. One study, by researchers in Thailand, suggested that by doing so, even low levels of glyphosate could increase the rate of breast cancer cell growth in petri dishes.
However, the trouble is, for every research paper that purports to show a link between glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer, there is another which finds the exact opposite. This hasn’t been helped by the fact that many of the studies may not have been entirely objective. “A lot of the studies backing glyphosate have been funded by entities in a position to profit from the continuing sales,” Davoren says. “And many of those which point towards significant risks are funded by groups who are either engaged in lawsuits against the makers of glyphosate, or are in the position to benefit from sales of glyphosate alternatives. So it gets very, very tricky.”
But even some of the largest independent population-based studies have failed to find any sort of definitive proof. Last year, a two-decade-long analysis of data of nearly 45,000 farmworkers who applied glyphosate-based herbicides to their crops, conducted by the US National Institute of Health, showed no association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or overall cancer risk.
“This is the strongest argument that Monsanto has,” says Deborah Kurrasch, a neuroscientist at the University of Calgary who has been researching glyphosate for several years. “If it’s so damn bad, then where are all the bodies? The scientific evidence, as it stands right now, is not at all conclusive.”
But one of the factors that have left commentators suspicious of the potential toxicity of these herbicides has been incidents of combative corporate behaviour. In the latest trial, Monsanto has caused eyebrows to raise by obtaining a ban preventing attorneys for the plaintiffs from presenting information regarding its alleged influence on research.
The regulators versus the politicians
There is no question that the glyphosate debate has become highly politicised in recent years. Despite the limited evidence linking glyphosate to health risks, a European Citizens Initiative petition against its use in agriculture still garnered 1.3 million signatures, with the European Union’s 2017 decision to license it for another five years sparking mass protests across the continent.
In addition to cancer, environmental activists have claimed links between herbicide exposure and everything from coeliac disease to autism, while on the other side of the fence, regulatory agencies blame an ongoing anti-GM agenda for driving public sentiment against this small molecule. If glyphosate is banned, campaigners will have struck another severe blow against GM crop production.
“My personal perception is that glyphosate has become a symbol for the use of chemicals in agriculture and the way we produce food in Europe,” says Dr Bernhard Url, executive director of Efsa. “When science meets values, things become complicated. So when politicians are confronted with the opinion of Efsa that glyphosate is safe, they say, ‘No, I don’t want to hear that glyphosate is not carcinogenic because it doesn’t fit into my world view. I want a world without agrochemicals and if you, Efsa, tell us that glyphosate is safe to be used, you must be corrupt.’”
A 2016 study which found a 1,000% rise in the levels of glyphosate in our urine in the past two decades – suggesting that increasing amounts of glyphosate is passing through our diet – provoked further outrage. Except it isn’t really clear whether that has any consequences at all for our health. An Efsa letter, published in the journal Nature, pointed out that glyphosate residues found in Italian pasta or German beer would only exceed known risk thresholds if someone were to consume their entire body weight’s worth of those products in a single day.
To try to understand any potential mechanisms for how glyphosate could be doing something untoward in our bodies, increasing numbers of studies have been conducted in cell lines, rodents, zebrafish and even worms, some of which have suggested that it could have the potential to disrupt basic biological processes such as mitochondrial function. “If anything needs to be looked at, it’s whether glyphosate has some toxicity at a metabolic level,” Kurrasch says. “If you look at a variety of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, all of those have been linked to mitochondrial dysfunction.”
However, so far no link has been found between glyphosate exposure and CNS disorders in humans. The same is true for theories which speculate as to whether glyphosate passing through our gut may perturb the microbiome, inhibiting beneficial bacteria, and so promoting the growth of inflammation-inducing pathogenic bacteria. These theories link glyphosate to inflammatory disorders such as intestinal cancer, yet to date, no such associations have been found in population studies.
The glyphosate debate has even moved to the insect world. While glyphosate has been known for many years to pose health risks to fish, and as such, its use near water is strictly regulated, a paper last year claimed that it could pose a risk to bees. The study found that glyphosate levels in flowers could affect the bee microbiome, potentially affecting their health. However, given that the study examined just 15 bees, this also remains somewhat tenuous.The backlash
With the legal battles over glyphosate’s alleged link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma set to continue over the coming years, scientists and regulatory bodies alike agree that the only way to try to come to a common consensus about whether it poses a genuine threat is to transparently share their data.
According to Davoren, “The only way this debate is going to be settled is with a large amount of further research built on a philosophy of open data, where everyone says, ‘OK, this is what we found, here is the exact way we did it, here is our raw data, and everybody take a look to be sure that you see there’s no bias.’”
However, such is the political pressure surrounding the use of glyphosate that many strongly suspect it will begin to be phased out, regardless of the scientific conclusions, in the near future. French authorities banned the saleof a form of Roundup earlier this year. President Macron has vowed to outlaw glyphosate-based herbicides altogether by 2021, and both Germany and Italy are reportedly considering following suit.
Following Brexit, there is also the potential that the UK, too, will change its current stance on the use of glyphosate in agriculture. A 2017 House of Commons briefing paper on glyphosate suggested that ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may well take a different approach from the EU.
Efsa is pressing for further discussions about the potential consequences on farming and the food industry of banning glyphosate before drastic measures are taken, but whether its call is heeded remains to be seen.
“There needs to be meaningful discussions about this on a political stage,” Url says. “Do we want to use agrochemicals in Europe or not, and if so, under which conditions? What would a world without glyphosate and herbicides mean for agriculture and biodiversity, food prices, consumers? And what are the risks and benefits?”
But for Barton and the many plaintiffs, there remains no doubt in their minds that the high levels of glyphosate exposure, which they encountered throughout their working lives, have contributed to their illnesses.
“There was never a warning on that product to be careful when you use it, that you need to be protected, because there could be a danger,” Barton says. “I believe Monsanto put profit above people, and they’ve got away with it for all these years.”Everyday dangers
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is funded by the World Health Organization and its research is regarded as the benchmark for determining what agents may be cancer-causing. Some examples of its classifications below…
Group 1 carcinogens
Carcinogenic to humans. 120 agents, including:• alcoholic drinks
• asbestos
• diesel engine exhaust emissions
• indoor tanning
• tobacco
• x-raysGroup 2A
Probably carcinogenic to humans. 82 agents, including:• red meat
• indoor emissions from wood-burning stoves
• glyphosate
• shiftwork that involves circadian disruption
• petroleum refining (occupational exposures in)
• frying – emissions from high temperatureGroup 2B
Possibly carcinogenic to humans. 311 agents, including:• dry cleaning (occupational exposures in)
• firefighting (occupational exposures in)
• aloe vera
• bracken fern
• ginkgo biloba extract
• leadhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/09/spray-pray-is-roundup-carcinogenic-monsanto-farmers-suing
-
Rule Scraps Continuous Monitoring Obligation at Power Plants
Mar 8, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
States will no longer have to require power plants and other large polluters to track their summertime releases of nitrogen oxides through "continuous emission monitoring systems," under an EPA rule that takes effect today.
The final rule, which makes only minor changes to the proposal unveiled last September, scraps a mandate that dates back to a Clinton administration program for states to curb emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that contribute to downwind ozone formation outside their borders. The program, known as the NOx SIP Call, applied to 20 states, mostly in the eastern U.S., as well as the District of Columbia. Under the new rule, those states have the option of dropping the continuous monitoring requirement in favor of unspecified alternatives.
EPA predicts that the move could save affected industries a total of $1.2 million to $3.3 million annually without affecting emissions or air quality. The change appears to have originated in a 2017 claim by the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, which mainly represents regulators in Republican-leaning states, that the continuous monitoring requirement was "overly burdensome" and costly to businesses outside the power sector (E&E News PM, Sept. 14, 2018). Clint Woods, the association's executive director at the time, is now deputy chief of EPA's air office.
In the final rule, agency officials rebuffed requests to spell out acceptable alternatives, saying that states should have the flexibility to decide "on their own preferred forms of monitoring requirements."
Embracing the proposal were regulators in some states with relatively large amounts of coal-fired generation, according to a sampling of the almost two dozen comments filed on the proposed rule. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management, for example, believed that the continuous monitoring requirement was no longer needed under the NOx SIP Call program "and tends to be burdensome on affected sources given how rigorous and expensive it is," Keith Baugues, the agency's assistant commissioner for air quality, wrote last October.
But Gail Good head of the air management program at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, noted EPA's forecast that up to 230 electric generating units could discontinue or "significantly alter" their continuous monitoring systems if the proposal was made final. The loss of that data would make discussions of how to address upwind NOx emissions "significantly more challenging," Good wrote.
Several environmental groups opposed the proposed change outright. Aside from power plants, cement kilns, refineries and other large sources of NOx would be "left with much weaker monitoring requirements," wrote Zachary Fabish, a Sierra Club attorney. In such a situation, he said, "emissions are likely to increase."
Under the Clean Air Act, the rule's opponents now have 60 days to file a legal challenge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/08/stories/1060123637
-
Hill Climate Fever Has DOE Funding Implications
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jeremy Dillon
As the Trump administration readies to publish its fiscal 2020 budget request, which is sure to propose cutting Department of Energy research and development, a growing Capitol Hill consensus is emerging about the importance of those programs in the fight to curb climate-warming emissions.
Combined with the general climate momentum caused by the Green New Deal, funding for DOE research could see dramatic boosts in the upcoming appropriations cycle, despite White House attempts to diminish the government's role in clean energy.
"My focus on dealing with climate change and clean energy is to double funding for energy research, and we have been heading toward that goal the last few years," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
Research at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy as well as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) may prove to be the biggest winners, mainly because they represent one of the few areas of common ground between Republicans' innovation agenda and the progressive Green New Deal.
And as Republicans look to avoid heavy-handed mandates, like a transition to 100 percent clean energy in the electric and transportation sectors within a decade, the appropriations process may offer a route for both parties to show their seriousness about addressing climate change.
"I'll take any boost we can get for ARPA-E," Alexander said. "I think [climate] will focus Republican members of Congress more on technology, and ARPA-E, like [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], which it's modeled after, is the best example of that."
ARPA-E, originally established by congressional direction in 2007, looks to fund next-generation innovation projects deemed too risky for private-sector investment. The program's successes include some 136 projects that have garnered more than $2.6 billion in private-sector funding after the government's initial funding.
The Trump administration has looked to end the program in its past two budget requests, but Congress has rebuked those attempts by providing record funding for ARPA-E in those two years.
The popularity of the program has some House Democrats, like those on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, looking to boost the funding from $366 million in fiscal 2019 up to nearly $1 billion in the coming years (Energywire, Feb. 27).
"I'd like to see more than that get done, like I would like to see a carbon fee get done this Congress," Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), a moderate Democrat in the 27-member Blue Dog Coalition, told E&E News.
"We'll keep fighting for it, but I have to be realistic that perhaps the best thing we will be able to get done this year is to increase ARPA-E funding so we can help to make that breakthrough in new, clean, green technology."
Talk of significantly boosting ARPA-E has also been at the forefront with some of the initial backers of the Green New Deal.
New Consensus, one of the groups that helped craft the underlying Green New Deal resolution text, listed ARPA-E research and funding as a key area needed to further the country's climate change efforts (Greenwire, Nov. 27, 2018).
In fact, the resolution includes a bullet point that calls for "making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries."
The effort to increase those programs' funding could also see a boost from the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, its new chairwoman told E&E News.
"I hope so," Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said. "If you look at the charge of the select committee, we are to make reports to various standing committees, so we intend to do that for the appropriations."
When it comes to EERE, lawmakers gave it $2.3 billion in fiscal 2019 despite the Trump administration proposing more than $1 billion in cuts.
Significant research and development increases may stem from the transition from Republicans to Democrats controlling the House, top appropriator Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said.
"I expected it to be plussed up in some arenas that are more important to the Democrats that are their higher priorities," Simpson told E&E. "That's what happens when you have a change. That's what elections do."
"I think you'll see those programs plussed up," he added. "But we aren't going to go out and try to replace all the gasoline engines in 10 years or something like that."
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the chairwoman of the Energy and Water Development spending panel, has already hinted at her interest in beefing up DOE's weatherization program, an area that sends state grants for low-income efficiency improvement projects (E&E Daily, Feb. 14).
With research projects into battery storage and wind and solar deployment, EERE would also be at the center of the innovation push by some members to make clean energy more affordable and accessible.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing last week on the electric sector's progress in addressing climate change. The consensus was that government research has played and will play an integral role in that transition to cleaner power generation (E&E Daily, March 6).
"It's certainly something we will have conversations with [Alexander] about, but I think it's something that needs to continue, and as a member of the full Appropriations Committee and on that subcommittee, it's something I will continue to push," ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said after the hearing.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/11/stories/1060126727
-
‘We Need to Do a Better Job’ on Efficiency Deadlines: Energy Official
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The head of the Energy Department’s office in charge of energy efficiency rules for appliances said it needs to get back on track after missing 16 statutory deadlines for standards.
“We need to do a better job of meeting the deadlines,” Daniel Simmons, head of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, told Bloomberg Environment in an interview March 8. “We think we are going to be doing a better job of meeting deadlines, but that is definitely an area we need to work on.”
Simmons testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy March 7, but didn’t commit to specific timelines by which he’d issue determinations on whether a new efficiency standard is necessary on 16 products for which it has missed statutory deadlines, three of which date back to the Obama administration.
“I think he’s just trying to stonewall, essentially,” Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) told Bloomberg Environment March 8. “We’re going to continue to put their feet to the fire and say, ‘This is the law, you have to enforce it.’ This a great way of trying to address climate change. It saves money. There’s no reason not to do it.’”
Six-Year ReviewThe Energy Department is responsible for publishing regulations to ensure that more than 40 different appliances, like air conditioners, refrigerators, and dishwashers, are energy-efficient.
The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires the Energy Department to review efficiency standards for appliances every six years and decide whether stricter standards would lead to more energy savings for consumers, while being technically and economically feasible for manufacturers.
The department estimates that by 2030, existing efficiency standards issued before February 2016 will save consumers nearly $2 trillion on their utility bills, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 7 billion metric tons, and save 132 quadrillion British thermal units of energy.
For reference, the entire U.S. economy uses 100 British thermal units of energy in a year.
Way Behind Obama RecordSimmons was sworn in to lead the Energy Department’s efficiency standards and renewable energy programs Jan. 16, but had served in an acting role leading the office from December 2017 to June 2018.
“We haven’t had a chance to sit down with the program and to talk through each of these rules and decide what is necessary,” Simmons said, noting that each standard can take three years on average from development to final rule.
But he provided no time frames on when the standards would be issued.
The Trump administration isn’t the first administration to miss deadlines.
The George W. Bush administration issued just four over eight years, and faced two lawsuits from the Natural Resources Defense Council over missed statutory deadlines. The Obama administration by comparison issued 50 energy efficiency rules over eight years, Pallone said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/we-need-to-do-a-better-job-on-efficiency-deadlines-energy-official
-
Panel Drills down on Trump 'Energy Dominance' Agenda
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
Top officials from three federal agencies — the departments of Agriculture, Energy and the Interior — will testify tomorrow before a House Natural Resources subcommittee on the Trump administration's wide-ranging "energy dominance" agenda.
Democrats are billing the event as an oversight hearing on the policies and priorities of the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the four federal power marketing administrations housed in the Energy Department.
It marks "the first time since Trump took office where the House of Representatives will scrutinize the impact of the 'energy dominance' agenda," said a committee hearing notice from the majority.
Lawmakers will ask about the administration's rollbacks of the Obama-era methane rule and hydraulic fracturing regulations as well as the "prioritization of fossil fuel extraction on public lands," the notice said.
Democrats are also interested in grilling administration officials about energy leasing and development plans on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources include BLM's acting deputy director; the acting deputy chief of the Forest Service; and the leadership of the Bonneville, Western Area, Southeastern and Southwestern power administrations.
The four entities, housed in DOE, administer electric systems and sell the electrical output of federally owned and operated hydroelectric dams in 34 states.
The power administrations likely will have to answer questions about the administration's fiscal 2019 budget proposal to privatize three of them — Bonneville, Western Area and Southwestern — along with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/11/stories/1060126881
-
It's CERAweek: Here Come the Energy Titans
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
International fuel fights, trade wars and looming climate concerns are poised to take center stage in Texas this week as Cabinet members and CEOs join global dignitaries at one of the world's most closely watched energy gatherings.
CERAWeek by IHS Markit runs today through Friday in Houston's revitalized downtown. This year's theme is "New World of Rivalries: Reshaping the Energy Future."
"In other years, we've had more optimistic titles," Daniel Yergin, the conference chairman, said in a recent interview. "And here, we were trying to be realistic about what's happening in the world."
Possibly on tap: discussions surrounding climate change, the Green New Deal, trade and fierce competition among fuel types.
Yergin also noted the significance of holding CERAWeek as the United States emerges as the world's largest oil producer.
The Trump administration will be well-represented. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are on this week's agenda, as are Chairman Neil Chatterjee and Commissioner Bernard McNamee of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) also are slated to speak.
Attendees can expect to hear from oil and gas heavyweights such as BP PLC's Bob Dudley, Chevron Corp.'s Mike Wirth and Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s Vicki Hollub. CEO Mauricio Gutierrez of NRG Energy Inc. and Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro are among the scheduled electricity voices.
Other notable guests include the secretary-general of OPEC and the crown princess of Denmark. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a current Democratic presidential candidate, also are scheduled to appear.
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, is one of the green-leaning names expected at CERAWeek. A different view may come from Steven Koonin, a professor at New York University and a former undersecretary at DOE in the Obama administration, who has been actively recruiting participants for the White House's "adversarial" review of climate science (Climatewire, Feb. 25).
Companies outside the energy sector are on the agenda, as well, including speakers tied to Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. Also on the calendar: William Clay Ford Jr., the executive chairman of Ford Motor Co.
In all, CERAWeek is expected to draw more than 4,000 people who will represent over 70 countries. Public policy is shaping up as a major part of the discussion, whether the subject is the United States or beyond.
"In so many different ways, the energy business — whether it's oil and gas or electric power — is a highly regulated business," Yergin said.What's on tap
This week's event marks the 38th version of CERAWeek, whose name is derived from the former Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
What rivalries will be discussed?
Yergin, 72, pointed to talk of trade wars and competition among great powers, as well as rivalries involving fuels, markets and technologies. Different ideas remain, he said, about the future of energy and how the economy should be organized.
The vice chairman of IHS Markit said discussions on cars and mobility will be of interest, as will views on the management of carbon. Yergin said infrastructure is another focus area, from pipelines to ports.
Yergin cited continuing interest in shale, energy exports and a rise in U.S. oil production. Another issue, he said, is the relationship between companies and investors.
On electric vehicles, Yergin said a number of automobile makers are getting on the EV "bandwagon." That's driven in part by policy and their perceptions of the market, he said. Another factor is a legal settlement involving Volkswagen AG.
"Certainly, there's the question of when and how does the fleet change," said Yergin, who noted potential talk this week of autonomous vehicles and ride-hailing.
Yergin said technology companies are interested in energy because it's a business with great scale, and they have capabilities to offer around digitalization that can help economic competitiveness. A program known as Innovation Agora will help tackle emerging technologies during CERAWeek.
Much attention also will be on Pompeo, who's making an unusual appearance at CERAWeek as a sitting secretary of State. He may discuss how energy and U.S. foreign policy interact.
Yergin said U.S. exports of oil and gas may be "one element in a resolution of the trade war between China and the United States."
Turmoil in Venezuela is expected to be discussed at this year's CERAWeek, as well. The Trump administration's approach to regulation is likely to be a topic, and the 2020 U.S. presidential election looms in the background. Liquefied natural gas is another key area.
Yergin said he expects to hear about climate change, management of emissions and the role of carbon capture and nature-based solutions this week. The potential Green New Deal also is a likely subject of discussion.
Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said that at times, past trips to CERAWeek left him feeling like "an endangered species" at a hunters' convention. But he said he has noticed a change in recent years.
Now, Brownstein is hoping he's more like a panda at the conference — "I'm still rare, but everyone loves me."'Second wave' of shale
Also today, the International Energy Agency is releasing its annual oil market forecast. The United States, buoyed by the shale industry, will drive global oil supply growth over the next five years, IEA said in a news release.
"The second wave of the US shale revolution is coming," Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, said in a statement. "It will see the United States account for 70 [percent] of the rise in global oil production and some 75 [percent] of the expansion in LNG trade over the next five years."
He added: "This will shake up international oil and gas trade flows, with profound implications for the geopolitics of energy."
IEA said it sees "no peak in oil demand," as jet fuel and petrochemicals are drivers of growth to more than offset a potential slowdown in gasoline. It said security of supply is linked in the longer term to upstream investment, which may rise in 2019 based on preliminary plans from major oil companies.
Brownstein said the oil and gas industry is a big contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. For someone focused on addressing climate change, CERAWeek offers a chance to question and push. Brownstein mentioned man-made methane emissions as an area that could be improved.
"If you want to make big change, you better be talking to the people that have a big responsibility for the issue," he said in an interview.
Brownstein noted the potential of wind, solar, batteries and EVs and the possibility of using less oil and gas in the future.
Still, some CERAWeek speakers pushed back last year on the outlook for electric vehicles and how they might affect oil use (Energywire, March 7, 2018).
That means there's work to do while at the conference, according to Brownstein. He said a "global consensus" remains on the need to address climate change even as the United States takes a back seat in global climate policy discussions.
Yergin and former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz recently gained attention for their work on a study about advancing clean energy innovation (Energywire, Feb. 6). Moniz is on CERAWeek's agenda this year.
Yergin said some companies at CERAWeek may talk about broadening their energy portfolios beyond oil and gas.
"I think what you're going to hear is a lot of emphasis on maintaining the efficiencies that have been required over the last couple of years," Yergin said. "The tone this year, I think, will be pretty measured."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/11/stories/1060126831
-
Dominion's Long-Term Plan Envisions CO2 Curbs
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A central tenet of Dominion Energy's revised long-range plan is the presumption of a state or federal mandate to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
It is the latest example of an electric utility forging ahead to reduce emissions linked to climate change, spurred on by customers, investors and politicians — not the federal government.
The utility made its plans known late Thursday in an amended filing of its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for the next 15 years.
Virginia regulators in early December rejected Dominion's initial IRP in December as not being "reasonable and in the public interest" (Energywire, Dec. 11, 2018).
The Virginia State Corporation Commission's decision was a rare rebuke for the state's dominant utility, which has generally had its strategy accepted unchallenged by regulators and lawmakers.
An IRP amounts to a road map of a utility's generation and other needs over a set term. Once approved, the plan helps regulators determine whether and how much customers should be asked to pay in higher electricity rates to support the utility's investments.
A key objection by State Corporation Commission (SCC) was the utility's forecast of future electricity demand and sales, which regulators found to be greatly overstated. In the revised plan, Dominion uses lower forecasts from the regional grid operator, the PJM Interconnection.
The utility's revised IRP offers various scenarios for approval — a least-cost plan that presumes no action on carbon, three that factor in state action on carbon, one presuming federal carbon action, and the last a plan with no carbon curbs but with inclusion of the utility's grid transformation plan.
"They required us to file a no-carbon tax, least-cost plan, which is highly unlikely because there will be some sort of federal or state carbon regulation one way or another," said Dominion spokesman Rayhan Daudani.
The least-cost plan comes in at $25.42 billion, well below the $33.34 billion in the initial IRP filing in May of 2018.
"The nearly $8 billion reduction is largely due to the SCC requiring us to model off PJM's load forecast," Daudani said.
The bare-bones plan does not include spending on Dominion's ambitious grid transformation plan, new demand-side management programs, or a program to underground distribution power lines.
The three plans that presume some sort of state action on carbon do include those plans and range from a cost of $32.09 billion to $34.33 billion.
The likely state action on carbon envisioned by Dominion is that Virginia would join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state cap-and-trade system for power generators in the Northeast. That is what Dominion's IRP assumes.
The State Air Pollution Control Board is evaluating that and other options since former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) in May of 2017 signed a directive aimed at curbing CO2 emissions from power plants, Daudani said.
As for a federal carbon regime option, Dominion forecasts a cost of $33.06 billion. It, too, includes the spending on the grid, efficiency and undergrounding.Split over solar efficiency
While the utility tried to comply with the SCC's December order, it "respectfully" challenged a number of the SCC's directives as being unrealistic or a misinterpretation of legislative direction from the Virginia General Assembly.
That legislation, the "Grid Transformation and Security Act of 2018," envisioned Dominion possibly investing in offshore wind, 5,000 megawatts of wind and solar, $870 million in energy efficiency programs and a 30-MW battery storage project.
The SCC had called these investments "mandates," and Dominion filed a legal memorandum challenging that position.
Chief among the utility's objections was the direction from the SCC that in its modeling of the IRP, Dominion use a 23 percent capacity factor for its planned expansion of solar generation for 15 years.
The capacity factor measures the average expected output of a solar plant, not what it could produce under optimal conditions.
The utility argues that a 25.4 percent capacity factor is more appropriate.
The original IRP used that estimate, and the modeling showed it would produce 4,720 MW of new solar.
"If you use the lower capacity factor, which is what we've done by the SCC's order, and put a 23 percent solar capacity factor into the models, it significantly changes the models," Daudani said. "Solar's position as a least-cost resource is greatly diminished."
The 23 percent estimate produces just 480 MW of solar, Daudani said.
Dominion has been slow to move into large-scale solar compared with other big utilities such as Duke Energy. It currently has 824 MW of solar in Virginia in operation or under development.
But now, the company sees solar as competitive with natural gas as a least-cost energy source available to the electric utility industry.
"As costs fluctuate slightly, from a purely least-cost standpoint, solar will be the less expensive generation source in some years, natural gas in others. But with the continued advancement of solar technology, including better efficiency and improved tracking mechanisms, it is likely that solar energy's competitiveness will be even stronger in the future," Dominion said in its filing.
The SCC will hold a hearing on the revised IRP on May 8.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/11/stories/1060126841
-
BP, Exxon to Help Advance Alaska LNG Export Project -Alaska Gasline
Mar 11, 2019 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino
Alaska Gasline Development Corp (AGDC) said it signed an agreement with BP PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp to help advance the state-owned company’s proposed $43.4 billion Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) project:
** “Our respective organizations share an interest in the successful commercialization of Alaska’s stranded North Slope natural gas,” AGDC Interim President Joe Dubler said in a statement late Friday.
** BP and Exxon Mobil produce massive amounts of oil in Alaska and have discovered huge gas resources that are stranded in the North Slope.
** The Alaska LNG project is designed to liquefy 3.5 billion cubic feet per day of gas for sale to customers in the Asia-Pacific region from a facility to be built in Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula south of Anchorage. It includes an 807-mile (1,300-km) pipeline from the North Slope.
** U.S. energy regulators recently delayed the date they expect to decide on the LNG project to June 2020 from February 2020.
** Officials at AGDC have said the company is reviewing the timeline to get the project built.
** At the same time, AGDC said it is continuing negotiations with several parties interested in the project, including a joint development agreement with Chinese oil and gas company Sinopec, China’s sovereign wealth fund China Investment Corp’s CIC Capital Corp and the state-owned Bank of China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-alaska-lng/bp-exxon-to-help-advance-alaska-lng-export-project-alaska-gasline-idUSKBN1QR0WQ
-
Dems Plan Review of EPA's 'Loose Implementation' of Safety Law
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
A House Energy and Commerce panel this week will question EPA's protection of workers exposed to toxic chemicals.
"Protecting vulnerable populations is an essential part of EPA's mission, but under this administration, the agency has systematically undervalued or completely overlooked the risks workers face from exposure to chemicals on the job," full committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said in a joint statement.
"Workers should not have to choose between their health and their jobs," they continued. "We will get to the bottom of this situation and do what it takes to hold the EPA accountable and ensure all our workers are safe."
A memo said the hearing will address "how workers are being harmed as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) systemically ignoring exposure risks in its loose implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and other laws."
Members are likely to ask about methylene chloride, a chemical found in paint strippers. It has been linked to more than 50 deaths, and EPA faces lawsuits over it failure to ban it (E&E News PM, Feb. 19).Anti-terrorism program
House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has indicated he wants long-term reauthorization of a chemical security program, and he has wasted no time scheduling a second hearing on the issue this Congress.
Tomorrow, the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Innovation Subcommittee will ask witnesses for their opinions on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, or CFATS.
The statute works with more than 3,000 high-risk facilities and is currently operating under a 15-month extension.
Last month, the full committee met to begin the process to get a longer reauthorization for the program (E&E Daily, Feb. 28).Consumer safety
The House Oversight and Reform Committee tomorrow will look at the health risks of consumer products that contain carcinogens.
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration issued an alert that certain products from the retailer Claire's contained asbestos.
FDA testing found the carcinogen in eye shadows, compact powders and contour palettes. Claire's said it does not believe it is still selling the affected products.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/11/stories/1060126809
-
Hearing to Focus on Access, Infrastructure
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Scott Streater
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing this week on strategies to improve access to public lands and increase funding for infrastructure.
The Thursday hearing dovetails with recent legislation on the issue. It also comes as acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is expected to direct the Bureau of Land Management to remove federal lands deemed as important for hunting, fishing or other recreational activities from consideration for sale, exchange or transfer.
Bernhardt discussed the pending secretarial order briefly during a speech last week at the 84th North American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference in Denver.
He described it as "a directive that requires the BLM whenever they are thinking about disposing of property," or acquiring or exchanging parcels, to "think very carefully about the impact that that decision will have on access to traditional hunting and fishing" and other recreational activities.
If the land at issue is used for recreational purposes, then it should be eliminated as a parcel eligible for sale, transfer or exchange under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, he said. FLPMA requires BLM as it develops or amends resource management plans to identify lands that are better off being transferred or sold.
"Anything that's going to be disposed of, that's thought about for disposal, thought about for acquisition, thought about for exchanging, will now have to go through this additional test," he said.Bills
Among the bills addressing aging infrastructure on public lands to be discussed is S. 500, sponsored by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio).
The "Restore Our Parks Act," filed last month, would establish the Legacy Restoration Fund to help fund projects that whittle down the National Park Service's more than $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
The fund would comprise "50 percent of all energy development revenues" derived from "oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy development on Federal land and water," according to the bill text.
A maximum of $1.3 billion would be deposited into the fund each fiscal year, from 2019 through 2023, the text says.
A total of 32 Republicans and Democrats, along with independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, are co-sponsors.
Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) last month filed similar legislation, H.R. 1225, that would set up the "National Park Service and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund" based on unallocated energy revenues derived from development on federal lands and waters (E&E Daily, Feb. 15).
The fund in the Bishop-Kilmer bill would help not only NPS but also BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages national wildlife refuges.
The bipartisan bill — introduced last session by Bishop and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who is now chairman of the Natural Resources Committee — has 125 co-sponsors.
Also last month, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and Kilmer filed H.R. 1026, which calls for allocating $450 million in each fiscal year — from 2020 to 2029 — to the "National Park Service and Related Agencies Maintenance and Revitalization Conservation Fund."
A portion of the money in the fund would go toward "projects that secure recreational public access to existing Federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes."Public easement needs
Improving access to public lands for hunting and fishing is an issue that will be raised by Whit Fosburgh, the president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
Fosburgh said he plans to discuss a report his group published last year with Missoula, Mont.-based onX, that found 9.5 million acres of public lands is surrounded by privately owned parcels and can't be accessed by hunters, anglers, hikers and others (Greenwire, Sept. 5, 2018).
And he plans to raise concerns about Forest Service record-keeping documenting the location of public easements across private lands that allow access to federal parcels.
The problem, he says, is that the service has no digital file on the easements available to the public, instead keeping the records in "paper files" and boxes.
The Forest Service, he said, "ought to be told to digitize these easement records."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/11/stories/1060126879
-
Dems Shape Talks with Long List of Climate Demands
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Maxine Joselow
As infrastructure talks progress on Capitol Hill, Democrats are calling for any legislative package to address climate change.
That would have been unthinkable last year, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.
Indeed, when President Trump initially proposed his $1 trillion infrastructure plan last year, it sparked little discussion about global warming. And the plan ultimately failed to materialize due to disagreement over funding options.
But momentum is again building for an infrastructure package to materialize by late spring. And now that they have a majority in the House, Democrats are increasingly vocalizing the need for it to address the climate crisis (E&E Daily, March 7).
"The benefits of highway infrastructure investment will be impeded — if not downright nullified — if we don't address the threats of climate change and extreme weather events that are increasingly disrupting our nation's transportation system," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said last week at a hearing on highway infrastructure investment.
There are a couple of big hurdles: figuring out exactly what incorporating climate change into an infrastructure bill would look like and shaping the package in such a way as to garner support among a Republican Party that's suspicious of progressive climate policies like the Green New Deal.
Democrats and their allies in the environmental community have proposed a wide variety of climate components that could be tucked into a broad bill, from resilience to electric vehicles to energy efficiency.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, is quick to rattle off a laundry list of suggestions.
"There's issues of looking toward decarbonizing transportation, the largest contributor ... to carbon pollution," DeFazio told reporters last week. "I believe the solution is going to be electrification. So I'd like, in the longer-term bill, to look at how we are going to set up an electric backbone to support the future transportation needs of the country."
The Oregon Democrat then pivoted from electric vehicles to resilience. "We have to build infrastructure that's resilient," he said, adding, "We have to, you know, look at how we are going to protect the existing infrastructure from sea-level rise."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a member of the T&I Committee, also ticked off a long list of proposals in an interview.
"I think both aspects of climate change need to be reflected," Huffman said. "The decarbonization imperative can be advanced by investing in clean energy, grid modernization, public transportation and other things that can help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
He continued, "But then the adaptation side, obviously, is going to require ... some reimagining of infrastructure. When you think about coastal resiliency, for example, the idea that we're just going to continue building sea walls and things like that is primitive and not very effective and really expensive."
There are a plethora of ideas off the Hill, too.
The National Wildlife Federation recently released a two-page fact sheet highlighting its own priorities for an infrastructure package. The document calls for creating a revolving loan fund to support communities affected by extreme weather events, establishing a technology-neutral tax credit to encourage low-carbon electricity generation, and extending tax credits for fuel-cell and electric vehicles.
Shannon Heyck-Williams, NWF's director of climate and energy policy, said the group's strategy involves pushing a wide array of proposals, some of which hold different appeal for different lawmakers.
"We can't wait for the stars to align for the perfect solution," Heyck-Williams said. "We have to take every opportunity we can now to make progress."
On the other hand, the American Society of Civil Engineers — which recently issued a report card giving the nation's infrastructure a grade of D+ — is focusing on the overarching goal of resilience.
"We think the money that is going to be allocated needs to be spent in a more sustainable and resilient fashion," said Brian Pallasch, ASCE's managing director of government relations. "The notion that we build infrastructure to be able to adapt to the changing climate is terribly important."Litmus test
The push to include climate change in an infrastructure package largely began in December with an opinion piece penned by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in The Washington Post.
The piece marked one of Schumer's most aggressive stances on climate change since assuming his leadership role, and it provided an early litmus test for any infrastructure bill in this Congress (E&E Daily, Dec. 7, 2018).
Stephanie Gidigbi, infrastructure lead with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said she's been encouraged to hear other Democrats pick up Schumer's rallying cry.
"I think Sen. Schumer has been clear that there's no deal on infrastructure without addressing climate change, which is great," Gidigbi said. "And I think this new Congress brings in new energy and new possibilities on really addressing climate change through infrastructure."
NRDC supports investments in renewable energy deployment, electric vehicle infrastructure, energy efficiency, building efficiency, transit and biking.'Fairy tale'
Still, Republicans have rarely — if at all — brought up climate change during the spate of infrastructure hearings in the 116th Congress. They've tended to focus instead on streamlining the permitting process for large projects.
GOP lawmakers have also been busy attacking the Green New Deal, the much-hyped climate resolution from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that calls for a massive government-led jobs program to address global warming.
That's led to some tension at times.
At a T&I hearing last month, Vice Chairman Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) stressed in his opening statement that the purpose of the hearing was not to debate the Green New Deal but rather to examine how federal infrastructure policy could help mitigate and adapt to climate change.
"I suspect many on both sides of the aisle will want to spar over the Green New Deal," Carbajal said. "But it is not what we are here to do today. If you want to debate underlying arguments or ideas of the Green New Deal, this is not the venue."
Ranking member Sam Graves (R-Mo.) paid no heed to these instructions.
"We don't have to live in a fairy tale, and that's where ideas like the Green New Deal come from," Graves said. "There's no other way to describe this idea to completely make over our transportation network."
Still, Democrats say GOP distaste for the Green New Deal and other climate provisions shouldn't hamper meaningful progress on the issue.
Asked whether Republicans might object to climate change language in infrastructure legislation, Huffman was adamant. "We can call it whatever they want, but we have to do all of these things," he said. "We just do. So I am less concerned about their comfort level and more concerned about the imperative of getting these things done."
Some observers think Republicans in areas hit by extreme weather may support climate components if they're framed in terms of resilience.
"In our conversations, I think there's a growing understanding that building infrastructure in a more resilient fashion is a good use of taxpayer dollars and the right way to ensure better infrastructure for the future," said Pallasch of the American Society of Civil Engineers. "I have found that not to be a partisan discussion."
Indeed, at the T&I hearing last month, Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) noted that his state had recently seen wild swings in temperature, which could threaten the structural integrity of roads and bridges.
"In some places, there's going to be a need for some sort of resiliency," Webster said.
There have also been recent signs that Republicans are willing to engage on climate change. For instance, GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are shifting from climate denial toward developing their own message on the issue (E&E Daily, March 7).
"There's a recognition in the Republican Party that stepping forward on solutions to climate change is frankly overdue," said the National Wildlife Federation's Heyck-Williams. "It hasn't really been an area of priority for the party in some time. And I think it is getting there again."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/11/stories/1060126741
-
Murkowski, Manchin Call for 'Responsible Solutions' to Climate Change
Mar 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Two centrist senators on Friday called for the U.S. to pursue "pragmatic policies" to combat climate change instead of focusing on "drastic, unattainable measures."
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the U.S. has the opportunity to lead the world on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pledged to support those efforts in the Senate.
"If the United States is going to lead by example, we must continue to lead the world in the development of new and improved technologies," they wrote. "On the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we agree it is time to act. And that is why we will work to find responsible solutions worthy of West Virginians, Alaskans and all Americans."
While not naming the Green New Deal introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) earlier this year, Murkowski and Manchin appeared to knock the plan as drastic and unattainable in passing reference.
"This is often portrayed as an issue with just two sides — those who support drastic, unattainable measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and those who want to do nothing," they wrote. "We believe the time for sensationalism is over. And we are seeking ideas that will bring people together, rather than drive them apart."
While not naming specific policies the two would pursue, Murkowski and Manchin wrote that they would support "pragmatic policies that can draw strong and enduring support" from voters and lawmakers alike.
The two rural state senators are the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the Interior and Energy departments as well as the production of oil and gas on federal land.
Manchin ascended to the ranking member's spot in December, a move environmental activists lambasted at the time due to the West Virginia senator's historic support for coal companies.
"Joe Manchin’s appointment as ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee is a stark failure of [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s leadership," environmentalist group Friends of the Earth said in a statement last year. "Schumer is out of touch with the progressive voters who will continue to push for a Green New Deal in the next Congress."
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/433329-murkowski-manchin-call-for-responsible-solutions-to-climate-change
-
New Climate Panel’s Republicans Seek Focus on Adaptation
Mar 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Republicans on the House’s new climate-change panel see building more climate-resilient cities and coastlines as a priority—with talking about greenhouse gas emissions taking a back seat.
Led by ranking committee member Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.),—whose state’s coastal wetlands are disappearing at the average rate of a football field every 100 minutes—the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis’ six-member GOP contingency say that adapting to sea-level rise and devastating weather events are at the top of their wish list for hearings.
“If there are measures we can take to be proactive,” Graves told reporters, “that is going to save us money in the long term.”
An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report last year concluded that countries have about 12 years to dramatically reduce emissions to avoid the worst-case scenarios for climate change, a finding that has spurred ambitious plans such as the Green New Deal to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.
Although Graves said that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a goal for Republicans and Democrats, the need to adapt is far more urgent.
“it doesn’t matter how aggressive we are in the United States at reducing our emissions or limiting our emissions, we are not going to see a change in temperature trajectory or sea-rise trajectory for decades at the absolute earliest,” he said.
Coastal DistrictsOther Republicans on the panel agreed.
“I represent the entire coast of Georgia,” Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter (R) told Bloomberg Environment. “We’ve had two hurricanes within 11 months, and we need to be prepared.”
Asked what he would suggest for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Carter said, “My main focus is going to see what we can do to protect out coast and things like infrastructure.”
Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) said he would highlight the potential of human ingenuity to promote adaptation.
“The fact that you can have major cities on coastal areas that can withstand Category 4, Category 5 hurricanes is indicative of the engineering expertise and the technological expertise that we have to mitigate against things like that,” he said.
“There’s no question there’s climate change but as far as human activity leading to a catastrophic result, I don’t think the science, nor the history of climate change, bears that out,” he added.
‘Potential Ally’The panel’s remaining Republicans, Reps. Morgan Griffith (Va.), Carol Miller (W.Va.), and Kelly Armstrong (N.D.) couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
The GOP’s focus on adaptation could chafe Democrats who see a closing window of opportunity to reduce emissions.
Graves will “probably be a potential ally when it comes to working on adaptation, and coastal resilience, and other aspects of the climate challenge,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who serves on the panel, told reporters.
“The more difficult conversation is, can we please stop wrecking the planet in the next ten to twelve years by dramatically transforming our economy away from fossil fuels,” Huffman said.
“I hope he’ll participate in that part of the conversation, too,” he added.https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-climate-panels-republicans-seek-focus-on-adaptation
-
Climate Panel's GOP Leader: 'More Than Willing to Push Back'
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Daniel Cusick
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) thinks the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis sounds "a little dramatic."
But that doesn't mean the Louisiana congressman who just became the committee's ranking Republican is blind to the urgency of addressing climate change.
As a former head of his state's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority and an environmental czar to former Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Graves helped the Pelican State rebuild from Hurricane Katrina, which some argue was a climate crisis in its own right.
Since then, the 47-year-old lawmaker has frequently acknowledged the risk of sea-level rise to Louisiana's fragile coastline, parts of which are in his 6th District.
"To put your head in the sand and ignore that this is happening I think is a real mistake for any party," he told Odyssey, an online publication, in 2016.
Shortly after, Graves got another immersion into climate-juiced extreme weather when an unnamed storm dumped 20 to 30 inches of rain on his Louisiana district, flooding 67,000 properties and causing more than $8 billion in damage.
Only Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and Hurricane Florence in 2018 produced more rainfall than the 2016 deluge. Graves has since made flood protection his No. 1 issue in Congress.
In a phone interview last week, Graves said he will draw on those experiences as the minority shot-caller on what should be one of the most watched oversight panels in the 116th Congress.
"It just takes us looking back over the last few years — Michael, Florence, Maria, Irma, Harvey — to see there are issues that need to be examined," Graves told E&E News. "This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is something that affects everybody."
Not everyone in Graves' caucus sees the policy imperative. While some of the House's most ardent climate skeptics lost re-election bids in November, Graves and his five Republican colleagues on the climate crisis committee will face pressure from some conservatives who publicly dispute core tenets of climate science.
They include fellow Gulf Coast state Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama and Louie Gohmert and Randy Weber of Texas, as well as Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia.
Griffith, who will serve on the climate crisis committee alongside Graves, was on a shortlist of Competitive Enterprise Institute-selected candidates to become ranking member of the climate committee (Greenwire, Jan. 14).
Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at CEI, said in January, "Our main goal is that the person who is chosen as ranking needs to be someone who is willing to take the grief — because they will be attacked all the time — and is willing to do the work."
Graves did not make CEI's list.
But people who know Graves from his work in Louisiana say he is suited to the job.
"I truly believe Garret will have an open mind to the facts around climate change. And out of all the congressmen I know, he's probably the best at bringing people together and find commonsense solutions," said Louisiana Lt. Gov. Billy Nungesser (R), who was president of Plaquemines Parish during Graves' tenure as chairman of the coastal restoration effort.
David Muth, director of the National Wildlife Federation's Gulf Restoration program, worked closely with Graves to draft the state's 2012 Coastal Master Plan, a document that continues to inform land-use decisions in the region.
Muth said Graves is a pragmatist who will talk honestly about climate change without compromising his conservative bona fides.
"I hope that he'll find a way to maneuver," Muth said. "He's a policy wonk, and he's going to be down in the trenches trying to figure these things out."
Graves, too, said he is prepared to fight for conservative positions on the panel, which could hold its first meeting later this month. He was planning to meet with the committee's Democratic chairwoman, Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, last week and said he had initiated contact with other members, including some Democrats.
He made clear, however, that if the majority acts as a partisan mouthpiece for sweeping greenhouse gas regulations, he will strike back.
"There are some components of the climate change issue that I believe in, and there are some things that I believe have some urgency to them," Graves said. "But if they're going to use the committee to advance the ideas of extremists who see this as a looming disaster and the government's response must be to shut down major parts of the economy to fix, I'm more than willing to push back."
For example, Graves dismissed the Green New Deal being pushed by left-leaning Democrats in Congress as an extreme policy proposal filled with "flaws and hallucinations." He said he is prepared to "have a field day" picking apart the GND policy package "and any other proposals that have been proffered as policy solutions to address the climate issue."
Graves also said he would resist any efforts by Democrats to use the committee "as a bashing forum against Republicans," adding that he is willing and able to "play the bomb-throwing game" if the majority comes out swinging.
Graves sees the greatest opportunity for common ground around issues of disaster mitigation, flood control and the effects of sea-level rise, which he said he has been talking about for 15 years.
"We have [in Louisiana] some of the largest subsidence rates in the world, so our relative sea-level rise is extraordinary," he said. "It is an adaptation issue that if properly addressed will result not only in improving the resiliency of our economy, our communities and our ecosystems, but will ensure there is a future for one the most important assets in the nation," the Lower Mississippi Basin.
Since joining the House in 2015, Graves has pressed for reforms to the Stafford Act and other laws governing the management and distribution of disaster dollars to victims of hurricanes, floods and other disasters.
Graves has also criticized the Army Corps of Engineers, saying the Defense Department agency is too large and too plodding to effectively meet flood protection needs in high-risk areas. He has advocated that the Army Corps' civil works program and other non-military responsibilities be shifted to the Interior and Transportation departments.
Graves said he does not see the climate crisis panel, which lacks subpoena power or authority to craft legislation, as a venue to advance reform to the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers.
Rather, he believes the committee needs to "redefine the narrative on this issue" from a looming environmental catastrophe to a problem that merits serious, reasoned, bipartisan solutions.
"I do think that having somewhat of a crosscutting committee can be a good thing," Graves said. "The important thing is not adding to the chaos that already exists" by inflating the issue with charged rhetoric and finger-pointing.
"I'm not the chair; I'm the ranking member, so I won't be setting the agenda," he added. "I do think that being a member of this committee at the end of the day is sort of like having a book of matches. You can create heat and light, or you can create a forest fire."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/11/stories/1060126765
-
2 Visions for a Green New Deal Face off in N.Y.
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
An alternative Green New Deal bill has secured support from a majority of legislators in New York, setting it up as a possible contender with the governor's own, rival version of the idea.
New York campaigners for the Climate and Community Protection Act (CCPA) said last week that a majority of state senators had signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation, teeing it up for passage in the full, Democratic-controlled Legislature.
"Reaching this milestone shows a clear path for passing justice- and equity-based climate policy this year," said Eddie Bautista, executive director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance and a steering committee member of the 150-group NY Renews coalition.
But it also creates uncertainty over which version of climate action New Yorkers might get: the social justice-centered law pushed by legislators and their district-level allies in the climate and labor movements, or a stress-tested industrial policy helmed by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his energy and environmental officials.
It also makes the state a microcosm of divisions in the national Democratic Party, where some long-standing members have flinched at the Green New Deal resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) last month. As is true at the federal level, moderate Democrats want to temper idealism with concern for cost and political palatability, while progressives warn that traditional solutions won't be sufficient to avoid climate catastrophe.
Bautista said, "The CCPA is not just about the environment."
"We have two options: Allow low income communities and communities of color to be hit hardest by a changing climate, or let our communities lead us in building a better world. The CCPA does the latter," he said.'The year you get something done'
The CCPA, which cleared the Assembly on three separate occasions in previous years before failing in a Republican Senate, would require the state to decarbonize its electricity by 2040, and its entire economy by 2050.
Renewable developers that won state contracts would have to pay workers the prevailing wage. And if New York ever passes a carbon tax, it would have to channel 40 percent of the revenues into disadvantaged communities — a term to be defined by an environmental justice work group.
Cuomo's plan, included in his proposed budget last month, proposes a quicker power conversion over the near term — 70 percent from renewable sources by 2030, rather than the CCPA's 50 percent by that date.
When unveiled in January, it also came with a specific playbook for renewable development, like a quadrupled target for offshore wind and doubled energy storage.
It stops short, though, of making specific pledges for disadvantaged communities or providing a date for economywide decarbonization — the latter representing a particular sticking point in negotiations with the Legislature.
Too little is known about what will be required to tackle the full spectrum of emissions sources, said Jim Malatras, president of the Rockefeller Institute of Government and a former state policy director to Cuomo.
Under both bills, a climate council convened to oversee the transition would be tasked with answering hard questions about how to achieve the goals.
But the governor may be wary of how the transition might affect energy consumers — or their voting behavior and support for climate action. Cuomo's office said in an emailed statement that moving to 100 percent clean electricity by 2040 is technologically feasible, but "more analysis" is needed before pinning a hard date to an economywide transition.
"You've got to have a plan to go along with in a meaningful way and not just throw it out there, because it can shock the body politic," said Malatras. "What are the programs that are in place to effectuate the change?"
Sponsorship from a Senate majority "doesn't mean the bill is going to happen," he said, but added that the Legislature and the governor's office weren't too far apart on the issue for a compromise.
"I think there's more commonality and overlap between the proposals than disagreement," he said. "This could be the year you get something done."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/11/stories/1060126755
-
D.C. Circuit Judges Appear Likely To Remand Obama EPA Policy On HFCs
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Appellate court judges at March 8 oral argument signaled they are likely to back calls from some refrigerant chemical manufacturers by remanding to EPA an Obama-era policy on replacing ozone-depleting or climate-warming refrigerants, over the objection of rival refrigerant makers and environmentalists.
In Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, chemical firms Mexichem and Arkema are seeking to overturn a 2016 Obama-era rule that changed the status of some hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants in different end-uses to “unacceptable."
Rival chemical makers Chemours and Honeywell, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), oppose remand and want to leave in place the rule that bans the use of certain HFCs.
The three-judge panel hearing the case suggested that they must abide by a prior D.C. Circuit ruling known as Mexichem I to remand the regulation to the agency. The Trump administration is not contesting the case and has backed the two companies’ call for a remand so that it can rework the agency’s HFC policy.
“We are bound by the law of the circuit,” said Judge Harry Edwards, who heard argument in the present case alongside fellow D.C. Circuit Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins.
HFCs do not deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and replaced older, ozone-depleting refrigerants such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons, but they are potent greenhouse gases. The Obama EPA, environmentalists and manufacturers of newer, less-harmful refrigerants aimed to ban and replace them in the 2016 rule.
But Mexichem and Arkema, who make the older chemicals, say the rule contradicts the D.C. Circuit’s precedent in Mexichem I, a suit that challenged key parts of EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) rule from 2015 limiting HFCs in a variety of end uses. In that 2-1 decision from 2017, the court found that EPA may not require substitution of refrigerants that have already replaced ozone-depleting chemicals under the agency’s SNAP program.
Mexichem and Arkema argue that the court’s ruling in Mexichem I compels the court to remand and partially vacate the 2016 rule that they say is inconsistent with the earlier ruling, which was written by former D.C. Circuit judge and current Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and Judge Janice Rogers Brown, with a dissent from Wilkins.
But Chemours, Honeywell and NRDC counter that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mexichem I because the case challenged an EPA policy established in an underlying 1994 rule, and the Clean Air Act places a 60-day window on filing suit over regulations. They claim that because the court in the earlier ruling never addressed the jurisdictional issue, they can find that the current case is not in their jurisdiction due to the time limit.
Competing Claims
At oral argument, Thomas Lorenzen -- representing the environmental group and the two companies -- argued that the Mexichem I court only addressed the jurisdiction question in “rhetorical flourishes” in dicta, but did not squarely address the issue. Supreme Court precedent holds that jurisdictional issues that are merely implied “sub silentio” have no precedential effect, he said.
Mexichem and Arkema, backed by EPA, maintain that the intervenors’ case is prohibited by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which prevents a litigant from litigating the same issue twice, and also the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires that courts adhere to their own precedent.
In response, Lorenzen argued these doctrines do not apply -- although his claim received a tepid response from the judges, who appear inclined to side with Mexichem and Arkema.
Edwards said the D.C. Circuit panel in Mexichem I was “quite clear in saying that the agency has changed its position” on its policy established in 1994, and that this change permitted the court in its earlier ruling to disregard the Clean Air Act’s time-bar on litigation of old regulations, Edwards said.
Lorenzen said that if the judges feel bound by Mexichem I, yet think it was wrongly decided, they should consider review of the present case by the whole court en banc.
Wilkins pressed Department of Justice attorney Benjamin Carlisle, representing EPA, on why the agency has now switched its position on the HFCs policy, following the change in administration. EPA in Mexichem I argued that the court’s position was “unworkable.” Wilkins asked if this is not still the case.
Carlisle replied that the earlier finding in Mexichem I controls, and this overrides EPA’s earlier merits argument. He told Rogers that the court is bound by the majority ruling in Mexichem I, even if it disagrees with it. Rehearing en bancwould be the only option to depart from the earlier ruling, Carlisle said.
Attorney Dan Himmerfarb, representing Mexichem and Arkema, insisted that their rival refrigerant manufacturers and NRDC are precluded from pursuing the current suit because the Mexichem I court “necessarily rejected the jurisdictional objections” and “implicit findings are more than sufficient for collateral estoppel decisions.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-judges-appear-likely-remand-obama-epa-policy-hfcs
-
Lawsuits, White House Inaction Complicate HFC Phaseout
Mar 11, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Environmentalists and manufacturers took one more stab Friday at reinstating Obama-era restrictions on climate superpollutants used in refrigeration and cooling.
U.S. manufacturers Honeywell International Inc. and Chemours Co., which developed alternatives to heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, joined again with the Natural Resources Defense Council to urge a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to affirm EPA's authority to ban the substances.
Two years ago, the court sided with two foreign-owned HFC manufacturers in finding that EPA can't use a Clean Air Act program aimed at restoring the ozone layer to force companies to stop using the chemicals in favor of new, more climate-friendly substitutes. HFCs previously appeared on a list of acceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances.
That decision, penned by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, invalidated EPA's 2015 Significant New Alternative Policy, or SNAP, rule. The agency broadened its HFC restrictions in 2016, and the two rules formed the basis for the Obama administration's plans to comply with a global agreement on HFCs reached in Kigali, Rwanda. The Trump administration has yet to submit the Kigali Amendment for Senate approval.
The Trump administration initially defended the SNAP rules in 2017 but reversed course after the Kavanaugh decision. Department of Justice attorney Ben Carlisle, representing EPA, told the panel Friday that the facts in the lawsuit over the 2016 rule are "materially identical" to those in the case concerning the invalidated 2015 rule.
The judges should "refuse to allow the intervenors a fourth bite at the apple to litigate this court's jurisdiction," Carlisle said.
But Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former DOJ attorney who represented the U.S. manufacturers in both cases, argued that Kavanaugh's decision doesn't "grapple" with the fact that the original 1994 regulation for SNAP states that "no person may use a substitute after the effective date of any rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes." He argued that the 60-day limit to bring a lawsuit challenging that provision expired 25 years ago.
The challenge by Mexico-based Mexichem Fluor Inc. and France-based Arkema SA is therefore coming a quarter-century too late, he said.
But Carlisle said the court had made the "exact findings necessary to resolve this issue" in 2017 and found that the 2015 rule "represented a new interpretation of EPA's authority."
Lorenzen, though, said the 2017 decision should have acknowledged and addressed the timing issue.
"What they're trying to argue is that even though the courts are silent on this that the courts somehow decided this," he said.
Kavanaugh and fellow George W. Bush appointee Judge Janice Rogers Brown made up the majority of the 2017 panel; Brown retired from the D.C. Circuit shortly after hearing the case, and Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court in October 2018.
This time, the U.S. manufacturers and NRDC face an arguably friendlier panel of three judges appointed by Democratic presidents. They include Obama appointee Judge Robert Wilkins, who previously wrote a dissenting opinion upholding EPA's authority to ban HFCs.
But the three judges Friday had more questions for Lorenzen than for the challengers to the rule. Both Wilkins and Senior Judge Harry Edwards seemed unsatisfied with Lorenzen's timeliness argument.
"You've got to understand as an institutional matter, what we face all the time," said Edwards, a Carter appointee. "We're bound by the law of the circuit; we're bound by what a prior panel says. We have ways to deal with that. And there are a lot of times we'll look at a prior opinion and say, 'I don't quite see it that way,' but if it's the law of the circuit, it's the law of the circuit."Kigali Amendment
The SNAP rules were the Obama administration's plan for U.S. compliance with Kigali, but they're by no means the only way to achieve the phase-downs required under the 2016 amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
Congress could move implementing legislation before the deal is ratified, or the United States could join the treaty and address compliance questions subsequently. Kigali took effect New Year's Day without U.S. participation (Climatewire, Jan. 7).
The amendment enjoys broad support, not only among industry and environmentalists but in Congress.
"We have some pretty strange bedfellows supporting Kigali ratification," said Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) in a recent floor speech.
Thirteen Senate Republicans asked President Trump in a letter last year to send Kigali to the Senate for ratification, whatever the outcome in the courts. In many cases, they were urged on by home-state companies like North Carolina-based Honeywell International Inc. or Carrier Corp., the air conditioning company Trump once claimed credit for persuading to stay in Indiana (Climatewire, Sept. 17, 2018).
Last Congress, Carper joined with Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and bipartisan co-sponsors to introduce legislation that tracked the HFC phase-down schedule for developed countries under Kigali. The pair are consulting industry and stakeholders about a new version. Chances of its passage in the House have improved greatly with the new Democratic majority.
But the White House has not signaled when or whether it will ask the Senate to ratify Kigali.
The National Security Council has convened several meetings with agencies, including the Commerce and State departments and EPA. Carper and others have said that while most agencies have expressed support for the agreement, EPA has not.
Agency air chief Bill Wehrum represented EPA in most of those meetings. Carper asked now-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler for his own position on Kigali during his confirmation, but Wheeler was noncommittal. Mandy Gunasekara, who was deputy in EPA's air office until earlier this year, said in a BBC Radio interview last week that there are "a mixture of opinions and approaches right now" to Kigali within EPA.
"My problem with the Kigali Amendment is that it has co-opted an otherwise successful environmental treaty, the Montreal Protocol, and it's changing it on its face and substantively into a climate change treaty," she said.
But on the same program, former White House energy adviser George David Banks said Kigali would prevent China from dumping cheap HFCs into the U.S. market. U.S. companies will have an advantage because they patented the substitutes, he said.
If China and the United States ratify Kigali, "China will be permitted for some time to continue to manufacture HFCs, but they won't be permitted to sell them in the U.S.," Banks told E&E News. "This fact alone is largely responsible for the estimated $46.5 billion in reduced imports that Kigali ratification could bring about."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/11/stories/1060126783
-
CASAC Attacks On EPA’s PM Science Analysis Jeopardize NAAQS Review
Mar 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is condemning the agency’s approach to assessing health risks of particulate matter (PM) and is seeking a new draft of a health study underpinning the ongoing review of the PM ambient air limit, a time-consuming step that jeopardizes EPA’s plan to accelerate its review of the limit.
In a March 7 draft letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the panel broadly attacks the agency’s draft Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) -- a key document for the Clean Air Act-mandated five-year review of the PM national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) that was last updated in 2012. The ISAs, crafted for all six of the agency’s criteria pollutant NAAQS, summarize the latest policy-relevant science on air pollution.
CASAC finds there are “fundamental limitations” in the first draft of the ISA, including a lack of comprehensive, systematic review; lack of scientific method and of verifiable derivations of conclusions; use of unverifiable opinions to draw major policy-relevant conclusions; and lack of scientific support for policy deliberations and decision-making. The letter goes on to make a range of detailed observations harshly critical of the assessment.
The ISA “does not provide a comprehensive or systematic assessment of the available science relevant to understanding the health impacts of exposure to fine particulate matter, nor does it follow widely accepted scientific methods for deriving sound, independently verifiable, scientific conclusions from available data,” the letter says.
The criticism, if finalized, will place intense pressure on EPA to produce a second draft ISA. And the sweeping nature of the attacks calls into question whether the existing document could be revised to satisfy CASAC at all. This in turn throws into doubt the accelerated CASAC review process advocated by EPA air policy chief Bill Wehrum, which envisages fewer drafts of documents for NAAQS reviews, and less oversight by CASAC.
The letter, authored by controversial CASAC Chairman and industry consultant Tony Cox, will be debated at a forthcoming public teleconference March 28, before the panel finalizes it.
Wheeler and Wehrum have set a goal of December 2020 for completing the PM NAAQS review, part of their ongoing push to accelerate the often-delayed NAAQS review process. But the concerns from the independent CASAC create significant questions over whether EPA can still reasonably meet that target.
If EPA is seen to rush its scientific review of the standards, that could form the basis for environmentalists to sue over any final rule revising the NAAQS by claiming it is based on inadequate data. Still, federal appeals courts in prior rulings have tended to side with the agency on its scientific discretion in establishing NAAQS, which the air law requires to be set at a level requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
PM Review
The current PM NAAQS review covers both “coarse” PM (PM10) and also the smaller “fine” PM (PM2.5) believed by many to be more harmful than larger particles. EPA last updated its PM 2.5 standard in 2012, tightening it from the prior level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) annually to 12 ug/m3. For PM10, EPA in 2012 retained a 24-hour standard of 150 ug/m3 first set in 1987.
To address the flaws that CASAC identifies in the ISA for the review of those standards, CASAC outlines a series of steps EPA should take. The overwhelming majority of detailed commentary in the letter comes from Cox and Sabine Lange, a toxicologist with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Among the issues the panel raises is a capacity problem with the existing seven-member CASAC, after EPA disbanded an expert PM panel previous administrations used to help with the reviews.
“CASAC recommends that it be provided with access to additional technical expertise, as needed, to thoroughly review the Second Draft ISA,” Cox writes, highlighting the resource constraints.
Two panel members -- Georgia state air regulator James Boylan and Mark Frampton, the committee’s only research scientist -- in their comments call for the reconstitution of the PM specialized panel.
Compounding the capacity problem is the upcoming departure of full CASAC member Timothy Lewis. EPA is soliciting nominees to replace him, searching for candidates with expertise in ecology.
Former CASAC members, such as former Chairman Chris Frey, an environmental engineer with North Carolina State University, have spoken out strongly against the current CASAC’s lack of capacity.
Frey has also been critical of Cox’s chairmanship of the committee, which he alleges is overbearing and flouts proper procedures, raising further questions over the timing and fate of the PM NAAQS review and the agency’s ability to meet the 2020 deadline that some observers have said is overly ambitious.
UFP Exposure
Cox is a noted skeptic of EPA’s “causal framework” for deciding whether exposure to air pollutants can be said to cause particular health effects. The letter contradicts some of EPA staff’s findings in this area, saying, “CASAC finds that the Draft ISA does not present adequate evidence to conclude that there is likely to be a causal association between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects; between long-term ultrafine particulate (UFP) exposure and nervous system effects; or between long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer."
Research into the nervous system effects of PM2.5 and UFP is a relatively new field, and the draft ISA presented some first-time causal conclusions on this issue.
The ISA, once complete, will inform a possibly combined policy assessment/risk and exposure assessment to give EPA leadership policy options for the NAAQS review, and to evaluate the risks of PM exposure to the public. These in turn will help EPA craft a proposed rule that would either leave in place the current PM NAAQS or revise them.
Public health groups say that science has shown since the last review that exposures to PM2.5 below the level of the current NAAQS are harmful, and the standard should therefore be tightened.
Industry groups would likely vigorously oppose this, as they routinely oppose any tightening of NAAQS as that can trigger increased requirements to reduce facility emissions of PM.
Meanwhile, critics of the Trump-era review process say that CASAC lacks the capacity or the expertise to thoroughly review EPA documents, robbing the process of credibility and rendering any eventual NAAQS rule vulnerable to being overturned by the courts.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/casac-attacks-epa%E2%80%99s-pm-science-analysis-jeopardize-naaqs-review
-
Greater Climate Action in Oregon Hinges on Carbon Bill, Governor Says
Mar 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
A cap-and-trade bill moving through the Oregon statehouse that would enact a carbon price needs to pass before the state considers joining the Western Climate Initiative and a more ambitious renewable energy mandate, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said March 8.
The bill would declare a climate emergency and create a state carbon policy agency. It would impose a gradually declining cap on total greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon beginning in 2021 and set up a system for obtaining allowances for every ton placed into the atmosphere.
“Once we get this legislation done, I’m sure there will be conversations with other participants in the Western Climate Initiative,” Brown said, speaking to Bloomberg Environment in Portland, Ore.
The Western Climate Initiative is a regional carbon trading program including California and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Quebec.
Brown said that the level of success of the cap-and-trade legislation would determine whether Oregon will follow California and Hawaii in mandating that all the state’s electricity come from renewable energy sources. California and Hawaii have passed laws requiring 100 percent of their power come from renewables by 2045.
‘Decarbonize Faster’In 2016, Brown signed a bill that doubled Oregon’s renewables standard, requiring 50 percent of the state’s electricity come from renewables by 2040.
Doubling that again would depend on how carbon pricing is implemented in the state, Brown said.
“Carbon pricing continues to send the signal to the electricity sector to continue to decarbonize faster and deeper,” Kristen Sheeran, director of the Oregon Carbon Policy Office and Brown’s climate adviser, told Bloomberg Environment.
The energy markets driving a 100 percent renewables mandate are different in California and Hawaii than they are in Oregon, Brown said.
Energy is extremely is expensive in Hawaii, which relies on imported oil to generate much of its electricity. California is the world’s fifth largest economy.
“They can be a market driver,” Brown said, referring to California. “We’re not that level of powerhouse. I’d like us to be, but certainly we [Oregon] don’t have that level of economic dynamics.”
Brown said she is “cautiously optimistic” the cap-and-trade bill will pass the Democratic-controlled Oregon Legislature this year.
“We’re trying to create a sense of urgency around these issues. We had a horrible fire season,” she said. “We are seeing the devastating impacts of climate change every single day.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/greater-climate-action-in-oregon-hinges-on-carbon-bill-governor-says
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested